Fire! Nah, Just Kidding

Do not speak untruths.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf suffered a form of punitive peer judgement from the village to whom he repeatedly asked for help when none was actually needed. We all know how that turned out. Today, the punishment is on the books. One cannot yell "fire" in a crowded theater, e.g., just to see people flee in a panic and possibly trample one another. Of course, if there is a fire, by all means please yell.

There are also penalties for telling untruths by even the President of the United States, particularly if those lies are designed to cause a similar panic, such as the frequent warnings that House Republicans will cause the United States of America to "go into default on our obligations for the first time in history". Not only does this make the financial markets jumpy, but it's also simply not so.

The United States is not going to default, period.

The debt limit restricts government expenditures to the amount of its incoming revenues -- which is still quite substantial -- and does not prohibit the government from servicing its debt. To compare to a household budget; if your bank says it will not lend you any more money, that does not mean that you can't spend your paycheck.

Obama has also lied about...well,  everything, to be honest, but for now let's just stick to some specifics. Obama recently said that it was "unprecedented" for the raising of the debt ceiling to be linked to unrelated budget issues, calling the Republicans' demands "extortion", and accusing the Republicans of "strapping bombs on their chests". The only thing unprecedented is the president's rhetoric in dealing with members of the opposition party.

Obama also said recently that raising the debt ceiling has no effect on the deficit. Despite being a whopper of unprecedented proportions, the products of the State-sponsored school system believe it because the president said it. Now, it could be argued that the statement itself is technically true, since the immediate effect would be nil unless the government begins spending. Have we ever seen the government stop spending? Slow spending? Spend wisely?

Not that it would ever happen, but there is an argument to be made that Obama's constant harping on the possibility that America could default on its debts is an impeachable offense. See Dan Calabrese's article here  from www.Caintv.com.

Personally, I think Obama could be impeached on a variety of charges, but with a Democrat controlled Senate, we're stuck with him for another 1,124 days.

Sphere: Related Content

Obama and the Post-American World

2008 Campaign Reading Material

Far from alone in my assessment of Barack Hussein Obama the candidate in 2008, I was but one lone voice trying desperately to add to the cacophony of the many others in what turned out to be a futile effort to stop him from becoming the president of this great nation. At the time almost nothing was known about the man to the vast majority of people, and what folks like me were doing was trying to change that frightening fact. Sadly, most wouldn't hear any of it, relying instead on the same "media" that spent fortunes and inhuman effort in the quest to destroy Sarah Palin.

Now, in Obama's bid for another crack at the jutting jaw of America, there is at least the knowledge of his first round, and it appears more people are paying attention and seeking answers. Perhaps these newly curious voters will find the information I am about to provide not ludicrous this time, but explanatory.

                                                                                ***
                                                                         
On the campaign trail in 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama was seen carrying a book titled, The Post-American World by Fareed Zakaria. Many bloggers seized on the photograph -- myself included -- and posted it all over the internet, some with essay's and others with a simple caption. People were not swayed in the least, mainly because the larger Liberal blogs immediately set out to run interference for Obama, as did the Liberal cable "news" outlets.

Now, however, we have the benefit of the past three-and-a-half years of Obama speeches to provide a bit of context for the significance of his reading this book. (One can just see the Senator then, resting between campaign speeches, reading the book comfortably with his feet propped up on someone else's furniture).

The book, in a nutshell, is about how America rose to prominence and then basically allowed other nations to catch up, even encouraged and helped them to do so, by spreading her philosophy of Democracy and freedom across the globe. On its face, that speaks to a grand nobility, and it would be easy to defend Obama for reading it, but then one must consider his actions and words in the interim.

Obama has more than once declared to the world that there is nothing special about America, that we are but one piece of the global puzzle. With that in mind -- and knowing his knowledge of the book -- it is also easy to see that his socialist agenda may have been fed by the book rather than his alleged patriotism. In other words, one can easily envision Obama trying to figure out how to sink us lower on the global ladder rather than planning, as president, to open the lead over the rest.

All one needs to do is to simply ask oneself how a single thing Obama has done while president has helped to advance the interests of America, advance liberty, or even improve the lives of those for whom he took an oath to lead. Rather, ask yourself if the financial strain Obama has placed on our system benefits our people or the ideology of Cloward and Piven.

First, let's address the charge of Socialist, something many of my peers warned about and were ridiculed for in the last campaign. Virtually every other candidate for president has had his formative years scrutinized as crucial to his character to lead us. Yet Obama's past has been painted by his media acolytes as a form of guilt by association. Is it not pertinent to consider what made a man think the way he thinks? Let's look at one of Obama's most crucial mentors, Frank Marshall Davis.

Obama's Mentor Davis

After Barry Obama arrived back in Hawaii to begin his life with his white grandparents, the Dunhams, Stanley Dunham thought it might be a good idea for his grandson to have someone of his own race to mentor him. Enter Frank Marshall Davis, described by Wikipedia as "an American journalist, poet, and political and labor movement activist". Davis was much more.

The "father figure" who helped shape Barry's young mind was also under FBI investigation for 19 years and a card-carrying member of the Communist Party. Davis was also on the FBI's "Security Index A" list, which meant that in the event of a military conflict with the then-USSR, Davis would be immediately arrested and imprisoned. In short, Frank Marshall Davis was a designated enemy of the state. And he taught our president everything he knows.

In Obama's Dreams From My Father there are 22 references to "Frank", with no other identifying notations. Some have surmised that those references are to Davis, and there is little reason to question the logic of those assumptions. Published in 1995, only 13 years before Obama's election, the influence of an avowed Communist on our current president's ideology is hard to ignore, for it must also be questioned as to whom Obama referred as his "father" in Dreams.  Is Obama -- and all of those responsible for his unlikely ascension -- actually living that dream now?

In the next part, we'll examine the nature of what that dream might be. Meanwhile, we've got real trouble here, and I fear that if Obama is reelected, our future elections will involve bodyguards and purple finger paint.

Sphere: Related Content

The Day After the Ides

Brutus to Obama's Caesar?

It is March 16th, 44 B.C., and Julius Caesar lies in state, dead at the hands of enemies and friends alike. In the town square, Brutus is the blazing topic of discussion, mostly from people trying desperately  to explain his "alleged" betrayal of Caesar as a simple mistake.

"He was walking by with a dagger and tripped on an upturned corner of the carpet", said one senator who was present at the slaying. Another man, a dignitary named Odiferous, offered, "It was tragic, really. Brutus had just sliced pineapple and was carrying the tray with the blade out when he walked too close to His Eminence". 

A third witness went so far as to blame the advanced age of Brutus, suggesting he was becoming a child again. "I don't  know how many times we've scolded Brutus about running with daggers." 

Silly, I know. But what of the damage control currently under way about the latest declarations of former president Bill Clinton, which are basically tantamount to the betrayal of Caesar by Brutus? It is almost embarrassing that the players who try to pass for our most adult of adults in a country of children have played out this charade in order to protect the most juvenile president this country has ever elected. Perhaps even more embarrassing is the fact Bill Clinton is subjecting himself to it all, even participating in his own flogging.

Obama and his surrogates have been busy trying to demonize Mitt Romney as an evil capitalist who sucked the life out of companies and ruined the lives of every day workers like you and me while working with Bain Capital. Obama himself has even recently iced the cake by audaciously declaring that Romney has never "worked a real job". When asked about it by a CNN host, Clinton defended Romney, saying that as a former Governor and a man with "a sterling business career", Romney was definitely qualified to be president. 

Clinton spoke candidly, probably for the first time in his career, and it was not helpful in the least to Barack Obama. Now he's been tripping all over himself trying to walk back the comments, even suggesting that he had no idea they were harmful to Obama's campaign. And Clinton's own people are saying that he's basically getting senile. Clinton is allowing all of this to be said unchallenged all the while he is apologizing for his comments.

But it must be remembered that Brutus did not slay Caesar alone. There were a handful of senators who participated in the murder, and just like then, Clinton is not the only Democrat to criticize Obama's Bain strategy. Newark Mayor Cory Booker was the first to open the attacks, calling the vilification of Bain "nauseating". (Booker was also the first to fall on his sword). Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick joined in as did former Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell. Are they all senile as well? How many more Democrats are out there holding the same view on the Bain attacks?

Ready for Battle

The big question, though, is whether this will deter the Obama campaign from continuing this line of attack. What's done is done, and all the apologies in the world won't change it. Romney has the ammunition in the form of sound bites and video clips, and you can bet that his team is working right now to produce effective counter ads to use against Obama.

I predict that Caesar shall remain deceased. 

Sphere: Related Content

The Crazy Kabul Kabuki Dance

And Then the Trouble Started

Most people know that the troops in Afghanistan burned some Qur'an's, and they also know that the locals quickly became unhinged, predictably rioting and causing other acts of enraged "hijinx". Beyond that, the attention of those who know these two pertinent facts has long since been drawn away by such important things as the latest reality show episode or when the next unemployment check will arrive.

They may be peripherally aware that, to date, four American servicemen have been murdered by Afghans they have trained to fight alongside them, and they might be even somewhat aware that the United Nations is calling for the prosecution of the troops that have thus far survived the treachery suffered by their comrades. But they remain oblivious to any mitigating facts in the entire episode, and it is not completely due to selfish ignorance; it is because the mainstream media is not trumpeting those facts and defending those who make their profession possible.

It began on February 20th after NATO workers -- including Afghans -- burned some Qur'an's at the library at Bagram Air Field in the Parwan Province, used to detain Taliban captures. Shortly after the incident, which was initially reported as "an inadvertent act" on the part of the NATO workers, hundreds of protesters arrived. World news outlets were quick to report the ensuing violence, Muslim groups and their sympathizers were quick to condemn the actions of the international forces, and our troops' own Commander-in Chief was fast on his obsequious trigger, leaping at the opportunity to deliver yet another heartfelt apology to the Muslim world.

As our Secretary of State reinforced the President's claim that his apology "calmed things down" in Afghanistan -- despite the fact that two of our murdered soldiers were killed after said apology -- it is infuriating that neither high-level figure has demanded of the Afghan government an apology for the lives of those kids. And it might be noted with a modicum of pride and gratitude that, for the simple fact that average Americans are nothing like the mindless Islamists who will riot at the drop of a hat, we have not begun to demand the destruction of the entire region after learning that our troops may face Afghan trials for their "crimes".

This is where the entire affair may cause our neighbors to come similarly enraged as their Muslim counterparts. This is where the actual facts come to play.

On February 20th, the workers at the Bagram Library discovered that many of the books in the base library -- including Qur'ans --  were being used by Taliban detainees as message boards. As part of their "torture routines", as many so-called human rights activists might call them, detainees were permitted access to the base books for recreational use. They chose to write messages in them for their cohorts to read in an effort to coordinate future attacks on the NATO forces.

Among the books so desecrated by Muslim prisoners -- ostensibly required to kill those who desecrate the Qur'an -- were copies of... the Qur'an. In the Muslim tradition, the proper disposal of a Qur'an in a state of disrepair is burning. Still with me here? Muslim Afghans are burning and killing anything within reach because Americans, they believe, actually showed the ultimate respect for their Holy Book which was desecrated by their own brothers. And then our president, who reportedly studied Islam as a child in Indonesia, apologized for the alleged transgression.

To miss the sad irony in all of this would require being in a coma.

Lt. Col. Oliver North was a guest on Sean Hannity's radio show yesterday. North had just returned from Afghanistan, and he said that among all the damaged books that were burned at Bagram, four were the Qur'an, yet the mainstream media would have us believe that some soldiers cavalierly burned a whole pile of them.

Despite the fact that four of our soldiers have been murdered at the hands of their Afghan "partners" in the war -- that would be one for each Qur'an burned -- President Karzai is calling for those responsible for the book burning to be tried in an Afghan court. Shortly after Karzai made the demand, President Obama sent a three page letter, which stated, in part:

“I extend to you and the Afghan people my sincere apologies. We will take the appropriate steps to avoid any recurrence, to include holding accountable those responsible.”

That is such a vague assurance from Obama, yet there has been no official denial from Washington that NATO has agreed to "hand over" the soldiers involved for trial. For an American Commander-in Chief to vacillate on a matter of such magnitude is unconscionable, for it would, in effect, allow American soldiers to be tried under Shar'ia Law, which requires death to those who desecrate the Qur'an.

Obama has allowed the opportunity to demand an apology for our murdered soldiers to pass unseized. There is still, however, time to firmly tell Karzai that we will not be turning our soldiers over to anyone for trial.

UPDATE: As of this writing, two more American soldiers have been murdered, bringing the number now to six. Rather than apologize and appease, perhaps the time is drawing nigh for Obama to unleash our troops to put a stop to this outrage immediately.

Sphere: Related Content

In the Footsteps of Manuel Zelaya

Similar Paths, Similar Fates?

There is a trend developing in the Obama administration that is troubling in more ways than one. The obvious reason is not the most disturbing, however, since many like me expected it, and that is Obama's disdain for our nation and its Constitution. What is more unsettling than that is the fact that Obama is unabashed about his intentions and increasingly unconcerned about our reaction to his acting upon them.

Obama has half jokingly stated that it would be a lot easier to govern a country like China, where his edict would become law automatically, or how he could get more done if he didn't have to bother with Congress. Oh, how we laughed and laughed at those silly remarks. Funny, they were, because this is America, after all, and that's not how we roll. Or is it?

Just as poor parenting can allow a petulant child to run amok, so have we and our alleged watchdog free press surrendered incremental latitudes to this president. Just as the child tests his parents' limits of allowable transgressions, so has this president. When little Johnny steps over the line set by the parents, and the parents then set another line rather than discipline the child, the road to ruin is begun. Soon there will be no rules for Johnny that can't be broken with impunity. The same may be happening with Barry, but he can prove much more dangerous than one little boy gone awry.

Just last month, Obama told a news station in Colorado, KOAA-TV, that Congress is inconsequential, saying:

"Well, what we’re going to have to do is continue to make progress on the economy over the next several months. And where Congress is not willing to act, we’re going to go ahead and do it ourselves. But it would be nice if we could get a little bit of help from Capitol Hill.”

Here, the president effectively dismisses the constitutional requirement for the advice and consent of Congress and there was hardly a whisper of caution. Yet, on January 20, 2009, Obama was compelled to say these words before the American people and to the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Did Obama have his fingers crossed as he was sworn in? It would appear to be so -- Orly Taitz notwithstanding -- since he immediately set about violating the document he swore to uphold.

From the "Patient Affordable Care Act (PACA), otherwise known as "ObamaCare", to the recent illegal non-recess, recess appointments of four people, Obama has thumbed his nose at us and the constitution, using a false sense of urgency and, in some cases, semantics. Congress was not in recess when Richard Cordray, et al, were appointed, but Obama declared that they were. Swell, so now the president makes his own determinations on constitutionality?

Then, while Congress has been haggling over the particulars of the Protect Intellectual Property Act (PIPA), and the Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA), Obama took it upon himself to sign an international treaty, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

Under the Constitution, presidential nominations for executive and judicial posts take effect only when confirmed by the Senate, and international treaties become effective only when the Senate approves them by a two-thirds vote. Another line to cross, another chance to see if he'll get away with it.

So to where do these incremental steps ultimately lead? We might look back a few years to the country of Honduras. In June of 2009, Honduran president Manuel Zelaya was removed from office by what has been termed a "military coup". While it is true that the Congress and the Supreme Court of Honduras ordered the exile of Zelaya via the military, the description is somewhat misleading.

Zelaya was nearing the end of his eligibility to lead as president, as his second term would end in January of the following year. Seeking to rewrite the constitution, Zelaya sought a referendum on whether the electorate wanted to do so. A lower court ruled the referendum unlawful, and the Supreme Court upheld that ruling. Zelaya, nevertheless, ordered his military to distribute the extra ballot boxes -- interestingly received from Venezuela -- in violation of the courts. His top general refused and was fired by Zelaya.

On June 28th, the country's Supreme Court ordered the detention of Zelaya and he was seized by the military. The Honduran constitutional crisis was underway. The military may have executed the deed, but a military coup, it was not. The military acted at the behest of a unanimous Supreme Court and an equally unanimous Congress. Hugo Chavez was livid, and demanded the immediate return of Zelaya as president.

Soul Mate Handshake?

What was truly odd then was the same demands being made by Barack Hussein Obama. The day after Zelaya's ouster, Obama said, "We are very clear about the fact that President Zelaya is the democratically elected president." Further lamenting what he called an "illegal action" by the government of Honduras, Obama said, "The region has made enormous progress over the last 20 years in establishing democratic traditions in Central America and Latin America. We don't want to go back to a dark past."

One would think that a U.S. President would applaud the obvious application of "democratic traditions" by a Honduran Congress actually defending its constitution. Not so with a president who has demonstrated his loathing of his own constitution.

END22 Screenshot

One more interesting note; there was a group of people who launched a website called END22.com on January 20th, 2009. The site has since disappeared, or been scrubbed, but it is curious that such a website would see its inception on the very same day as Obama's inauguration.

One might ask how such an organization could assume that Obama would even win a second term much less plan for a third. That would be a valid question to ponder, but consider this; Obama, by all standards, shouldn't even be where he is today. It is a feat virtually unprecedented in our history.

How does someone rise so fast from absolute obscurity to the presidency of the most powerful country on Earth? How does this same person enjoy such a level of immunity from the media afforded no other president before him? Is it Providence, or is it master planning? These are questions I'll leave to you, dear reader, to ponder. Mine is just to offer that which is to be pondered. Suffice it to say, there is much to see and hear, much we personally witness each day, and much that will be cavalierly dismissed by those who would seek to gain from deflecting the importance of them. So I leave you with this:

When our eyes are no longer our most trusted instruments, when we rely upon others to tell us a truth contrary to that which we plainly see, we are a lost people. 

Sphere: Related Content

Mitt's Gall, Newt's Baggage

The Two Front-Runners for GOP

There can be no argument that the 2011 incarnation of Mitt Romney, the candidate, is not a far better candidate than the version that ran in 2008, and as if to punctuate the point, Mitt's campaign has come out with the first direct salvo of the season against Obama-the-incumbent.

The surprise of the move is not in the hubristic nature of such presumptuousness --Gingrich, after all, has made it clear that the two are rivals and not "opponents" -- but in the aggressiveness of it. And it's already drawing howls of protest from Obama's camp and the Democratic National Committee (DNC) as a whole, claiming that the ad is misleading.

Romney's ad, which ran today in New Hampshire to coincide with Obama's visit, could legitimately be labelled "sleight of hand", but it nevertheless suggests a basic truth: if Obama's campaign keeps talking about the economy, he will lose. The ad uses Obama's own words from the 2008 campaign against John McCain, but Obama was quoting a McCain staffer at the time. From the Daily News:

At one point, Obama is heard saying "If we keep talking about the economy, we're going to lose." 

Although it sounds [sic] Obama is talking about his chances of winning in 2012, the then-Senator was actually quoting an aide from Sen. John McCain's presidential campaign in 2008.

How fitting it is, then, that Newt Gingrich shares the lead with Romney.

Gingrich knows a thing or two about misleading ads, himself a victim of creative editing in a time when the technology was not nearly what it is today. As Speaker of the House in 1995, Gingrich was leading the fight against the last Democrat President's attempt to inflict National health care on Americans and, as usual, the leftist sycophants struck back hard, albeit deceitfully.

As Bill Clinton was trying valiantly to implement the signature plan of his wife, First Lady Hillary Clinton, for health care reform, Gingrich was leading the opposition and gave a speech on the matter in 1995 to a Blue Cross audience. His words were selected in part and used to demonize him in what has turned out to be a most effective way. I know people to this day who still harbor a deep hatred for the man based on a lie.

It was the infamous "wither on the vine" faux-quote", in which the left allegedly caught the right wing Speaker admitting that the Republicans wanted to kill Medicare. In 1996, during the re-election campaign of Bill Clinton, the AFL-CIO ran an ad with Newt's "own words" saying, "Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine."

But, as I pointed out in 2009, the quote was not in the full context of Gingrich's speech. Here's what he actually said, and meant:

"What do you think the health care financing administration is? It's a centralized command bureaucracy. It's everything we're telling Boris Yeltsin to get rid of. Now we don't get rid of it in round one because we don't think that's politically smart and we don't think that's the right way to go through a transition. But we believe it's going to wither on the vine because we think people are going to voluntarily leave it. Voluntarily."

Voters will do well to remember that it wasn't Medicare that Republicans wanted to kill, it was government-run health care, much as it still is today. And as Gingrich moves closer toward the nomination, also remember this when he begins to take on that which the Democrats inflicted on us when they controlled it all. Whomever ends up with the GOP nomination, repeal of Obamacare will be a top priority, for it is that route which will cause the most immediate impact on our foul economy.

It is also pertinent to note Gingrich's use of the word "voluntarily". Think of how many of Obama's own cronies have already filed for waivers from his health care monstrosity. Even people who view this president favorably have already begun preemptively leaving it, voluntarily.

If the Democrats want to whine their way through what is slated to be a particularly nasty campaign, let them, but the Republicans must be prepared to hit them with all of Mitt's gall and the full weight of Newt's baggage.

Sphere: Related Content

Barack and Mahmoud: Two Peas in a Pod

Barackmadinejad

Were Barack Obama and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad separated at birth? That was my first thought when conceiving this piece, but realizing that they were born nearly five years apart, that would render the theory invalid. However, considering the myriad relatives of Obama that have popped up around the globe since his nomination for president, there is still reason to believe that the two could be brothers, if only ideologically.

While Ahmadinejad is president of the Islamist State of Iran, run in actuality by the "spiritual" leader in the Ayatollah, Obama has been working extra hours in the expansion of Iran's boundaries or, at the very least, an expansion of sister states nearby. (In the Islamist world, I suppose the term "sister states" would, by necessity, be changed to "brother states". Theological misogyny, and all that jazz).

Since his inauguration, Barack Hussein Obama has been campaigning for the rise of Islam in the Middle East and the decline of Western influence. His speech in Cairo in 2009 was an open admission that America had been "arrogant" in the past and must now atone for its insolence, while his foreign policy has been to relegate our dearest friend and ally in the region -- Israel -- to the ash heap.

It is no mistake that the one man who has been instrumental in the relative peace that has lasted for the past 30 years in the Middle East, Hosni Mubarak, was treated as any of Obama's aides who didn't toe his line. Mubarak and these aides all bear the same tread marks on their torsos as a result of Obama's bus, which they were unceremoniously tossed beneath when they proved an impediment to his agenda. Thus began the so-called "Arab Spring".

Oh, the glee here at home, in our doe-eyed media, as the prospect of a "democratic uprising" began to unfold in Egypt. Why, those poor, oppressed people are finally going to experience freedom once Mubarak is gone! The problem is, no one was complaining about oppression in Egypt for much of those 30 years as they were already free to move about the country and enjoy a somewhat secular lifestyle. Nevertheless, Obama had made his pronouncement: "Mubarak must go!"

OK, so maybe it was a foreign policy blunder on the nubile Obama's part, one that might be excusable, I suppose. After all, Jimmy Carter inadvertently got Anwar Sadat killed, which ushered in the era of Mubarak, so what's one more mistake by an American president? Considering what is poised to fill the void in Egypt this time around, it's a big mistake.

*Special aside: Consider the current angst over the foreign policy experience of a candidate like Herman Cain, who actually loves America and freedom.

Not long before the "Arab Spring", however, there was another uprising in the Middle East, this time by a decidedly more pro-Western contingent; the people of Iran. In June of 2009, Iran held its presidential elections. In the aftermath, the people felt that they had been duped and began protesting the outcome, for which they were promptly and brutally suppressed. The Obama administration's reaction was initially one of condemnation combined with support for the people of Iran, but quickly and "masterfully" withdrew for fear of appearing to "meddle" in Iran's internal affairs.

So while the Iranian people were being crushed by a brutal regime, Obama turned his back on them. I still maintain that -- especially now in retrospect -- it was because Iran was already a solidly Islamist State and needed no prodding from this version of Washington, D.C. There was much work to be done, and much "regional organizing" to accomplish.

With Egypt now creeping closer to Shar'ia law under the rule of the Muslim Brotherhood, Obama doubled down on the unrest in Libya. As he proved with Mubarak, countries such as Egypt and now Libya were fertile grounds for "meddling" and, in the case of Libya, even military intervention. Perceptions of Western meddling were no longer a concern. The march to the Caliphate had begun.

I can't even imagine Jimmy Carter -- a man who bears virtually no resemblance to anyone I admire -- saying that the Muslim call to prayer "is the most beautiful sound I ever heard", as Barack Hussein Obama did. Never could I believe that an American president would express such contempt for the Bible while quoting liberally from the Qur'an. Yet here we stand today with an alleged "leader" who leads nothing at home aside from rapid decline,  but guides the advance of Islam abroad, all but ignoring the country already most firmly ensconced in its tenets.

Indistinguishable

Barack and Mahmoud...two peas in the same religious pod. As Coptics get run out of Egypt by the thousands and Christian churches burn, Obama and our giddy media gleefully anticipate the coming elections in that formerly all Coptic country and mention not the burning churches. The "party" likely to gain the most legislative seats in the new Egyptian government is the Muslim Brotherhood.

Sad that such a country, once a peaceful yet strategically critical one in the region, will now fall to the enemies of liberty and peace. Egypt once was all Coptic for two hundred years, from the 4th to the 6th centuries under Roman rule. It wasn't until the 7th century -- and the birth of Islam -- that that all changed.

Perhaps that is yet another similarity between Mahmoud and Barack Hussein; they both cling to 7th century ideology and the rule of Islam.

Of course, this is just a theory.

Sphere: Related Content

Some Movement Comparisons

Actions Speak Louder Than Words

As the Occupy Wall Street movement drags on and on, there are the inevitable comparisons to the TEA Party movement by various talking heads both on television and radio. Perhaps the most glaring difference between the two, however, is the way Democrats and the media treat each.

With the TEA Party rallies, the media routinely tried to downplay the size of the crowds, while the Democrats and liberal critics continually try to portray the movement as comprised of white racists, all with virtually no evidence of any such thing. Former Speaker Nancy Pelosi just the other day reiterated the lie that TEA Party activists spit on black congressmen in the aftermath of the health care vote. Meanwhile, Andrew Breitbart is still waving that $100,000 reward for anyone who can provide audio or video evidence of such an event.

In the aftermath of the 9/12 TEA Party event in Washington DC, the only evidence that such a large rally took place was the neatly placed Hefty bags full of trash left near receptacles for parks employees to collect. In contrast, New York City officials averted a potential riot on Friday by postponing a scheduled cleaning of Zuccotti Park in Manhattan, where Occupy Wall Street protesters have been soiling the grounds for the past three weeks. In honor of their perceived "victory", the protesters promptly began scuffling with police and getting themselves arrested.

There have been no arrests at any TEA Party rallies to date. And as the photo above clearly demonstrates, the TEA Party group reveres the American flag, while the leftist "occupants" see the flag as a canvass for their ridiculous slogans. If one more person tells me that one exercising his "right to desecrate the flag" is patriotic, I may blow an artery.

An Endorsement the
TEA Party would reject 

While most clear-thinking Americans support the TEA Party and its smaller government objectives, the Occupy Wall Street movement has just picked up the support of two groups that the TEA Party would flat out reject, despite the claims of the left to the contrary.

Gateway Pundit recently reported that both the American Nazi Party and the Communist Party USA have expressed solidarity with the "occupiers", with the CPUSA once again aligning themselves with Barack Hussein Obama. The CPUSA endorsed Obama for president in 2008, and Obama is seeking to capitalize on the Occupy movement for his reelection.

We all know that Obama is no fan of America. He's made that clear by his Forgive Us Our Trespasses Tour shortly after his inauguration. But for him to align himself with a movement that sings songs like "F*** the USA" just speaks volumes about his national fidelity.

Yes, a website named Verum Serum has posted a lovely little video of some Portland Occupants singing the lovely little ditty mentioned above. While participants at TEA Party rallies routinely sing the Star Spangled Banner or listen to Lee Greenwood sing God Bless the U.S.A., the cretins who are now backed by Nazis, Communists and Obama sing of their loathing for our country. The video is below, but be aware that -- as incoherent as the "band" appears to be, there is still graphic language involved.

The irony is that they are singing this in the United States of America, where such actions are protected by the very military these sots loathe. I would like to see this band succeed, go on tour, and perform in Iran where they can change the hook line in the song to match the country in which they sing, which is common practice among touring bands. Please, jester-head, go to Tehran and sing F*** the Ayatollah. When your body returns to the blessed USA, we promise to take lots of pictures.

Whenever liberals get their knickers in a wad over having their patriotism questioned, we will always be available to direct them back toward such disgusting displays as this video. Meanwhile, the TEA Party will always love and fight for America.

Sphere: Related Content

Back on the Horse

Facing Our Fears

I really hate the need to broach this subject, especially in the context in which it must be done, but I feel strongly about the subject and hope that you, the reader, will too. I am so tired of the race issue -- mainly because I was never part of the problem -- but since I finally see a light at the end of that tunnel, I will be happy to delve into it one last time if that is what it takes to kill it once and for all.

I fully understand that the election of Barack Hussein Obama was an act of opportunity combined with a desperation on the part of our electorate who, wishing to feel good about themselves, seized on the virtually unknown in a fit of self righteousness which blinded the sensibilities of those who voted. We as a people saw a chance and leapt at it, careless of the open space below. Now, as we find ourselves free-falling into that gaping void, we desperately grasp for any hold that will save us.

No family is immune from this affliction; my own daughters voted for Obama, an act for which today they are deeply ashamed and personally angered. They feel betrayed, as well they should. I, on the other hand, feel some form of vindication in that they realized their mistakes on their own without my overbearing criticisms. Yes, they were aware of my disappointment in their choices, but I never beat them over the head with it. I let them come to their own conclusions, trusting in the way my wife and I raised them. We never promised our children that they'd never make mistakes, only that they would eventually use what they had learned to ultimately set things straight.

(Completely irrelevant, but noteworthy...my son never strayed far from the farm).

There is an old saying on the farm -- or ranch, as the case may be -- and that is that if you get thrown from your horse, it is imperative that you remount him as soon as possible, both to confront your own fear, and to let the horse know that you are in control. The "control" aspect of this analogy is what makes me uncomfortable, but the analogy itself is worth the risk.

There is great irony in what I am about to write, as well, and while I am a big fan of irony, this particular brand  has giant question marks, especially since we are still thirteen months from the elections of 2012. Herman Cain is making great strides in the polls, but with over a year to go, anything could happen. Having said that, I must make it clear that the time to get back on the horse is right now, not four or eight years from now.

The irony lies not in the skin color of Barack Obama and Herman Cain, but in their respective "inexperience". Never in my wildest imagination could I have envisioned a nubile such as Barack Hussein Obama winning the Oval Office. Presidents have come directly from the upper chamber of Congress, but not many, and certainly none with so wafer-thin a resume as Obama. But despite his abject ineffectualness, America still stands, albeit a tad wobbly at the knees.

So as we head to the next showdown, we offer as a candidate a man who is also black, but one with infinitely more practical experience than Obama. A man who can speak to his constituents with a clarity that his predecessor never acquainted, a man who has proven to be the problem solver that his opponent could never more than envy. And a man who can assuage the fears of a decidedly milk-toast populace if only the alternative to that which they have already experienced.

To make myself clear, if now is not the time for our next black candidate, it may be decades in the future before we dare try again. Get back on the horse, America, get right back on. If Obama couldn't kill America with a full court press, and with Cain vowing to bring us back to greatness, even if he falls short in his attempts, how much worse -- or better -- will we be?

Sphere: Related Content

A Meandering Musing

Normally my MO is to pick a subject and write about it, offering all of the information I have managed to find on the subject while adding my own opinions into the mix. Today, I want to touch on a variety of subjects -- all politically oriented, of course -- simply because there is too much happening too fast with which to keep up.

Sarah on the Loose

I'll begin with Sarah Palin's decision not to enter the presidential race, a decision that apparently has many of her fans disappointed. While I understand the sentiment, I happen to agree with her choice and the reasons for it, for it was the one I personally hoped she would make.

Based on her performance as Governor of Alaska, I have no doubt she would have made an excellent president, but I believe that she is correct in her own assessment of her effectiveness on the "free range", so to speak. Left unencumbered by the pomp and protocol of the office, Sarah can be a fierce advocate for the principles we hold dear, and a potent champion for those who seek office to that end.

She has a huge following that she will now be free to remain connected without the hindrance of being "president of all the people", not that that has proved much of a deterrent to the current occupant of the Oval Office. To that end, I would hope that all of those who have expressed dismay over her decision not to run will not shun her now out of some feeling of abandonment. Sarah hasn't abandoned you, she has ensured her best chance to fight your battles. Here is the audio of her decision as told to Mark Levin.

Morgan Freeman Broke My Heart

Next up is Morgan Freeman, who cut me to the quick with his recent comments on the Piers Morgan show. To me, Morgan Freeman was one of those beautiful actors who remained above the political fray and, more importantly, out of the racial divide. He is a fabulous actor, of that there is no question, and part of his personal appeal was that one never knew his ideological proclivities.

In all the years I have watched his work, he could have either been a flaming Liberal or a hardcore Conservative. It never mattered much because he never let on, and no one ever asked. And he never appeared to let race impede him. Then he gets on the show and denigrates the entire right of the political spectrum as racists, and he broke my heart. I was heartened, then, to learn that Ali Akbar, a 26-year-old TEA Party organizer, invited Morgan Freeman to meet in Tennessee, in a letter that can be seen here. As far as I'm aware, there has been no response from the actor.

The main crux of Freeman's accusation is that the TEA Party has one goal; to get "this black man out of here", referring to Obama and the White House, respectively. I wonder how Mr. Freeman -- and apparently Samuel L. Jackson has joined the chorus now -- would reconcile the fact that one of the people the TEA Party would love see "this black man" replaced with is...Herman Cain. Truly perplexing.

A TEA Party Hopeful

Herman Cain is a clear TEA Party favorite who has managed in a few short weeks to change my entire perspective on political possibilities. From the moment I was "introduced" to the man, I liked him and his message, but the practical half of my brain had no choice but to dismiss him as a candidate without a prayer. Since only three U.S. Senators have ever been elected President, and no one has ever been elected straight from the House, what chance could even the most qualified and charismatic person have of attaining the Oval Office with virtually no political background?

Then Cain kept pressing ahead, performed well in debates, and won the Florida Straw Poll. Still, I felt it was a momentary glimpse of a very brief glory for a fine man who nonetheless was tilting at windmills while destined to suffer a bitter disappointment in the end. As it turns out, Herman Cain is not accustomed to brief success, nor ever content to rest on his laurels. This man has the practical half of my brain ceding territory to cautious hope. Part of that hope is that this condition spreads amongst the electorate, for it is we who ultimately decide who is president, not the pundits who try to steer our choice.

As President Obama stokes the Occupy Wall Street protests with his class warfare rhetoric, Herman Cain offers those misguided kids some tough love, telling them to blame themselves if they are poor and unemployed. Imagine that...a self-made Black man telling a bunch of privileged white kids to get off their asses and better themselves. Compare that image to a carefully cultivated Black president who incites those same kids to riot against the "wealthy".

So I am sorry to disappoint Morgan Freeman, but the main goal of the TEA Party is not to get a black guy out of the White House simply because he's Black. The goal is to replace him with perhaps another Black man who can restore the people's faith in America and the abilities of the individual as opposed to the current preaching of the futility of life without dependence on the Government.

Sphere: Related Content

The First Casualty of the Arab Spring



Ousted by Obama?

We've been told from the beginning of the campaign and every day since his election that Barack Hussein Obama is a brilliant man, perhaps the smartest to occupy the White House in the nations history. Many people believed the hype in part due to the eloquence of the way he read speeches from teleprompters, which allowed for the appearance of extemporaneous speaking.

With transparent screens -- the only transparent aspect of this administration thus far -- the teleprompters allow even live audiences to see his face, and long camera shots seem to miss the darned things. Without ever having to glance down to keep his place with notes, Obama's head swings from side to side -- catching his script effortlessly -- as he delivers heart-racing speeches that make his adoring masses swoon.

With all of that being said, however, I am now more convinced than ever of the man's utter brilliance, however sinister that brilliance may be. No one could have inflicted the damage on such a strong nation that Obama has -- and in such record time -- through simple ineptitude. No one could have accelerated the chaos we see around the globe so masterfully as he without either a keen understanding of the major culprits involved, or without their explicit anticipation.

Many will read what is about to follow and simply roll their eyes and click out of the site. That is exactly the reaction that has allowed Barack Hussein to come as far as he's come, and one I fully expect to continue. If one percent of people continue to read, however, and let the pieces of the puzzle fall into place, I will have done my job.

Briefly, his past was somewhat fuzzy as he rapidly advanced toward the Democratic nomination for President of the United States, and those who threw up the flags were ignored. The reason for this was the fact that it looked like America really had a shot at finally electing a Black president, and no one wanted to see that opportunity slip by. (Never mind the obvious racism involved in such a mindset, none of them would ever accept such a notion even if water boarded).

But someone was trying to sound the alarm in 2008, someone who was shooed away and brushed aside. His name is John Drew, and he was a classmate of Barack Obama's at Occidental College. He tried to warn anyone who would listen that Obama was a thoroughly dangerous man, as Charlie Daniels might say. The problem was that no one wanted to hear it; not even our own right-wing watchdogs. What Drew was saying seemed too fantastical to be taken seriously, despite his having been at the college with a young, Marxist Barack. 

By the way, John Drew -- by his own admission -- was himself a "leader of the Marxist students at Occidental". 

The people with whom Obama subsequently associated have been well documented, enjoying the same reception as that of John Drew's story. But the president has gone on to establish his own, very public track record, and one that -- if anyone cared to connect the dots -- points to an extremely nefarious agenda. When his treatment of Israel is considered, the dots appear.

After a series of damning encounters with the Israeli state and its head, Benjamin Netanyahu, it became evident that Obama was no fan of Israel. The community organizer extraordinaire, however, did recognize a perfect venue to further endanger the tiny democracy in the Middle East, and he would ironically use the guise of democracy in Egypt to remove one of the biggest barriers of security for the Jewish people.

Hosni Mubarak may have been a dictator, but he was far from the level of Saddam Hussein in terms of brutality. Mubarak kept order in Egypt and maintained its Northern border with Israel, giving that country a bit of breathing room over the past thirty years that allowed it to counter the relentless attacks from the East and the West (Gaza and the Golan Heights). Egypt was stable and tranquil, and posed no threat to Israel.

So Obama chose Cairo for his first international address abroad.

Not long after Obama signaled the Muslim world that he was with them, Egypt erupted into the dawn of the "Arab Spring", which spawned similar revolts in Yemen and Syria and Libya. These were preceded, however, by an unrelated and impromptu uprising by the people of Iran. The Iranian people were brutally suppressed in that incident with nary a peep of condemnation from the Obama regime. Nor did Obama object to the reactions of the Yemeni or Syrian governments.

He was quick to demand the resignation of Mubarak in Egypt, though, as he now bombs Moammar Ghadaffi in Libya. I would posit that Yemen and Syria were ignored as was Iran because they are already a significant threat to,  and bold enemies of,  Israel while Egypt and Libya were not. Perhaps in Obama's mind, these relatively benign states needed some inspiration. And that inspiration came in the clear demonstration that Obama shared their Muslim populations' disdain for Israel and that he would aid in the ascension of the "rebels" in these states that they may gain sufficient power to amass another front against Israel.

At the same time, Obama works feverishly here in America to weaken the very foundation of our nation while "organizing" a massive rebellious force, using labor unions and their sympathizers, and placing figurative bees in the bonnets of ordinary working, middle class Americans. One may speculate that he seeks an "Anglo Autumn" to complement the Arab version, making a sort of  perfect storm.

It all sounds ominous and portends a bad ending for America. Then again, that's what warnings are all about, and that's what this is; a warning. A wake-up call, if you will. For while my declaration of Obama's diabolical genius stands, such characters usually fail because of a fatal miscalculation of their enemies determination and capabilities. And equally of their collective gullibility.

Many of our fellow citizens have discovered that they've been hoodwinked, many more believe that they have been betrayed. Both groups are correct, and will join the ranks -- albeit reluctantly -- of the true American patriots in the portions of the country considered "fly-over country" by the elites so destined to fail.

Even if they don't, the patriots have always had sufficient numbers to thwart any attempt to hijack America. They've just been asleep for a very long time. The problem with an agenda such as Obama's is that it requires a lot of construction and, therefore, makes a lot of noise.

That will always awaken the sleeping giant. 

Sphere: Related Content

As Our Nation Teeters, My Guitar Weeps Ungently

"Beast on the Wing" Reprise

Long before Barack Obama retired his own special "seal" for the official presidential one, I have been warning my fellow citizens about this man. Once he assumed office on the auspices of a decidedly derelict electorate, I continued to monitor his mischief and report accordingly. Thus far, none of it has amounted to anything, and our country continues to recede behind lines none of us ever dreamed even existed.

All of our lives -- those of us among the living -- have previously been defined by a vision of America as the greatest nation on Earth. Now we see small, poor nations we once pitied thumbing their noses at us.

Part of the reason that Barack Hussein Obama now sits with his shoes propped up cavalierly on the Resolute Desk is the Democrats' engineering of the fiscal crisis of 2008, when the housing bubble -- that many economists warned about in vain -- burst, leaving President Bush with egg on his face and candidate John McCain relegated to the ash heap of history.

With a media reticent to report the true timeline and causation of this financial meltdown, Obama was seen as the candidate America has been pining for but always afraid to try; our first black president, just so we could finally say that we did. So...we did, and now we're sorry, but we can't take it back. And the problem now lies in the shame of the choice and the humiliation of the requisite admission, so people duck and cover and hope for the best.

Sorry kids, that is simply not going to cut it anymore.

In 2009, I wrote The Beast on the Wing, an article eight months into the president's administration, but one chronicling the vindication of my pre-election position on the man. In it, I compared myself to the character played by first William Shatner and later Jon Lithgow about a man forced by his job to fly despite an intense terror of doing so. In the story, the man sees -- in mid-flight and in a storm -- a strange creature tearing at the structure of the aircraft.

I wrote that Obama was that creature, tearing at the very structure of America, and how I hoped we'd land safely by the time he was done. He was far from done, and thankfully, unlike the character in the story, I was not sedated, so I followed up with An Empire in Peril  shortly before becoming a contributor at Red County.com. That article was written in February of 2010.

It's now a year-and-a-half beyond that writing, and we continue to suffer the wages of Obama's deeds. We now have Operation Fast and Furious, about which our press is last and incurious, and now, amidst the latest jobs report -- in which the unemployment rate remains at 9.1% -- we have our Department of Justice (DOJ) conducting raids on a guitar factory, at a time when our citizens are being massacred by foreigners using our own weapons.

Ebony Wood from India

It appears that this administration is more concerned with the origin of the lumber used on fret boards by Gibson Guitar, Inc than it is with protecting Americans from marauding Mexicans on our Southern border. Perhaps more disturbing is the notion that the DOJ and the Administration are contemplating compliance with Indian law as more important than our own laws, and that Gibson could avoid prosecution by accepting shipments of wood processed overseas and then shipped here.

Get it? The DOJ and the Obama administration want Gibson to comply with the law by letting people in India perform the work. Are you listening, SEIU? While this country struggles to regain its financial footing, Obama and his cronies remain creative in finding ways to weaken us and impoverish us, even as they push our jobs off shore, all in the name of "the law".

Funny, then, how our immigration laws are flouted across the country while our own liberties are diminished. Sad how the federal government files suit against its own member states. And terrifying how it is all but ignored by a press that was once touted as the beacon of freedom in the world.

And to think, Woodward and Bernstein are still alive, at least physically.

Sphere: Related Content

Spending is a Democrat's Addiction

"The fact that we are here today to debate raising America’s debt limit is a sign of leadership failure." --Senator Barack Hussein Obama, March, 2006

Political Spendaholics

As The White House and Congress battle the clock to avert what the mainstream media refers to as "a catastrophic default", the lies and the demagoguery fly with wild abandon, never once second-guessed by the media. No, that media takes as gospel the words of Obama and gleefully regurgitates them over "news" broadcasts. The State-run Media is firing on all cylinders, to be sure. (I still wonder why the likes of Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward have as yet become sufficiently enraged at the sullying of their profession.)

 For starters, the President of the United States stating on national television that he can't guarantee that Social Security checks would go out was one of the most outrageous things he could have said. It was a blatant attempt to frighten seniors into accepting his furthering of our destruction through economic collapse. Each month the federal government receipts of tax revenues far outpaces outlays for Social Security, so if those checks don't go out, it's because Obama decided to punish the elderly for not getting his way.

There will be plenty of revenues to "meet our obligations", both in entitlement programs and the interest on our debt. What may be strained is our ability to continue funding for research into the mating habits of Alaskan halibut or construction of turtle tunnels under highways, to name a few examples. We will, however, not default on our obligations, unless the guys conducting the aforementioned activities decide that their grant money was promised and file suit. Good luck with that, boys and girls, but there is no reasonable excuse for Grandma not getting her Social Security check.

Obama continues to portray himself as above the political bickering, claiming to have the interests of the country in mind rather than brinkmanship or personal interest. He also says that he is willing to negotiate with Republicans, and that Speaker Boehner was inflexible in walking away from talks on Friday night.

But as Boehner spokesman Brendan Buck revealed on Saturday in an emailed statement before the meetings that day, the President is clearly interested in the 2012 elections. Buck wrote:

“Last night the president said, ‘the only bottom line that I have is that we have to extend this debt ceiling through the next election'. Now, we do not know what size or shape a final package will take, but it would be terribly unfortunate if the president was willing to veto a debt limit increase simply because the timetable prescribed would not be the ideal one for his reelection campaign.”

Playing for Keeps

Obama has said this on more than one occasion, and not one media pundit has grasped it. One can only imagine the howls of outrage from the media and the Left -- pardon the redundancy -- if a Republican had made any such statement in regard to such a grave issue.

Aside from the political posturing, however, is the fact that Obama and his Democrat cohorts in Congress exhibit an innate inability to curb spending of our money. Not only are they incapable of restraint, they are now demanding more from us, insisting that taxes be raised. Obama said the other night that he's "done well", and can afford higher taxes. That's great for him, but I still don't see him volunteering to pay more. The IRS would certainly not refuse a large check from Barack and Michelle, nor from any other rich Liberal who complains about "low taxes" on the wealthy.

Democrats simply cannot be trusted with our money, and their incessant desire to seize more of it should be alarming to every American -- at least those of us who actually pay them. In his first term as President, Ronald Reagan agreed to raise taxes based on the Democrats' promise to cut spending. Those cuts never came, and Reagan didn't fall for the ruse a second time. Then George H. W. Bush suffered defeat in his second term election because of his famous "read my lips, no new taxes" pledge that he reneged on with the same false promise from Democrats.

Today, the Democrats have been battling to eliminate the "Bush tax cuts", claiming that "they weren't paid for", a phrase all too familiar in Congressional-speak. But Democrats -- who traditionally portray themselves as the fiscally responsible party -- continually attempt to fix that which isn't broken.

In 2003, the headlines were about Bush's "massive" deficit and the harm it would wreak on our grandchildren. But with the passage of the second tax cut that year, the economy began to improve. From the AP in 2007 (notably the second-to-last year that Bush enjoyed a Republican-controlled House):

The federal deficit is running sharply lower through the first eight months of this budget year as growth in revenues continues to outpace the growth in spending. 

The Treasury Department said that the deficit through May totaled $148.5 billion, down 34.6 percent from the same period a year ago. 

For the 2007 budget year, which ends on Sept. 30, the Congressional Budget Office is projecting a federal deficit of $177 billion. That would be down 28.7 percent from last year's imbalance of $248.2 billion, which had been the lowest deficit in four years.

2003 was the worst of the Bush years, with a $455 billion deficit, which both the Democrats and media claimed was catastrophic. Each year of Obama, though, has seen deficits of a trillion dollars more than Bush's, and now they want to raise the debt ceiling by $2.5 trillion more.

And Obama wants it to last until after the 2012 elections so the problem doesn't impede his possible reelection. Since the math indicates that four more years of Obama would equate to at least $60 trillion in more deficits. That, my friends, would be catastrophic.

Sphere: Related Content

Anathema to America

Here's your ticket pack your bag: time for jumpin' overboard 

The transportation is here 

Close enough but not too far, Maybe you know where you are 

Fightin' fire with fire - Talking Heads, Burning Down the House, 1983

The Pyromaniac in Chief?

 Do you feel the heat yet? Can you hear the groans of the weakening timbers? Our house is in peril of collapsing, my fellow Americans, and it's because of one man; Barack Hussein Obama. To be certain, he could never have wreaked so much havoc alone -- he has had much help along the way, beginning with the sinister machine that launched him into his current status, and our own collective, racist desires to make him our first black president.

He has, however, seized that baton and run like the wind to our doom, and the euphoria that gripped much of the nation has acted as a veil over the eyes of far too many, the media especially. Rush Limbaugh famously said once -- an utterance that horrified his ESPN colleagues -- that the media was so desirous of a black quarterback to succeed, they had glossed over Donovan McNabb's shortcomings as an NFL quarterback in an effort to help him toward that end.

Similarly, the American electorate has been spoon fed a constant train of pablum from a press much too eager for the same outcome. And it is killing us. Worse still, the signs were crystal clear during the 2008 campaign yet no one wanted to believe their meaning. Many of us are still clinging to that protective layer of denial as a matter of survival of sanity. The truth is simply too horrible to face. Winston Churchill once said, "Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened".

Nearly two years ago, in September of 2009, I wrote The Beast on the Wing, an article critical of Obama's views of America and an outline of what he'd already done to "transform" it. A lot of time has passed since then, and Obama still tears at our bedrock at every opportunity. While I am grateful for our Founders' wisdom in creating such a figurative fortress -- one that has thus far withstood such an onslaught -- I fear that no edifice or institution is entirely invulnerable.

Third world countries have hated America for decades in spite of our benefactor/beneficiary relationships. Now, however, even old friends and allies look askance at us, unsure of our alliances and wary of our dependability. And long time foes that behaved only because they feared us now laugh at us as they do as they please, thumping their chests and thumbing their noses.

Not even under the frail leadership of Jimmy Carter has our nation and its economy teetered so grievously close to the abyss, yet it has taken Obama just over two years to all but destroy America. Most troubling is that no one seems to care or notice, even though he vowed in his campaign to "fundamentally change America". In response to his nomination acceptance speech in 2008, the McCain campaign -- in a rare moment of contentiousness -- said:

Tonight, Americans witnessed a misleading speech that was so fundamentally at odds with the meager record of Barack Obama.  When the temple comes down, the fireworks end, and the words are over, the facts remain: Senator Obama still has no record of bipartisanship, still opposes offshore drilling, still voted to raise taxes on those making just $42,000 per year, and still voted against funds for American troops in harms way. The fact remains: Barack Obama is still not ready to be President.

Temple Obama, Invesco Field 2008

How prescient those words turned out to be. Sadly, Obama was not only not ready to be president, he is far more dangerous than simple incompetence. That much should have been clear when the DNC erected a temple at Invesco Field in Denver for his acceptance speech. The New York Post even featured on its front page a picture of the Democrats' house of worship with the accompanying headline, "'O', My God".

Obama has behaved as if he's a god ever since. It took God seven days, including rest, to create the world. Although Obama is actually a mortal, I have no doubt that he can tear asunder one country in seven years if given the chance. 

Don't give him that chance. 

Sphere: Related Content

The False Mothers of the Debt Debate



Tough Choices

Americans have not been as divided as they are today since perhaps the early 1860's. Then, the Civil War was ramping up into the bloodiest period of turmoil in our nation's history, and the war brought the worst imaginable scenario to fruition through much of the decade.



It was all brought about by deep divisions in the ideologies of the denizens of the North and the South. Today, those tactical lines are drawn -- for all intents and purposes -- around our major urban centers, pitting the encircled cities against the rest of the nation which gradually is receding from them.

Geographically, the battle maps drawn give little prospect of victory to the tiny enclaves that seem vastly outnumbered and surrounded by the sea of red on an electoral version. That being said, this is a ballot-box war, and so while the weaponry is equal, the forces are also balanced in numbers, and territory means nothing. In terms of classical warfare, circa early 20th century, it is tantamount to one side occupying an entire country while trying in vain to defeat a few well placed sniper nests with thousands of marksmen in each.

Barack Obama is currently trying to get the debt ceiling raised so that he can continue to borrow more money from China and build his base for 2012. The talks taking place now are a perfect example of the bitter fight Americans are having over the state of the U.S. economy, which is sinking like the Titanic. Colloquially  speaking, Obama's position -- as well as many on the Democrats' side -- is to rearrange the deck furniture on that grand ship as it sinks into the sea.

Just as a few stewards may have tried calm passengers who might have witnessed the insanity, so today are members of the media and congressional perpetrators trying to either blame the patrons for the tragedy or similarly sully the builder, keeping the captain guiltless.

Americans spoke loudly and clearly in the 2010 elections, stating in no uncertain terms that they were fed up with reckless spending, wanton borrowing and repressive taxation, yet the message seems lost on all Democrats and astonishingly, even some Republicans. Would that these Republicans had the courage and the wisdom of King Solomon.

King Solomon had before him an infant and two women claiming to be the mother. So bitter was their argument that King Solomon offered this solution: he had his guard draw his sword, and told the women that in order to be fair (a favorite word of today's progressives), his guard would cut the baby in half so that they may each have part of the child. The false mother agreed, but the real mother was horrified and, not wishing harm to come to her son, pleaded for Solomon to give the child to the false mother. Solomon knew at once who the real mother was and awarded her the child.

McConnell Ready to Fold?

King Solomon not only made a wise decision, but a courageous one. It took a leap of faith in the real mother to be willing to make the tough choice for the good of the child for whom she had come to fight. Republicans in the debt ceiling battle ostensibly want to do what is right for the country and the economic health thereof, but apparently lack the political courage to risk losing their seats.

Just as the life of the baby was on the line, so is the life of America, yet of paramount concern to these politicians is whether or not they can get re-elected in 2012. You may refer to all of them from here on as "the false mothers".

Sphere: Related Content