Obama's birthplace is not the issue.

I first heard the notion that Barrack Obama was not eligible for the Presidency because of a supposed lack of native citizenship before his official nomination. When I looked at the field of contestants to be the Democrat nominee, I dismissed the notion mostly out of not having any "skin in the game" regarding who would eventually be picked.

Over the past few years, the emergence of the "Birther" movement continued to shine light on what was perceived to be shortcomings and gaps in the stories related to the Presidents' true origins. In truth, a lot of this was fueled by the President himself. Prior to his speech at the DNC, no one really had ever heard of him before. He wasn't a political animal or rock star along the lines of former President Clinton, and he certainly had not been a mover or shaker in academia or a Man of Industry in the private sector. Yet, this guy who came out of nowhere emerged as virtual political demi-god.

When these stories persisted, I sat back one day and gave the matter some serious thought. Obama had already been elected and assumed office for several months, so I broke it down as follows:

- If Barrack Obama was not a genuine citizen eligible to be President, it would have been impossible for him to get as far as he did without key people being involved to pull off such a scam. As such, the man had both the House and the Senate, along with a majority of state governorships. Even if undeniable proof came into being saying that Obama was not a legitimate President, what would the odds be that the Democrats in absolute power and control would either admit to their lack of vetting or admit to going along with what they knew to be a con of unimaginable proportions? The conclusion I came to was that in such a case they would not let him be removed from power regardless of the Constitutional illegalities involved. Thus - worrying about it was not worth it because it was completely beyond my control.

- If Barack Obama has been a legitimate US citizen from the start, then the President was intentionally promoting a fake controversy through deliberate obfuscation in order to distract people from the substance and consequences of his policies. This answer was something that I had come to expect. Former President Clinton was famous for having his people put out fake stories in interviews with the press. Clinton aides told the press that Monica Lewinsky's mother had broken down into sobs at her appearance before a grand jury - attributing the incident to Ken Starr being a monster. What actually happened was the revelation in court that Lewinsky's mother - a prominent ranking democrat in her local party - was recorded on tape by the feds referring to Hillary Clinton using the codename "Babba" also used in recordings of Lewinsky made by Linda Tripp, thus contradicting her previous testimony that she was never privy to her daughters affair. Her sobbing started when she realized that then First Lady Hillary was aware of her involvement. In other words...."Bye Bye democrat party ranking!" Or, my personal favorite was when Clinton aides leaked stories to the press regarding former President Clinton losing his temper during videotaped grand jury testimony and walking off camera. Later, when the video was released, it showed a very calm and collected President Clinton. Sydney Blumenthal, appearing on camera after grand jury testimony - used the opportunity to depict Ken Starr's courtroom mannerisms in a negative light, so much so that by the end of his third and final grand jury session, the jurors decided to give him a lecture. "We are very concerned about the fact that during your last visit that an inaccurate representation of the events that happened were retold on the steps of the courthouse," the grand jury forewoman told him, according to a transcript of the session.

My lesson learned from these and countless other examples of deliberate political deception to the public was that the only logical position for me to take was one of complete skepticism. I couldn't take anything claimed by InfoWars.com at face value, and I certainly wasn't about to trust anything said by President Obama as the truth, either. As a result, I treated the notion of Obama's birth as a non-issue with no tenable way to approach it, regardless of the circumstances.

Fast forward to two years later, and the rumor-mill regarding Obama's birth had only grown. That gave me pause. The President was in office, nothing was going to change, birthers were marginalized and it made no sense to continue fighting a fight that can't be won. So why on earth was this rumor - of all things - picking up speed?

On April 26th, 2011, a shock poll was released by USA Today/Gallup which came to the realization that only 38% of people polled believed that the President was absolutely born in the US. I quote "..not all Birthers are Republicans, and, not every Republican is a Birther. The ‘mysterious’ Americans–15% who definitely believe Obama wasn’t born in the US plus the 9% who ‘probably’ believe Obama wasn’t born in the US–are Birthers who are not Republicans."

Two days later, the President released a generated PDF copy of his birth certificate.

This surprised me a great deal. Liberals were outraged that the President's birthplace has ever been questioned. Anyone who questioned it had to be a racist. A kook. A Klansman. A wingnut. People who lived on the fringes.

It then struck me as to what had really been going on. People were not buying the birther notions because of an innate doubt regarding Obama's birthplace, they were doubting his origins for completely different reasons.

Imagine the following scenario:

In an alternate timeline, President Obama assumes office and calls together a joint session of Congress. There, he outlines a plan based on his campaign promises to cut spending a reduce the size of government. He convinces the House and Senate to pass budgets that reduce spending to 15% less than incoming revenue. To spur economic development, he convinces them to remove excessive and burdensome regulations on businesses and reminds America of it's entrepreneurial spirit and roots. Refusing to be labeled as someone who shows favoritism, he calls upon the black community to return to the birthright which is theirs: Free Americans who live in an a society that offers unlimited opportunity. He calls out the divisively racist political posturing of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and calls upon them to look to themselves and each other. He reminds them of white America's sacrifices, accommodations and generational success in their transition from slaves to full Americans blessed by the protections of the Constitution. He calls for the complete elimination of racial preferences and quotas. He limits the expansion of unemployment and refuses to remove the work and job-seeking requirements for those living on public assistance. To reduce the struggle of the poor and middle class, he immediately cuts off all funding for ethanol subsidies - forcing more corn to be sent into the food market. The resulting increase in corn supply causes the price of all related food items and services to drop, lowering the cost of food. As a bonus, the gasoline industry - no longer forced to create seasonal blends of gas that contain ethanol - are forced to lower prices because the attempt between companies to bring gasoline supply to the consumer has now become more competitive. To further the assistance of the poor and disadvantaged, the President calls for the removal of restrictions placed on Heath care insurance companies, allowing companies to sell policies through interstate commerce. The resulting increase in the pool of available customers and competition between thousands of companies allows for a remodeling of how calculated risk is determined. Models where risk is spread out across a larger demographic results in the cost of policies to drop. More people are capable of buying insurance, reducing the cost of risk even further. The reductions in cost allow for the employed to command larger salaries while not significantly changing the bottom line of businesses. Businesses expand. Knowing that more energy is needed for a thriving economy, and being honest enough to know that windmills cannot provide what we need, the President eliminates the restrictions on American oil exploration off the continental shelf, in Alaska and throughout the lower 48 - telling the world that he is determined for America to be the most prosperous, innovative and freedom-loving society on Earth. He delivers a speech to call upon the free world to reject the hatred and deceit of Muslim extremism and unequivocally renounces the anti-Semitic desires of the Islamic world to eliminate Israel.

This is a condensed scenario to be sure, but ask yourself:

- If the President had actually done or even attempted to do the things I suggested and actively concentrated on making America stronger, better and more prosperous instead of constantly vacationing and golfing - would the birther issue have grown?

- If he had spoken openly about America's Christian heritage and core influence in our Founding and demonstrated it through personal practice instead of tweaking the nose of Christian believers on a regular basis - would his religious identity have ever been called into question?

-If the President had spent as much time professing how much he loves America, it's traditions, it's pastimes, culture and religiously moral roots as he has deriding America's faults and shortcomings - would the notion of where he was born have ever come into play outside of when Hillary Clinton's people first suggested the idea during a very contentious primary?

Look at Donald Trump: The man has a huge ego, is very confident of himself and bluntly speaks his mind - hardly the kind of person we'd ever expect to try and run for President. Yet this guy as of this writing currently leads the pack. Why? Because Donald Trump has demonstrated an ability to vocalize what a majority of people are thinking. He has called the President and his policies a disaster. He calls Obama's actions and stances Un-American. He questioned his qualifications, his background and his past. He openly talks about his love for this country and calls the economic disaster we are in for what it is. In short - Donald Trump has been actively asking questions and delivering candid scrutiny about Obama that any legitimate member of the press would have asked years ago when an unheard of upstart was rocket-propelled through the ranks of the democrat hierarchy out of nowhere.

Prior to Obama winning the democrat primary, former President Clinton said it better than anyone else when he told the late Ted Kennedy "Hey, come on man, a few years ago this guy would have been fetching us coffee." Is someone going to try and convince us otherwise that the Grandmaster of Politics himself - President Bill Clinton - was a "know nothing" regarding the vacuous nature of who Obama really was? One could make many arguments regarding the nature of Clinton's Presidency - but no one can honestly say that he was nothing short of brilliant in his academic and political career. For all of his entrenchment into the world of Political Correctness, he was honest enough during one of Kennedy's few sober moments to call it like it is.

The birth certificate controversy has never been the driving issue, rather its growth has been a reflection of the growing public distrust and skepticism of both the policies and the man who is nothing he was portrayed to be.

The 2010 Mid-Term Elections: My Thoughts

Let me start by saying that I was not surprised by the results of the House races. Congressmen have to run every two years, and less than two years of the Presidents' personality defects and policy decisions were more than what the country needed to determine that they didn't like the direction we are headed in.

A lot of liberals, who were prancing around less than two years ago celebrating the death of conservatism and capitalism with permanent democrat majorities as far as the eyes could see - suffered a collective Divide by Zero error the other night. Had anyone suggested at the Presidents inauguration that what took place was coming - no rational person would have ever believed it.

The taking of the House itself did not make me feel any happiness.

I am more pleased because the Republicans are acknowledging publicly that they were not elected by virtue of their own history of being stewards of our tax payer dollars. The have admitted that they were brought back to power because the President and his fellow democrats have been so wantonly reckless, abrasive and condescending towards the American people that they were willing to give Republicans a chance they absolutely do not deserve. For as much as I and other conservatives, libertarians and other constituencies do not have any reason to trust the Republicans worth a damn, Democrats have managed to demonstrate that they deserve our trust even less, and that is saying something.

The reason why I remain somber and not the least bit elated over the results is not just because I see our country in very dire financial straights. There were things that I took note of that took place prior to and after the elections that left me feeling disgusted at the state of electoral politics.

One of the fundamental reasons why the Republicans lost the House and Senate back in 2006 was because they had done nothing to adhere to the principals of their party. Sure, President Bush was not popular and charted a financial path that was reckless - but the Republicans in the House and Senate had an opportunity to demonstrate that they were not anything other than a bunch of liberals with an (R) next to their names - and they paid a heavy price. In truth - their malfeasance cost the country even more, because their unwillingness to say no to President Bush or restrain the growth of government allowed democrats - full of devout, Big-Government-We'll-Wipe-Your-Ass-For-You liberal moonbats like Nancy Pelosi - to run conservative campaigns promising a reduction in spending, smaller government, cutting waste, eliminating earmarks and Pay-as-you-go spending rules. They won the House and Senate, and ever since she became speaker - our deficit has gone up almost $5 trillion, with roughly $3 trillion of that having been added in the past 20 months.

Despite the acknowledgement on the part of Republicans of past wrongs and lessons learned...knowing their return to power is a byproduct of epic-fail democrat policies...I am upset with Republicans for a pattern of behavior I see coming from members of the establishment - patterns of behavior that I believe cost them potential Senate seats.

I'll go over a few examples:

- When Christine O'Donnell ran against Mike Castle in Delaware, she easily defeated him in the primary race. This came as little surprise because Mike Castle had a very liberal voting record, and as a much more conservative trend was being demonstrated by voters across the country - they were in no mood to casually vote in another RINO that was simply going to serve as another mouth piece for President Obama. The Republican establishment not only immediately started criticizing her, they initially announced that they would be withholding party-backed financial support for the November elections. This generated an outpouring of grassroots support, and over a 3.8 million dollars came pouring into her war chest in just one month. Karl Rove - for reasons that have to be personal somehow - took to the television and proceeded to lambaste and discredit her as an illegitimate candidate. Apparently, after 8 years as Delaware governor and 17 years in the House, Mike Castle was favored by party leaders despite a pledge made by Mr. Castle to Harry Reid that he would vote for Obamas Cap and Trade energy legislation. It was only after an outpouring of angry letters, phone calls and email to the RNC did they backtrack and pledge support to O'Donnells campaign. She was called unethical by Rove because the IRS had filed a tax lien, a procedure not only executed against millions of other Americans, but was retracted once the IRS admitted to having done so in error. Party members questioned her religious beliefs as being extreme and that she didn't stand a prayer in a state where Democrats outnumber Republicans almost 2:1. The damage was done. Using these cues, she was attacked by liberals for her religious beliefs, called a tax cheat and was slandered as an unstable religious nut on a daily basis. Even though she shellacked Chris Coons in a debate where she accurately framed her personal beliefs and the constitutional basis of those views against his indefensible support of policies in diametric opposition to constitutionally backed freedoms, the RNC gave no defense or spoke on her behalf. When a libelous gossip column was released by Gawker by an anonymous source featuring a drunk and naked Christine O'Donnell on Halloween, the RNC offered a muted response. When a public television station claimed to have forgotten to run a 30 minute infomercial twice when she paid to have it televised, the RNC said nothing regarding the blatant, partisan shenanigans behind such an obvious attempt to deny her an opportunity to make her case. When O'Donnells campaign started, she was several points ahead of Chris Coons. By the time the election was over, she lost by 17 percentage points. With all the political demographics of Delaware aside, the point was made clear: The RNC, having fumed at the lose of a liberal Republican insider - was far more interested in quelling conservatives views being squared one-on-one against the pandering of a liberal like Chris Coons. To the RNC - a Castle win could have potentially been an additional number in their win column - but would have done nothing to reverse the very trend that made Republicans lose the House and Senate in 2006 to begin with.

- Senatorial candidate Joseph Miller, backed by conservative voters - defeated establishment Senator Lisa Murkowski in their Alaska primary. Murkowski, who had waffled on her position to repeal Obamacare - was also ready to compromise on Cap and Trade. Despite her pledge to back whoever the winner of the primary was, Murkowski reneged and opted to threaten to split the vote by running as a 3rd party candidate. Initially, it was discovered that she tried to attain the endorsement and support to run under the Libertarian Party ticket, but when they rebuked her she opted instead to run as an Independent write-in candidate. The Republican Party - who under normal circumstances would have been obligated to immediately strip her of her positions on the various appropriations and energy committees she belonged to - broke party rules and initially refused to enforce her removal, only opting to do so weeks later after intense scrutiny. They not only did not try to convince her to stand by her word to support the nominee, insiders ended up admitting prior to the election to abandoning Joe Miller in an effort to keep Murkowski in office. She, of all things - painted Joe Miller (a Fairbanks attorney) during campaign as an outsider! As of this entry - Write-in ballots outnumber Joe Miller's 41% to 34%. Unless there are a lot of ballots for people outside the scope of the known campaigners (or a lot of people spell Murkowski wrong), she will be the winner. While she pledges to caucus with the Republicans, her reaching out to democrat voters to defeat Joe Miller because of his Tea Party support, her past voting record and lack of trustworthiness to vote along conservative lines makes her potential victory a Pyrrhic one. Had the Republican Party establishment demonstrated the slightest intention of listening to the will of the voters - they would have kicked her ass to the curb the moment she threw a fit. Again, the establishment protected one of their own.

- In Nevada, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid was in the fight of his political life. He was overwhelmingly unpopular because of his ties to the President, and his public demeanor was exceedingly scornful towards opposing points of view. After her primary win, Sharron Angle was leading Senator Reid by a margin of 50% to 39%. She was subsequently attacked by Bob Cashell(R), mayor of Reno who endorsed Reid after calling her an ultra-right winger. Nevada State Senator and Minority Leader William Raggio(R) and former Lieutenant Governor Sue Wagner(R) also attacked her candidacy, calling her views extremist. Less than one month after divisive attacks on the part of establishment Republicans against Angle, polls showed her down by 7%. That 18% shift was not only the largest and quickest shift than in any other Senate race ever recorded - it would never have been possible had establishment, RINO Republicans not contributed towards assisting Harry Reid in attacking the chosen primary winner. Angle, in mid October - trounced Harry Reid so badly in a public debate that commentators took notice at how he was barely able to keep his balance, and that all attempts he made to demonize and disparage her were completely unsuccessful. Some even expressed incredulity at how such a man was ever elected to public office, let alone had somehow managed to become Majority Leader of the Senate. This - from a woman who was a political outsider running in a state where the Republican party is so disorganized and ineffective that it is considered a joke. She was even endorsed by Nevada's largest newspaper, the Las Vegas Review-Journal. On election day, Reid was down by at least 4 points in every poll. In the end, Sharron Angle lost by 5 percentage points. Aside from the voter stories concerning voting machines selecting a straight democrat ticket even after pulling a straight Republican one, or people walking in to cast their vote only to find the machines with Harry Reids name already selected, Reid was able get the unions to bus in Hispanic voters like cattle with instructions to vote for Reid. Casinos also played a roll by "encouraging" their members to go out and vote for Reid. Regardless, once again - it was Republicans who played the biggest role in an all out attempt to stymie the election of a conservative outsider.

It wasn't until November 1st - the day before the elections - that Michael Steele, head of the RNC, finally got the balls to publicly tell the Establishment Republicans to shut up.

Here is a few slices of what he said:

"These Republican leaders who don’t put their name in print but make comments in the shadows need to shut up. We need to focus on winning elections tomorrow night. I need every Republican in the country, whether they are in the shadows or not."

"I don't know who these Republican leaders are, but they need to be focused on winning the election and not trying to gerrymander the outcome."

"The Tea Party is an organic movement. You can't tell them who to vote for or who not to. That is anti-American. The people want to take creative control of the election," said Steele. "Again, that is what frustrates Republicans within in the party - it's establishment types who think they know more than the people about who they want to lead them."

Now, everything he said there was correct. But where was this when conservatives like Senator Jim DeMint were being castigated as a troublemaker when he was leading the effort to finance this grass-roots movement? Where was this reminder to establishment types to put up or shut up when Sarah Palin was the most active person in attempting to make conservative principles the bedrock of this movement? Where was this kind of reminder when establishment Republicans played a part in undermining every single race I mentioned above?

Yesterday, Trent Lott and Lindsey Graham - the epitome of establishment Republicans, had the unmitigated gall to blame Senator DeMint and view the results of the election as a loss because they did not win back the Senate.

A LOSS!?!? +61 House seats, +7 Governorships, and at least +6 Senate seats. The President and the democrats had their collective balls whacked with a political hammer, and instead of concentrating on the obvious shortcomings of liberal policies and voting records, they want to instead blame conservatives for a loss that didn't happen?

After all, they said - had more competitive (i.e. liberal) Republicans run in the races I mentioned above, they might have been able win back or tie the Senate. Forget that there is no guarantee of anything in politics, these ingrates are more concerned with party leadership positions and chairmanships than they are in correcting the problem for which these two numb-nuts are culpable in contributing to: the very losses that gave the House and Senate to liberals back in 2006.

Had it not been for the efforts of Senator DeMint, Rep. Mike Pence, Sarah Palin, the Tea Party movement and the collective grass-roots work of all conservatives who contributed towards Tuesday's results - the likes of Graham, Lott, Snowe and every other limp-wristed spineless RINO would never have ever done a single thing to stem the tide or reverse the policies that are destroying this nation from within.

Establishment Republicans have demonstrated that they have no interest in winning by defeating liberalism or reversing the nature that its destructive policies have on our nation. They need to be given a choice, to either be hounded and driven out of office, or live with having their feet held to the fire with regards to living and practicing the policies of the party and people they chose to represent. If they think conservatives were fed up with liberalism's bullshit before Tuesday, they had better check themselves.

The days of them enjoying the type of blind loyalty that allowed them to permit the erosion of our liberties is over. Republicans no longer deserve the benefit of the doubt. Not be me, and not by any other American.

The passing of government-run health care.

When I first began to become interested in politics, the first question that I ever posed on the subject was to inquire as to what the difference was that existed between Democrats and Republicans. The question was asked more than once - and I never received an answer that was definitive or concise. In hindsight, I remember just how uncomfortable people seemed to get when I asked. What I eventually settled on was a vague difference between the two based on a differing belief on what the role of government is in our lives. As someone who was raised by exceptionally hardworking parents who made their own way in the world without relying on anyone else to support their accomplishments, I naturally found myself gravitating towards the party that seemed more in line with that philosophy. When I started noticing democrats employing class warfare rhetoric on the evening news, it became quite clear that it was not just limited to only the super rich. Their perception of what constituted being wealthy or comfortable was not cut and dry, and that cinched it. I remember steaming with anger at the thought of someone casting a blanket of blame and resentment on people like my parents - who had done nothing but work to make themselves financially secure and independent - all while being honest, law-abiding citizens. I registered as a Republican within a week.

I wasn't willing to let the matter settle there. After laboring about the differences in political philosophies for a while, I came upon a notion that made me feel much better about reconciling those differences with my own beliefs:

Conservatives and liberals want the same things, but they disagree on how to achieve them. I accepted that premise for almost 20 years.

After having paid very close attention to what was said and promised before the 2008 Presidential election..and having witnessed the monumental shift in the direction of the political winds during the Presidents' first year in office, I can say with comfortable certainty that my previously held notion of the differences in political philosophies was complete horseshit.

For as long as I have been paying attention to politics, there have been conservatives who have attempted to challenge liberals on the specifics of their beliefs, whether it be economic, social, fiscal or spiritual. In most cases, liberals will not engage conservatives on any issue where they are required to defend the results of their actions, but instead engage in two specific forms of diversion:

The first is to insulate any policy decision made by concentrating on what they claim to have intended and not accept responsibility for it's negative consequences. A few examples would include the promotion and expansion of the welfare state, the inevitable insolvency of Social Security, staunch refusal to enforce our nations laws by the codifying of illegal immigration, the promotion of abortion, the promotion of racism through Affirmative Action, the endorsement of high taxation, increased government intrusion into the private sector, the silencing of free speech through the promotion of Political Correctness, the erosion of personal property rights and the redefining of the role that constitutionally protected religious beliefs had in this country's Founding. In each of those cases, liberals will defend their positions based on vague notions of "fairness" and "social justice" - that the intention of what they are trying to achieve justifies the various forms of destruction created in their wake. The second method in their attempt to dissuade the notion of failure in any of their policy decisions is to accuse all people possessing a differing opinion of racism, sexism, fascism, extremism, fundamentalism and of course...Nazism.

Let's just preemptively add Obamacare to this historical list of failures and go over some simple logistics:

To start with, the arguments liberals made prior to passing government run health care were based on premises that defied all logical notions of common sense...that somehow you could take millions upon millions of people who were not insurable or capable of providing insurance for themselves - add them to the roles - and magically lower the costs of treatment, reduce the deficit and lower the cost of insurance. President Obama pitched his plans using the language of a thoughtful and caring centrist and promoted the plan behind the scenes using the tactics of a Chicago thug...utilizing intimidation, coercion, kickbacks, payoffs and bribes to fellow democrats who admitted to others what the ramification of this destructive monstrosity would be if it passed.

Health care "reform" has nothing to do with making the system better. It is not centered around improving care...nor is it now or ever will be conducive to reducing costs. It will do none of that, and all of the liberals in the House and Senate know damn well that the results of this monstrosity will also cost us TRILLIONS and TRILLIONS. Think health care is expensive now? Just wait till it's free....

Let's just cut to the chase: The reason why nationalized health care always was so important to liberals is because it ultimately is an end-run around the Bill of Rights.

Right now, anyone who buys insurance gets covered based on the dictates of their policy....but nobody has the rights or authority to dictate to that person how they live, where they live, what they eat, how they earn a living, what their hobbies are, what kind of car they drive, etc.

Government run health care is unconstitutional because it not only forces you to purchase insurance, but also dictates what level of care you get regardless of how much more you'll pay. It also cancels your private plan should your private coverage change in the slightest. Since your health care will end up being funded by a collective of taxes confiscated by government officials, they will by proxy eventually have the power and authority to dictate every aspect of your life...because in some form or fashion every aspect of your life could be scrutinized based on the ramifications of how your lifestyle will impact the cost to other tax payers.

The worst part of the plan is that the sick - the very people who need medical care the most - are going to bear the brunt of the suffering because of this.

Why? Look at it from this perspective:

Say that 100 people have the same health insurance plan with the same coverage. The first 50 people are in good health, the second 50 people are suffering from varying degrees of health issues. I know 100 people is not a lot, I'm just using it as an example...

The 50 unhealthy people will use more drugs, use up more doctor time, more resources and require more expenditures on the part of either the insurance company or the taxpayer...and eventually...just other taxpayers. So - when the government lowers the number of (or types of) procedures they'll cover, raises taxes or changes the guidelines for screening and testing - the only people who reap the whirlwind of those negative consequences are the sick. Case in point: Look at how quickly American women suffered a collective schizoid embolism when the government changed the recommended guidelines for mammograms in the name of reducing costs. After decades of running around telling people to test themselves often and early in the name of saving lives, they in turn changed the guideline in direct contradiction to the entire concept of early intervention. Result? The desire to cut costs at the expense of the people who need it the most! Consider that if something as minor as that made women go bananas - they'll have no idea what to do when real rationing becomes a necessity.

Liberals love to tout the health care system in the UK and France as models for the US, but even a minor glance at both of those reveals some pretty dark commentary about the negative ramifications of government run health care. In the United Kingdom, women are giving birth to babies in the hallways because there are not enough rooms or staff to assist them. People have also resorted to yanking their own teeth out with pliers in lieu of a visit to the dentist. We were even recently treated to a story about a young man who wasted away from dehydration for days in full view of the depraved indifference and neglect on the part of the staff. I'm not describing a 3rd world communist shithole like Cuba, I'm talking about the nation that is our greatest ally with a 21st century culture and access to technology.

Liberals like to say that the French health care system is "every bit as good as ours" at 60% of the cost by claiming that the United States spends about twice as much as France on health care. For example - in 2005, U.S. spending came to $6,400 per person. In France, it was only $3,300. However, the crucial things being left out is that France does not spend as much on health care as the United States because they have only 62 million citizens - 1/5th of the US population and not nearly as high a GDP that we have. They also have a completely different culture, history and societal mix. But one thing liberals constantly forget to mention is that Frances national system limits coverage.

France confiscates 21 percent of a worker's pay up front just for entry into their nationalized system, and that is on top of (and not part of) the rest of their payroll and other government taxes, surcharges and fees. Employers compensate for their part in those contributions by hiring less workers. Now imagine for a second that in a similar plan enacted here...that a wife and husband who both work (with two kids) and earn $100,000 would have an additional $10,000 a year in taxes on top of the roughly 30% they'll already lose from their State, Local and Federal taxes taken from their collective pay. (Note that I said $10,000 instead of $21,000, based on idea of the employer picking up slightly more than half the cost.)

Some might look at that and think "Great! I'll give up that much a year to guarantee coverage."

However - France - in exchange for crippling employers and their employees with all of those additional taxes on top of what they're already paying, refuses to cover past 70% of the costs. That's right - if you want to cover the other 30% - you must buy private insurance on top of what you're already paying. The reason France does this? They didn't want to run insurance companies out of business! (Hey, you have to give them credit, at least the French are not as socialist as Obama and the rest of the liberal toadstools are in the House and Senate...)

To truly add insult to injury, France, in 2008 - despite huge taxes and limiting nationalized coverage - still couldn't stop themselves from driving their nationalized system into more than 9 billion in debt. Their solution? Make their populace pay for more for the drugs they use out of their own pocket after confiscating that much of their pay AND limiting coverage AND making people buy private insurance on top of it. Impose this kind of nonsense on an American populace riddled with people who still go ballistic when being forced to pay a $2 ATM fee - you'll have violence in the streets.

Just how confident can any reasonable person be to look at the likes of Barrack Obama, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid - smiling amidst the multitude of broken promises and financial ruin settling in the country that they have no intention of abating - and genuinely feel good about their ability to deliver on nationalized health care?

Democrats have always passed themselves off as the party of the little guy - of the common man. When ordinary people of limited means started becoming educated by looking at this bill and knowing what it meant for them, what did they do? They - many of whom had never joined an organized protest in their entire lives - started voicing their disagreements and organizing. Some started protesting government spending and expansion by gathering in peaceful protests. Others started calling and writing letters to their representatives. As more people found out about this plan, the popularity of the plan and the people pushing it began to drop like a stone.

What was the reaction on the part of liberals? The people protesting, coming from all walks of life - were called AstroTurf. They were Nazis, racists, sexists, homophobes, rednecks, Christian fundamentalists, and of course...Tea Baggers. The "Party of the People" did not care what the little people thought.

Even losing Ted Kennedy's seat during a special election in the liberal Mecca of Massachusetts did nothing to dissuade them from their course of action. In the end, with polls showing that the majority of people did not want this bill - democrats passed government run health care and declared victory over the American people.

The entire process - from the empty promises made in the campaign, the end result and the methods used to achieve its end - have (in my estimation) forever laid bare one of the most important truths about politics that should be pounded into the skull of any independent or right-leaning voter left who has tried to be diplomatic in their attempt to reason with liberals. They need to understand that liberals are not stupid, economically challenged or obtuse. They are not people who mean well.

Conservatives have allowed themselves to fall into a trap, and that trap is trying to be diplomatic about their approach to liberalism...both its intent and its effects. When conservatives say that liberals and conservatives want the same things but disagree on how to achieve it, it insulates liberals from being held accountable for what their true intentions are. Liberals and conservatives do not want the same things.

Some examples:

- Conservatives see individual freedoms as having come from The Creator, that they are ours by birthright from the moment we are conceived. Liberals believe that freedom is a right that is determined, limited and regulated by governmental authority.

- Conservatives believe in the rights and sanctity of individual freedom and responsibility. Liberals believe in a group collective run by a centralized governmental power.

- Conservatives believe in the ideal and practice of a true colorblind society where race truly does not matter. Liberals believe in the use of race to coerce and manipulate people into producing results that they believe should be achieved through government involvement and regulation.

- Conservatives believe that the role of the government is to only provide for the common good and defense. Liberals believe in the government being the central provider for everything.

- Conservatives believe that the compensation received in exchange for work or services provided is the sole property of the individual. Liberals believe that the collective needs of other people override the individual right to personal wealth or property.

- Conservatives see America as a historically special place. Liberals see America as a war-mongering nation full of hypocritical imperialists.

- Conservatives believe in a solid educational system with an emphasis on reading, writing, economics, history and mathematics. Liberals have eroded the purpose and effectiveness of the public educational system to promote dependency and loyalty to the state.

- Conservatives believe in a strong emphasis on the concepts of personal responsibility. Liberals encourage the insulation from personal responsibility by the promotion of victim hood and government benefits at the expense of taxpayers.

- Conservatives believe in the importance of bonds formed by strong families and ties to the community. Liberals have consistently tried to redefine the notion of family through the promotion of homosexual marriage, homosexual adoption, the feminization of woman and the marginalizing of fatherhood and men.

- Conservatives believe in the historical premise of the the religious moral compass that the Constitution was based on. Liberals have promoted the devaluation of religious beliefs in favor of a secular worldview, downplayed moral standards and societal norms and revised the historical nature upon which the Constitution was written.

The Constitution is a set of principles that transcends the natural ebb and flow of political power. Politicians have no business whatsoever attempting to "remake" this country by changing the roots of its foundation. They are not our rulers. They do not automatically know what's best for us by the mere fact that they managed to attain political office. They were not placed into to power for the purpose of treating people as marionettes that are bound to their will. Elected officials, at best, are merely public servants that are temporary stewards of power, and nothing more.

This entire debacle is proof positive that when the rubber meets the road, liberals do not care what a majority of the people think, what we want or even what the Constitution says.

Conservatives have to get it through their heads that they are not dealing with people who have a mere difference of opinion, nor are they ones who have taken some kind of path that will eventually intersect in some way with ours. Liberals do not share our beliefs, values or goals. They do not love America for what it was founded on. They do not love it for what it was, or even for whatever measure it still remains. They are only in love with the idea of a mythical Utopia where the wants and needs of people are provided for though the relinquishment of individuality in exchange for a collective existence - free from the burden and uncertainty of providing for ones own needs.

None of that is compatible with the principled foundation of this country. We have to stop kidding ourselves and call it like it is. It is un-American, and they all need to be removed from any semblance of power by any means necessary.

Why I support the recent Supreme Court decision.

In last night's State of the Union address, President Obama took the opportunity to publicly berate the justices of the Supreme Court on national television because of their recent decision in the case Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

The case centered around a law passed in 1907 that made corporate contributions to political campaigns illegal. While the law itself was not overturned because of this case, the decision rendered by the court pertained to an aspect of McCain-Feingold that prevented unions, corporations and similar entities from funding advertisements for or against candidates within a specified time frame prior to an election. McCain-Feingold did nothing to prevent the flow of money, as it only gave rise to 527 groups designed to circumvent the restrictions on money it claimed to limit. Instead, McCain-Feingold was designed around the idea of making it easier for incumbent, entrenched, career politicians to defend themselves in elections by making it more difficult for vested opponents to directly challenge their re-election through targeted commercial advertisements. This specific law is what was overturned.

The Constitution protects the individual right of free speech. Just like unions, corporations are owned by, invested in and directed by individual investors. While they are individuals, they are a collective of people with a shared purpose.

Corporations were designed around the individual - to legally protect them from unlimited liability and protect personal assets. That is why a single individual can form a corporation for precisely those reasons.

The Supreme Court had to decide if the government had the right to hinder the free speech of corporations and other businesses while simultaneously exempting other businesses entities from those very same laws. Now, there is no more giving free speech to some while denying it to others. They're all the same.

Here is why I favor this decision: Over the years I have watched smarmy, self-indulgent, race-baiting Marxist reprobates worm their way into political power and influence by attacking companies and the private sector through stereotypical blanket attacks. This company is racist. This company is sexist. This company makes too much money. This company's employees won't unionize. This company sells fattening food. This company uses too much energy. This company doesn't do enough for the environment. Does this sound at all familiar? It should, because you could spend all day going through the entire list of legitimate businesses in the US, and in some form or fashion - most will fall into that list of criteria in one way or the other. That is by design.

Somehow, liberals are under the impression that they are entitled to attack perfectly legal companies selling or offering perfectly legal products and services....hassle them in court, publicly protest them, smear their employees and attempt in as many ways possible to hurt the company's bottom line....but simultaneously say that the companies under such assaults are not entitled to fully defend themselves and stand up for themselves through whatever legal means they have at their disposal. Liberal politicians have repeatedly engaged in systematic attacks on the private sector by leveraging the power and unlimited financial resources of the government in an effort to hobble the ability of privately owned corporations to operate unhindered within the US.

A prime example:

Years ago, banks were allowed to individually set personal criteria as to who qualified for personal loans. Banks had a simple rule founded on thousands of years of common sense - If you didn't earn enough money or possess sufficient assets to offset the risk of a loan - you're weren't going to get it.

When liberal politicians in Washington started going after banks, the first thing the banks lost was their right to maintain the privacy over their loan criteria. Naturally, when they were forced to open their books - people gasped with faux shock at the obvious...poor people with low-paying jobs living in poor neighborhoods were unable to qualify for loans. That was common sense, but common sense meant nothing the moment the sharks smelled blood in the water.

Suddenly, banks were no longer lending institutions - they were merely racist institutions that needed to have more government regulation thrown at them. Banks were accused of denying loans to poor people because they were black, not because they were bad loan risks. Under increased regulation and constant public scrutiny and broad accusations of racism, banks and lending institutions buckled.

The result? The same filthy, greasy, race-baiting politicians used race as a wedge issue to win votes by channeling people's frustration about their economic plight...abetting in the creation of a flawed financial system designed around giving more loans to people who in any sane economic environment would have been told to go pound sand. Subsequently, these same vermin in Washington had the nerve to act surprised when these people defaulted on their loans en masse and was the core foundation of the recent loan scandal and financial collapse, as the loan-based securities that failed became worthless because the loans backing them became worthless.

Banks, like any other company, exist to remain in business by making a profit. No sane lending institution would ever knowingly give loans to people who cannot pay them back, and that is precisely what they were forced to do because of unethical political pressure brought to bear against them by reprobates like Barney Frank.

Consider the following alternative scenario: If the previous political speech-limiting laws for businesses enacted in 1907 not been in place, banks and every other manner of lending institution would have been capable of defending themselves, their business practices and taken on every single individual and organization who portrayed them as racists entities. They would have been able to take on every politician who also accused them of racism, and in turn would have been able to take out as much political commercial time as they could afford, and defend themselves even further by more funding of candidates who would not have enacted such economically stupid ideas.

Within the past year, President Obama and the rest of the liberals in the House and Senate have engaged in what I cannot describe as anything else but a full fledged, no-holds-barred attack on the entire private sector of the country. He has deliberately spent hundreds and hundreds of billions of yet-to-be-earned tax dollars growing the government run public sector and doing virtually nothing to encourage private sector growth. He is doing this because he believed that the huge budget deficits, loss of jobs and loss of job supplied medical benefits would force people to embrace government run healthcare and give up their liberties in exchange. All of this has been intentional.

As conservatives and Republicans currently do not have sufficient votes to ultimately stop anything the liberals in Washington hope to enact, this ruling was a God-send. People who are unemployed are powerless, with little opportunity on the horizon. People who are still working are bringing home less, paying more and are thoroughly disgusted that their tax burden is certain to increase because of the Presidents economic lunacy. They have little to spare in both financial and economic capital to fight anything, and Washington has made it all too clear that they aren't listening to our anger.

This ruling heralds the beginning of a crack in a door that liberals never wanted reopened. Imagine oil companies, publicly defiled for providing and refining a product we all use and need - taking out huge commercial time pointing the finger at every politician who used public sentiment to attack their business, or Walmart standing up for themselves during an election year by painting political detractors as uncaring criminals out to hurt the company providing good-paying jobs and affordable products to struggling families. Even cooler, imagine the entertainment industry in Las Vegas mobilizing a huge ad blitz against President Obama and Harry Reid as payback for their lost revenue from disparaging remarks made by the duo earlier last year against companies seeking to conduct business there. Those commercials would be priceless.

I don't support this ruling because I think that the business sector is perfect, far from it. I support it because the private sector needs to mobilize against the statists in power who are eager to make the ruination of capitalism another notch on their bedposts. It is worth the risk, because we already know that we don't want the alternative.

Our President was punked.

When I first heard that Chicago was vying for the Olympic games, I wasn't surprised given that President Obama was now in office. As the events unfolded and it came to light that the President and first lady were going to Copenhagen to give their "pitch" on Chicago's behalf, I'll admit I was less than convinced as to the genuine nature of the visit.

Politics is perception. One of the things I learned from watching then President Clinton was that image was the most valuable commodity any President can ever have. If one projects confidence, chooses their venues wisely and watches what they say - the ability to leverage the inherent power of the Presidency is almost assured. That being said, I looked at the Olympic committee's selection of Chicago for the 2016 Olympics as a forgone conclusion. After all - the idea that the President would go through the dog and pony show of trying to convince the committee to select Chicago without knowing ahead of time that it was "in the bag" wasn't plausible.

When I found out that Chicago was not only rejected in the first round, but was completely creamed in the vote count, I was shocked speechless.

Every President who has ever held office has had to deal with situations that cast him in a less than favorable light. However, the ramifications of this event are unheard of within the realm of Presidential politics. For a man who is holding what is arguably the most powerful political office in the entire world - the nature of how the events that unfolded today became known were undoubtedly among the most embarrassing, demoralizing and humiliating combination of circumstances ever.

There is no redeemable spin that can be placed on this disaster. Look at the following possibilities:

- If the President went through with his personal pitch for Chicago because he had been given personal assurances that it was a done deal, then this decision on the part of the Olympic committee was orchestrated - purely and deliberately fabricated for the express purpose of humiliating him. That means that he is perceived as weak and has earned no respect, which undermines the entire premise of his campaign which portrayed him as a world uniter who would bring respect to America..

- If the President did this not knowing whether or not his pitch was guaranteed to succeed, it means that he and his advisers are monumentally stupid - naive and incapable of appreciating the depth of damage that this fiasco would have on his image, credibility, stature and respect before the world.

- If the President was compelled to take this personal risk because he was under pressure from Mayor Daley, then it demonstrates that he does not appreciate the nature and importance of his office because he is willing to risk the credibility of both the office and himself in an effort to ensure political payback for favors he took during his tenure in the corrupt Chicago political machine.

- If the President volunteered himself of his own accord because he truly believed in the hype surrounding his mythical ability to persuade and charm people simply by the nature of his campaigns' fabricated image, then it demonstrates a level of naivete, hubris and megalomania that makes former President Clinton's ego look like a mere shadow in comparison.

People are already trying to spin this by the most imaginative means possible, such as suggesting that the entire Olympic bid was a ruse to give the President a chance to meet in secret with the war in Afghanistan's General McChrystal for a whopping 25 minutes. Newsweek asserted that losing the Olympic bid was good for the President because "...the Olympics are notorious for running massively over budget. The organizing committees are always rife with infighting and power games, as all manner of colorful cronies badger members to get their paws on some of those coveted Olympics dollars. Public support for the Olympics in Chicago itself was already lukewarm. Residents would have been facing seven years of disruptive construction and roadworks as their city raced to prepare itself. It’s a recipe for serious disgruntlement."

Let's not forget, of course - that racism was also a part in the IOC's decision. Hell, just ask Jimmy Carter!

People can shake, spin and try to finess this into a varitable cornacopia of theoretical positives, but the bottom line is this: Our President limped away from Copenhagen humiliated - a laughing stock and a joke. But it's not funny at all, because the joke's on us.

The Pastor and the POTUS

Recently, a Pastor named Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Arizona made news again by repeating his wish that physical harm and death befall President Obama. When asked for specifics, he offered the following clarification:

“If you want to know how I’d like to see Obama die, I’d like him to die of natural causes,” said Anderson. “I don’t want him to be a martyr, we don’t need another holiday. I’d like to see him die, like Ted Kennedy, of brain cancer.”

When I first read this, I could not help but marvel at how unbelievably brazen, foolish and naive a person has to be to think that their position as Pastor and a House of the Lord was an appropriate position or venue for that kind of opinion. I disliked Kennedy, and certainly do not think President Obama is doing a good job...but wish for his death? Of a horrific debilitating disease that strips you slowly of your mind and dignity? Not a chance.

I flat out believe that the Pastor is completely wrong to have - let alone express - that type of opinion, and certainly not in a forum that is supposed to be teaching about the principals of compassion and forgiveness set forth by Jesus Christ. President Obama does not deserve to have that kind of ill will pressed against him, regardless of his political affiliation or decisions.

It isn't difficult to figure out how we as a nation got to this point. Look at the past 8 years as an example:

When President Bush was in office there were books written regarding his assassination and even a movie created on the same subject. You also had plenty of people online openly coming out and promoting stories that dehumanized him, and there was no shortage of people who wished harm upon President Bush en-masse on a daily basis.

One could look up any current or archived blog and commentary on either the DailyKOS or democratunderground and find the most strung-out moonbats that have ever lived running around in circles fomenting the most lunatic-fringe hatred of the man, and they did it (and continue to do it) for 24 hours a day - every day - for 8 years straight. If a person who was unaware of the political workings of our world were to base their opinion of the former President solely by the content of either of the above two sources - they would swear that President Bush stood upon the fires of Mt. Doom and summoned Hurricane Katrina himself.

Think back and remember - What were the type of responses given to anyone who questioned any of the criticism or the personal nature of the extent of hate and personal animosity for him?

"This is a matter of Free Speech!" (OK, I can agree with that...)

"Dissent is patriotic" (Well...the Rosenbergs dissented to be sure, but patriotic they were not...)

"Nazis!" (...eh?)

The aggressor sets the rules in any fight. If the routine, outlandish nature of so many of the critiques of former President Bush made by the Left were not only acceptable, but were in fact patriotic, then the Left really has no business whatsoever getting their panties in a bunch over the rantings of one man when the very same unsavory nature of his message has been the very lifeblood of the democrat party. All of the hate, anger and outrage over the words of this one Pastor that they are now bemoaning was the very fuel that animated everything they did. It was hatred and anger that united them and allowed for the kind of political success that they were not even close to pulling off years before.

They are concerned that the words being spoken will incite violence? They should be. Welcome to the world conservatives live in every day. They're sitting out there worrying about what one man is saying? Try imagining what tens of thousands of people like him would look like online and you have what conservatives have to contend with. Hatred of President Bush has been liberals passion. Anger and outrage has been their sacraments, and now that their Messiah is running the show - the same dissent they practiced while prancing around calling it patriotic is now akin to "Hate Speech".

You reap what you sow.

For almost the entire length of both his terms, President Bush was assaulted and criticized for everything and anything he said, did, tried to do, wrote, expressed and even what others claimed he was thinking - and ANY attempt he made to defend himself was met with outrage over his "fascist" attempt to "silence" his critics. As time went on, he defended himself less and less, but none of that did anything to abate the torrent of criticism he received, and it certainly did nothing to assist in any ability to govern.

When personal hatred is allowed to act as the means to an end within the political arena, it doesn't just cause more problems by inciting violence or venom, it helps insulate and protect politicians from justifiable criticism.

How this works is simple: When personal attacks and insipid vitriol become the norm, the first thing it initially does is to cause the politician on the receiving end to become protected by supporters who instinctively close ranks around their candidate. This closes their minds to the remote possibility that the opposition might have a legitimate grievance, and they in turn lash out even stronger against their candidates adversaries. Because liberals attacked President Bush with such intensity, a large number of his supporters defended him even when they should not have, such as on his lack of fiscal discipline and refusal to enact immigration reform.

When this Pastor engages in this type of inexcusable attack, he is in fact giving President Obama a free pass on two fronts. First, because he immediately insulates the President from legitimate criticism regarding his policies - as it only reinforces the false notion that criticism of the President and hate speech are one in the same. Secondly, it only makes a bad situation worse, because when the bar is lowered - even someone of ill repute can come off looking reasonable.

Welcome Back, Carter

When Lech Walesa headed the Solidarity movement in Soviet besieged Poland, President Ronald Reagan had a choice: Support the Soviet backed domination of the Polish people or take a stand and support the voice of individual liberty, and in doing so potentially anger the Soviets. It was not a hard choice, and at the first opportunity he sided with Poland's Solidarity movement, drawing a line that stated in no uncertain terms where America stood.

Obama has now been witness to a similar historical event and given a golden opportunity to prove his critics wrong. However...he has let this terrific opportunity languish for too long and spoiled his chances of directly benefiting from it. When the "elections" in Iran took place and a sizable portion of the oppressed population took to the street, it gave him the perfect moment in time to come out in favor of genuine democracy and reform in the country which is responsible for more funding and personal acts of terrorism in the world. Iran - without equivocation - is at the heart of Islamic terrorism. He didn't take the opportunity to come down on the side of freedom. Instead, Obama initially opted to say that the United States was not going to interfere with the Iranian elections by injecting themselves into the debate. That statement had an expiration date of about one week. Now, the stance has changed by reaching out to the dictatorial leadership calling for nicer treatment of the demonstrators. From some of the footage I am seeing on TV, they aren't interested in listening.

The current Iranian government is hostile to the entire western world. The nuanced conventional wisdom that states that picking sides in their internal conflict can be a political risk is a fake argument. When you take a stand and voice support of the struggle for freedom and democracy in a country controlled by people who don't want to grant it - you win regardless of the outcome.

However - when you hold up your hands and instead opt to initially voice a vague, neutral Switzerland policy when presented with a choice between supporting the dictatorial status quo or young people wanting to reform their country for the better - it is a tremendous lost opportunity, because those people looking for support in the cause of freedom look at the US and genuinely want our support. It goes with the Compass theory: The US should first and always base their stances on the advancement of liberty over tyranny. From the Mullah's point of view, that initial wishy-washy response and subsequent attempt at a clarification only weakened Obama's hand.

For the record, I don't think Obama is out there wearing "I love Mullahs" tee-shirts. He will at some point discover that his changing stances on an issue will only erode any credibility he has left when he comes to the realization that support for liberty is a football he can't just punt to someone else.

When it comes to choosing and voicing support for individual liberty over tyranny -the choice should be easy and unwaveringly clear.

"I am Jack's complete lack of surprise..."

There are fundamental differences in ideology between liberals and conservatives. Note that when I mention differences, I am not speaking on a party level between Republican or Democrat. Arlen Specter used to be a democrat when he was the District Attorney of Philadelphia and switched parties when the political opportunities for Republicans were on the rise. Now that the political pendulum has swung the other way, he is doing the same thing in reverse.

Admittedly, Arlen Specter has been good on some issues from a conservative perspective, such as affirming our 2nd Amendment rights and supporting tough prison sentencing guidelines for violent criminals. However, where he differs with conservatives has been growing more and more over the years. Once you get to a situation where you are voting more with the political opposition and are constantly at odds both both your own own party and base of supporters, there comes a point where you have to ask if you're really in the party that you fit in best. When Senator Specter started getting a huge earful from his constituency about Amnesty for Illegals and huge increases in entitlement and bailout spending, his solution was to have his staff disconnect his own phone system once he had heard enough. He didn't give a shit what the people who voted him in expected - he was going to do whatever he wanted regardless of how much it went against the wishes of the supporters who had voted him in. In reflection, he asked himself "Why not?" After all, once it became obvious from the plethora of inside tracking polls that he wouldn't get re-elected, he knew that in this political environment that he could switch parties.

Specter's defection has prompted other weak Republicans - such as the ever increasingly-irritating Olympia Snowe - to opine with whiny sophistry about how Specter's defection could have been prevented if Republicans would learn how to reach out to moderates instead of driving them away. The very notion that Republican moderates have no place in their party is pure, 100% NONSENSE. Moderates like Specter have been around forever. McCain, Snowe, Chaffee, Jeffords...the list goes on. What has irritated conservatives is that these spineless, limp-wristed watered-down copies of Diet Democrat-Lite routinely would vote with democrats and undermine conservatives on key votes that were crucial to our political goals. Sorry, honey - don't piss down our legs and try to tell us it's raining.

I have read some stories online where liberals are struggling to figure out why Republicans like myself are so happy about this when all it does is further erode our political power. That would make sense to people who only choose to see things from within the context of a political perspective, but that would be missing the mark. The first reason is that when you don't have any real power and influence left as it is, losing more makes no difference. Considering Arlen's voting history on key issues that drove conservatives the most, having him in the party was far more irritating. What the second and truest reason is this: Conservatives have more respect for genuine liberals who act like liberals and believe in whatever liberals believe in than for Republicans like Specter, who - over the course of time - has screwed over his own base in the name of political expediency. If he wants to run with the liberals, I have no beef with it. What I do have a beef with is his unreliability and skulduggery as a representative of my state. Never knowing exactly where he stood reliably on key issues with his base was a pain in the ass.

Understand something: Political moderation has never made for good leadership. Ever. Leaders are decisive. They are confident. They have the ability to gather people up and project their vision into the masses. They inspire those that agree, and yes - royally piss off the people who disagree. What true believers in a true philosophically empowered political goal gain is respect - even begrudgingly so from their adversaries. None of those things are attained from political moderation. When democrats wanted to rebuild their party, they didn't do it by reaching out to Republicans. No - they did it by marginalizing or eliminating what few centrists managed to exist in their party to make it more ideologically left. As such, when more Republicans stopped acting like conservatives and did nothing but pander to the left and left-leaning centrist voters for years - look at what it got them. Liberals simply voted for the real thing and left-leaning centrist libertarians voted against them out of anger at their intellectually dishonest pandering. Case in point - ask John McCain what sucking up to the left for years got him when the rubber actually met the road. They threw his ass to the curb - because nobody likes someone who speaks out of both sides of his mouth.

The curious case of Beverly Giesbrecht

We hear all the time from terrorists about how we are to submit to Islam and turn away from the West. We are told by our friends on the left that if we just try to understand these people that we will build a bridge and heal the wounds of misunderstanding.

A woman named Beverly Giesbrecht did all of that. Giesbrecht, a Canadian citizen, decided to go against the West after the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. She decided that she was not going to believe that the WTC was attacked by terrorists, but rather was a front story for a larger conspiracy. Naturally, she thought that the best way to learn the "truth" was to learn all things Islamic so that she could discern the "truth" from a balanced point of view. After setting out to attain this balance, she abandoned her Born-again Christian faith and converted to Islam. She abruptly changed her name to Khadija Abdul Qahaar and decided to follow Islam's laws, criticize President Bush, denigrate the United States and even started a website called Jihad Unspun - whose sole purpose is to spread Islamic propaganda and promote anti-Americanism. Despite doing all of this, the Taliban kidnapped her on November 13, 2008 in Pakistan. They are threatening to behead her in exchange for a $375,000 ransom.

Some have attempted to downplay the role of Islam in this case by trying to characterize this woman from the sympathetic viewpoint of her being someone that is a former alcoholic who suffers from mental illness. I could not agree more - it is called liberalism. Whenever a liberal tries to argue with you about how Islam is no different from any other religion - remember this scenario. We are not living in the Dark Ages. We are not trapped in a never-ending malaise of scientific hindrance or a lack of enlightenment. No, we are living in 21st century America - and we are expected to look at this woman’s history, actions and current plight with a mindful, sympathetic light that is supposed to should be shed on Islam? One would think that this woman’s' story would be the proverbial writing on the wall for those who choose to live with their heads in the sand when it comes recognizing Islamic terrorism for what it truly is.

I want you, for a moment - to imagine the impossible to comprehend sheer agony of feeling your own head being sawed off with a dull blade. You have been bound head to toe and cannot do anything to escape. The sound of the blade hacking and sawing through bone echoes in your own skull. You try to scream and instead let loose gurgled squealing and wheezing. In your panic, you violently struggle, urinating and defecating all over yourself. Then you experience the sick motion of disembodiment and as oblivion begins to sink in, you experience the brief horror of seeing your own headless corpse when the filthy animal that just beheaded you holds your head up as a trophy. Then, your face goes stupid - and it is all over.

This woman is most likely going to experience the horror above because she was stupid enough to hate her own civilized, western culture and that of the United States. She was seduced by an evil lie. The lie in question is the absurd belief that moral relativism can be used to justify any type of heinous behavior or belief simply by implying that everyone is entitled to the opinion they have based solely on their own point of view. This idiot so believed that terrorist animals had a right to their opinions and actions that she decided to convert to Islam in an effort to see their sick world view, thinking that this would make her a better person. Brilliant!

Anyone...and I do mean anyone - who either trusts, defends or attempts to rationalize the actions of these filthy animals suffers from a mental disorder. They are the lowest common denominator humanity has ever produced. Let this be a lesson to be learned by everyone: When you dance with the Devil - the Devil does not change - the Devil changes you.

God and Evolution

I am not someone who has ever taken the Creation story literally. Yet, I have always found it rather dubious how angry and obnoxious some scientists get when they are even challenged on the veracity of certain specifics of their beliefs or theories. In the case of the arguments between Intelligent Design vs Evolution, some of the most die-hard advocates pushing the edge regarding their attempt to find something irreducibly complex that cannot come about because of random chance are not people who are biblical scholars. They are, in fact, scientists who are just as educated and passionate about their theories as anyone else would be, they are just pursuing their attempt to find answers elsewhere. Evolution alone, by their beliefs, cannot account for or answer many of the basic questions people have regarding life and it's origins. Those that pursue I.D. are guilty of committing a scientific sin, their biggest sin being that in the eyes of other scientists, they are attempting to use science itself to question evolution. In reality, what they are doing is starting off with a theory and are attempting to prove it. Scientifically, Darwinism and it's most ardent secular supporters should have nothing to fear.

As I see it, evolution versus a belief in a Creator are simply not at odds with one another. Evolution on many levels makes absolutely logical sense (the strongest survive and procreate). Mutations are common and observable. Survival of the fittest is part of all life. If you want to see evolution in action, go to any beach and see who the beautiful girls are hanging out with, they do not just "randomly" gravitate towards just anybody. Science however, for all of the good it has produced in attempting to explain some of mysteries of our world, is incapable of answering the serious philosophical questions that have been echoed since the dawn of man.

I have looked at the argument that has been made that I.D. cannot be proven, therefore it cannot be science, compete with science or argue with science. This flies in the face of common sense because at one point, every scientific fact was an unknown. Every fact or principle discovered since was the result of having a theory and attempting to prove it. Scientific fact was built on it's pursuit based on reason, passion and prior knowledge from previous discoveries. What we have observed in this world regarding living things is the result of an evolutionary process, but evolution is incapable of explaining everything about what life is, or how it started from nothing. It can theorize like anything else, but proof to that bugger of a question has been nagging mankind since the beginning, and every discovery since has only led to more questions that science is not capable of answering.

For example, if you were to find, disassemble and go over the details of the parts that make up a high-end Mercedes, their individual purpose in creating a more complex object could be derived and made sense of. If, however, someone were to say that the car was randomly created or the result of chance, that person would be considered ridiculous. On the same level, a single-celled organism is not just a black-boxed mystery made of "globs of stuff". It's complexity would easily surpass a lot of the machines we use from day to day, and none of those machines are even capable of antonymous movement, self-sustaining consumption or reproduction. While a car is much different from a cell because a car is most certainly not alive, I draw my comparison based on the fact that a single celled organism AND that car did not exist at one point. Yes, they are both complex. Yes, the cell is more complex and can autonomously do things the car cannot because it is living. My question, how the hell did something like a cell come from non-living things and somehow become more than the sum of its parts? If I ever found the car as it exists now naturally (assuming I lived in a world where cars didn't exist), no one in their right mind would ever assume that it was a result of Natural Law.

Some people have expressed frustration and downright anger at me in the past for using the words "random" or "chance" when discussing such matters. Their reason was because the more I would deem any result of incremental steps leading to an evolutionary divergence as a random event (even random mutation), the more it would make the person I was discussing this with more and more uncomfortable because truly random events are not a plausible scientific building blocks for discussing an orderly and repeatable scientific process. To those people I would suggest this: Don't get hung up on the use of the words chance or random. Just do what scientists have done elsewhere by expressing them in more colorful euphemisms - such as saying 'mutation', 'alteration', 'modification', 'permutation' or 'variation'. Or my favorite...'Luck'. Yes, if I drop something gravity pulls it. If I break an egg I cannot pick it up and have it whole again. Those are observable laws. My question, how did those perfectly balanced and precise laws come from nothing?

The Big Bang theory believes that before the the universe existed, the sum of all matter was contained in a single, focused singularity that suddenly exploded. Prior to the universe existing...what we know as matter and energy were far different than they are perceived as now. All of the natural laws of nature that we know of and attempt to comprehend...from the physical to mathematical - simply did not exist. What also did not exist was life.

Some theories claim that life is an inevitable part of the existence of the universe, but when you delve into how complex the structure of DNA is, how synchronized and perfectly placed those pieces of the puzzle are, it is not an unreasonable thing to question how something that can arise from chaotic chance. I am a software engineer, and I can assure you of several things: First, a blank slate (such as a finite -state machine such as a computer or a pre-life universe) has no order or innate intelligence behind it. Second, any and all parts within would have to bend to the will of constraints imposed by the limitations of it's creation, meaning that both a computer and the universe can not do anything beyond either the will of it's user or the limits imposed on the nature of it's design.

Any software engineer knows right up front that when it comes to creating orderly, sustainable, reusable and practical source code - there are NO free features. Anything that encompasses what a program can do, how it interacts with information or when, where and why it executes any instruction is completely beholden to the logical constraints placed on it by the developer. Hence, a program can never make a mistake; it is doing exactly what it was designed to do (intentionally or unintentionally).

Consider the following: No matter how good the developer is, he is going to make mistakes. Any mistake, no matter how trivial - can hamper or completely ruin the viability of a program. He is going to have to go back and fix them.

Now imagine telling a developer that they had to create a program with the same amount of complexity of the most simplest of DNA structures for the most simple of lifeforms...with all of the future adaptobility of that program being planned ahead of time in it's design...except they had to get it right the first time and they only got one shot to get it perfect from the beginning. Also imagine that if the developer made a mistake, he didn't get a chance to start against from scratch - the task would go to a totally different person, and those same rules were passed on infinitum.

The odds of one person creating something so massively complex and antonymous without a single error or miscalculation would be mathematically impossible, but we are all expected to believe that life started out in such a manner when DNA spontaneously created itself from random poteins and amino acids combining to form the first DNA helix.

Human beings are intelligent, crafty and practical. Our sense of discovery, determination and imagination have surpassed anything that has ever existed on this planet. Despite everything we have going for us, we cannot (even with the use of all scientific knowledge and machines to assist us) create biological life from nothing, even the most simple of lifeforms. It's not that we're stupid or don't have good ideas. We can create things that mimic life, but unlike true life forms - anything we attempt to mimic is confined and constrained by the parameters of how we interpret life or define what life is. Random creation, if we are going to use that as our model - has no such limitations.

These are the things that have made me convinced that there is a God.

If I were to demand here and now under the penalty of death to every scientist in the world that they give me proof that life existed outside of our planet, every scientist would be dead, because no such proof exists. Yet, I believe it exists anyway. My reason is because since life exists on our planet, it would have a wonderful opportunity to exist elsewhere. On that note, look at the people who participate in purely scientific endeavors like the S.E.T.I. project. These poor souls have absolutely nothing going in their favor. They search, look and listen intently for any sign of life outside our planet despite the overwhelming odds that make the likelihood of any such discovery a fool's hope. They are treated as abused mascots by the scientific community because all of their work has not produced anything tangible. Their work is constantly under-funded and under-appreciated. They are also overworked and underpaid. In an ultimate example of irony - everything they do is based on the exact same principle that is the hallmark of all religious beliefs: Faith.

The belief in a Creator has been with mankind for as long as recorded history, and despite thousands and thousands of years of agonizingly slow technological advancement or the inability to record and save information for future generations (outside of word of mouth), our ancestors ascended with and passed on a belief in something greater than ourselves, looking at the world with the awe that comes from an inborn desire to seek out and understand our place in it. That is how I perceive the consciousness of the human soul, and I cannot deduce that something so beautiful can be a part of something unplanned.

All talk and no action.

In the past few weeks, former Vice President Dick Cheney has been making the rounds conducting some interviews. Much to the shock and rage of liberals everywhere, Cheney is not hiding or backing down from his beliefs - but rather he is articulating a no-holds-barred defense of his and President Bush's record regarding the Iraq War and economic issues. He has even had the audacity to cite how the current actions and inactions of the TOTUS are endangering Americans. This renewed set of appearances and defense has prompted liberals to once again scream for the prosecution of the former VP and President on "War Crimes".

Since the war started six years ago, we have heard this call for executive prosecution countless times. Not just from individuals on the blogosphere, mind you - we've also heard it from liberal members of the House and Senate. Yet, despite having the majority since 2006 - neither the Senate or House made a single move to hold President Bush accountable for any crime whatsoever. In fact, one of Nanzi Pelozi's first actions as Speaker of the House was to proclaim that impeachment was off the table. Likewise, President Obama - after promising his minions a reversal of the Patriot Act and executive powers used by President Bush during his terms - has refused to reverse or give up any of executive powers he inherited, and now has even defended keeping previously enacted executive powers because they offer him flexibility.

This has always left people with a boggled mind asking themselves: Why didn't (or why won't) democrats go after President Bush and VP Cheney for any of the alleged "crimes" for which they are supposedly guilty of?

"Why" they do not do anything about charging President Bush or VP Cheney for anything is simple:

After the democrats lost the House and Senate in 1994, their prospects for getting either branch back looked bleak for many years. When democrats signed off on the Iraq war, they purposefully made the calculated decision to leverage any bad news about the war to their political advantage. That negativity is what re-energized their base. They will never admit it, but had the Iraq war never happened and none of the negative aspects that it lent to Bush's presidency never occurred, Republicans would probably still be running both the House and Senate and President Bush's popularity numbers would never have been pulverized by the negativity foisted on him because of the war. Outside of criticizing the Iraq war, democrats had very little to go on.

Politically, Americans have always had short attention spans, and there are a lot of people who run around acting as if none of the counter-intelligence information that President Clinton or his liberal cohorts in the House and Senate had cited during the 90's about Iraq ever occurred. Democrats have persuaded a large portion of their uninformed followers that any covert information cited by President Bush was conjured up out of thin air and had never been presented or cited prior to his administration doing so. They have even tried to assert that information was cherry picked for it's effectiveness, regardless of the number of sources providing it. None of that is true. Given that the lefts' most gifted moonbats have run around for years making outrageous claims that the President orchestrated and arranged for the plane crashes and "demolition" of the World Trade Center, it lends a lot to their credit for purposefully whipping their base into a mindless frenzy based on false impressions they have purposefully created through the assistance of an enabling media.

If democrats were to actually act on any of their accusations towards President Bush, it would also mean that their (the democrats) full record of knowledge, support, culpability and all historical references regarding all aspects of the Iraq war would immediately be called front and center into the American political stage when the former administration would make their case. The absolute last thing the democrats want to do is give President Bush any opportunity or excuse to speak out and shove the official record back up their liberal asses. President Bush being *accused* of being a "war criminal" is far more useful for them than their having to actually make a true case that they know would fail and cause them to lose face.

Given that President Obama has already sold out his most ardent anti-war supporters by expanding the war in Afghanistan and refusal to relinquish powers he previously hailed as being unconstitutional, one wonders...how long it will be before any of his star-struck followers blinks and wake up to the reality that they were sold a bill of goods?

***UPDATE***

Here is another person who examines the same issue...