Christian Conservative Corner

The Spineless Moderate

2011-05-09T16:27:00.000-07:00

With the United States declining in every way, thanks to Barack Obama, moderates are really beginning to get on my nerves, especially ones appearing on Fox News with the initials B.O.

If people are for freedom, for example, they should be for freedom.

If a restaurateur opens an eatery in New York and is legally forbade from serving trans-fat, that's "a good thing," according to many moderates, despite the fact that such law hinders freedom for consumers and proprietors. I believe people should be free to eat wherever and whatever they want. In this fit-conscious society, other restaurants could make a killing serving healthy foods while proudly displaying the trans-fat content of each menu item. Adults would be free to choose for themselves.

The next time a moderate enters the bread aisle of his local supermarket to pick up a loaf of the fluffy white stuff and finds a uniformed government official adding bricks of wholegrain bread to every basket, I wonder if said moderate will change his tune. "No thanks; think I'll stick with the white," the middle-of-the-road shopper might say.

"I don't think you understand," the government official will respond. "A new law states you no longer have the option of white, but please don't sell this wholegrain loaf short. Michelle Obama loves it. Seriously, stand between the First Lady and this healthy loaf of bread and you'll lose some teeth... and perhaps get audited by the IRS."

Were the above scenario to come to fruition, moderates would cry out, "The government has gone too far!"

Such a cry is hypocritical because it's another way of saying, "limiting freedom is okay in certain situations but not in others, and I'm the person to decide what's too far and what's just right." Such a stance is harmful to the country because Barack Obama is now the person deciding what's too far and what's just right. And his 'just right' is left of most Americans.

Freedom is freedom. Government protecting us from ourselves is government protecting us from ourselves. You can be for one, but you cannot be for both.

A, "let's limit certain freedoms to save people from harming their bodies," attitude is not having principles and sticking to them; it's lacking the guts necessary to take a firm stand.

Perhaps this entire article is pointless, because moderates have never been accused of having guts.

The Modern Day Liberal: Evil, Weak, Talentless and Submissive

2011-05-01T08:00:00.000-07:00

Evil: There are few actions worse than baselessly labeling someone a racist. Liberals accuse all Obama critics of horrific bigotry. They somehow blame racism on Obama's stubborn unwillingness to release a copy of his birth certificate until he'd been in office over two years. No criticism of Obama policies are rooted in racism, yet liberals claim every word of opposition is based on KKK talking points. Liberals pretend, "It makes me sad our children will be riddled with so much debt," is code for, "I do declare, we've got to get that black man out of the White House. In a civilized nation, it is only proper for people of color to domestically serve those of us blessed with pale skin."

Talentless: Liberal "comedians" such as Bill Maher and Jon Stewart have made millions of dollars saying unfunny things like, "conservatives make Forrest Gump look like Albert Einstein," to thunderous laughter and massive applause. The key to a successful stand-up comedy career is not quality of joke, rather the amount of liberal propaganda you can squeeze into an hour set. Against articulate conservatives, liberals lose every debate. Therefore, instead of being challenged, most leftists would rather watch a comedian stand before them and spew familiar ignorance.

Weak: Wimpy adults such as Super Size Me director Morgan Spurlock aren't man enough to live in a world in which they're able to think and make decisions for themselves. Instead of walking by a McDonalds and deciding against entering, they drop to the concrete and weep because "to open the door, or not to open the door," is a dilemma left up to them. "No, it's too hard," they cry. "Removing the Golden Arches forever is the only way my kind can remain physically fit! Don't allow responsible people the choice to enter sporadically, prevent us all from ever stepping foot inside! Better yet, make McDonalds serve only healthy food no one wants to eat so my desire to enter will go away and I can therefore tell myself I am full of willpower."

Submissive: Most liberals aren't happy with President Barack Obama, yet refuse to remove every aspect of their lives from his hands. If Mr. Obama tells his supporters he's transporting them to a secluded compound where they will eventually be castrated, and then forced to drink tainted grape Flavor-Aid until they keel over, these Democrats and moderate Republicans will perhaps complain a smidge, maybe while in line awaiting the order to drop their pants, but would eventually allow their knife-wielding-betters to alter their nether-region. "I don't think drinking this poison will lead to us shedding our vessels before boarding a luxury spaceship headed to a liberal utopia, but it's better than anything the Republicans are proposing. You should hear the GOP criticize Obama's gonad-removing-then-travelling-to-an-all-socialist-planet plan. What a bunch of racists."

Gimme an "F", Gimme an "A", Gimme a "V"...

2011-04-19T07:34:00.000-07:00

Most people have an inherent desire to see the underdog cut down the nets at the conclusion of the NCAA Basketball Tournament, hoist the Super Bowl trophy in early February, or chug a bottle of milk on the Brickyard during Memorial Day weekend.

Regardless of favorite team, we get excited thinking about an undersized football player with unequaled work ethic leveling the gigantic all-American from Football U.

Our desire to see the tortoise cross the finish line first is so overwhelming we begin backing those undeserving of support. Simply because the ne'er-do-well has underdog status, we often root for a person who possesses equal or greater ability, yet chooses not to exert 100% over go-getters who don't know the meaning of the word "quit."

By depicting real and fictional corporate heads as evil, both the media and entertainment industry give their customers the impression a passion for hard work is loathsome.

It's one thing for a tingle to shoot up your leg as you cheer on a suddenly inspired brilliant Keanu Reeves type slacker character as he brings down the CEO of a perennially poisoning pesticide company, but America is in real trouble because ignorant people continue casting votes based on the notion that all hard-working CEOs would happily drive to their extravagant homes through streets riddled with dead children if the diminutive corpses equaled a couple extra zeros on the mogul's paycheck.

If neither are evil, on what basis does morality win if a person, who's spent the majority of his or her life resting their buttocks on an uber-comfy couch cushion, brings down an individual who's spent nearly every waking hour behind a desk providing quality goods and services to consumers, employing the jobless, and inspiring other to reach their full potential?

None.

The feeling you get while watching David attempt to slew Goliath on the basketball court doesn't translate to real life. David scoring more points than Goliath has no impact on society; voting for a tax and spend liberal who promises to "destroy the evil insurance CEO who lives lavishly based on his uncanny ability to write fine print so deceptive and cruel his company doesn't have to pay for individuals they've promised to cover," has a devastating impact on society because it creates a country full of citizens who expect Uncle Sam to replace their parents once they reach adulthood in the literal sense.

Americans who voted for Obama in 2008 must learn the underdog is not always good and the favorite is not always bad. In the real world, it's usually the exact opposite. Favorites have typically sacrificed much mindless recreation to create and sell items that make your life easier and more enjoyable.

Who would you hire to protect your family in the event of a local crime wave: a security company who works around the clock to provide their consumers with constant peace of mind, or a ragtag group of misfits who enjoy sleeping in, smoking dope and playing video games?

For the sake of your family I won't root for the underdog. Hopefully you'll return the favor come November 2012.

Would an America-Loving Obama Seek a Second Term?

2011-04-04T07:59:00.000-07:00

It's clear to most of us on the right that President Barack Obama despises the country in which he was allegedly born.

Unlike the majority of his predecessors, the first words out of his mouth after crossing the threshold to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue were likely, "I can barely stand the sight of this lavishly disgusting house of repression!"

The evidence is overwhelming.

"America remains the primary reason injustice and suffering still exist in the world," is the summary of all the speeches President Obama reads from his famous teleprompter.

Mr. Obama seeks a second term.

What more evidence does the "Obama loves America" crowd need!?

Is anybody better off than they were two years ago? Can anybody imagine how bad things will be after two additional years with Obama at the reigns?

Many Americans wanted to see what the inexperienced senator originating from Hawaii, Kenya or Indonesia could accomplish from the Oval Office. They've discovered he can increase the debt. They've discovered he can call a brave police officer "stupid" despite admittedly not knowing what deplorable actions said officer took to deserve the insult. They've discovered he can make countries in need of military assistance scream, "The French will protect us!"

Were Mr. Obama genuinely attempting to help this nation prosper, he would not seek a second term. A true America-lover would be emotionally distraught over the plight of the unemployed. Yet Mr. Obama thinks, "Americans are suffering, but in order to fulfill my double-secret campaign promise of tearing this country down to size, my minions must suffer more."

Were he honest, his 2012 campaign theme would be, "Americans currently feel sorry for Greece; four more years with me at the helm and the Greeks will feel sorry for us!"

Not even his wife is successful. Despite her intrusive "Let's Move" campaign, no one has burst through the door of the dwelling inside which I stand and said, "I had so much elbow room during my afternoon stroll. I know the stimulus package didn't increase the width of American sidewalks, so the additional space must mean everyone is gettin' skinny!"

My local Lane Bryant retailer remains fully operational.

Outside every McDonalds I pass, I see cars waiting to be filled with the wonderful stench of grease that reminds us of carefree childhood summers.

Yet Mr. and Mrs. Obama want one more term...

During your annual review, imagine saying to your boss, "I am aware of the fact that sales have dropped 50% since I became manager of the division, but please disregard those results. 'What will I do differently if my contract is renewed?' Why I will not change my tactics one bit. After all, despite the fact I've single-handedly decimated your operation, after you layoff hundreds of loyal workers, sell off everything you own and put a permanent 'closed' sign out front, your former neighbors will say, 'in its final days, there a noble company stood.'"

Mr. Obama was also going to end racism. But according to African-American Hall of Fame quarterback Warren Moon, any criticism of African-American quarterback Cam Newton is racially based.

If you've spoken against the evils of liberalism your entire life, criticism of Barack Obama is only offered because you despise persons of color.

The bottom line is that every endeavor originating from the Oval Office has failed miserably and we the people are paying the price while the Obama's live it up. In his mind, he and members of his immediately family should stylishly travel the world on our dime because forcing us to suffer is a noble act deserving of great reward.

Citizen to Obama: Sir, since you took office I have lost my job, my home, as well as the ability to feed my family. What I used to consider the basics, I now consider luxuries. Such extreme squalor has not been experienced in America since the Great Depression.

Obama to citizen: You're welcome.

NFL Players vs. Slaves: A Real Photo Finish

2011-03-25T08:42:00.000-07:00

Because at least two current NFL players have compared themselves to slaves, I decided it would be a good idea to give everyone a brief history lesson to make certain the differences between slaves and football players are clear.

Knowing how cruel slavery was, such a comparison irks me. I don't agree that, I, a non African-American, should keep my mouth shut regarding such matters. Slaves were people and I am a person. I refuse to sit by while fellow non-slaves compare themselves to slaves, regardless of skin color.

Slaves were owned by other people. Football players are free.

Young NFL players are not allowed to play for any team they wish but can remain members of their immediate and extended families. Slave families were often broken apart because their owners chose to split them up before shoving them under a "for sale" sign.

Comparing yourself to a slave because you aren't allowed to play for any team you wish is completely and totally repulsive. If football players are slaves, basically every employee in the world is a slave. If a worker in an automobile plant in Nashville tells his superior he'd like to transfer to a plant in West Virginia and the superior responds, "we need you here," can the employee declare his existence is on par with men and women who were repeatedly beaten for subpar labor habits?

When NFL players are upset with the league brass, they sit in their mansions and tweet about it. When some slaves were at the breaking point, often because their families were torn apart, they retaliated by killing their owners.

With the help of a coaching staff, NFL players learn massive playbooks backwards and forwards. In some states, teaching slaves how to read or write was a punishable offense.

Why don't I try to find a few similarities between slaves and NFL players...

They both work outdoors... Actually, NFL players sometimes play in domes and study film under roofs.

Oh well, I tried.

I challenge you, NFL player who compares your plight to the plight of a slave, to read Africans in America: America's Journey through Slavery. After completion, if you still think you're treated equally, I would warn your friends and acquaintances to stand back, because you're a heartless buffoon.

America the Fat Farm

2011-03-19T09:07:00.000-07:00

I was recently watching Heavy on A&E. For those of you unfamiliar, it's a reality program about people desperate to shed pounds. In order to lose the weight, these dangerously obese individuals are taken to an exotic beachfront location for six months where a waifish staff tells them what to eat, when to eat, which exercises to perform and for how long. Every day is dictated by people who know better.

To liberals, this fancy fat farm is a mini-version of the ideal America.

It's impossible to retain a job while residing at the fat farm, therefore Heavy producers pay for the entire adventure. In other words, everything is taken care of and attendees have no real responsibilities other than to follow orders.

I will now detail how officials of the U.S. Government are like executives at a fat farm. Thankfully Americans are not yet required to abide by every word written on a .gov website, but our options will soon go from vast to two: comply or be punished.

Fat farm: The powers-that-be instruct every resident when to rise-and-shine.

America: The CDC.gov website says adults need 7-9 hours of sleep. Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" website says, "Most children under age five need to sleep for 11 hours or more per day, children age five to 10 need 10 hours of sleep or more per day, and children over age 10 need at least nine hours per day."

Fat farm: attendees are told what to eat for breakfast, lunch and dinner.

America: The CDC.gov website says adult males need 56 grams of protein per day and conveniently point out that 3 1/2 cups of dry beans will do the trick; so eat up America. The Dietary Guidelines for Americans, which can be downloaded from the website run by the Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion, is a whopping 112 pages long!

Fat Farm: An experienced trainer is provided to all residents. This fitness guru sets their daily exercise routine and corrects any movements made in error.

America: Michelle Obama's "Let's Move" website says sitting still during commercial breaks should be forbidden in every household, and a walk around the block after each meal should be mandatory.

The bottom line is that you can literally find advice on how to complete every daily action "the government way," on a website run by President Obama and his cronies. We've already discussed how much sleep you need, which covers waking up. The CDC website has a large section on proper oral care for your morning trip to the bathroom. I'm not going to research whether or not the government offers tips on how to perform other bathroom activities for fear Mrs. Obama has taken the lead. Her mountains of unsolicited advice already make her face difficult to stomach. I'm sure the aforementioned 112-page Dietary Guidelines for Americans will help you select a suitable breakfast. The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and Environmental Protection Agency will instruct you how to safely drive to work while limiting your contribution to climate change. The EPA, for example, suggests you, "Unload unnecessary items in your trunk to reduce weight. If you have a removable roof rack and you are not using it, take it off to improve your fuel economy by as much as 5 percent." Please keep in mind however that the EPA also suggests you completely ditch your car in favor of public transportation or a bicycle. Should you choose the public transportation route, the Department of Transportation can suggest the best bus or train in your area. President and Mrs. Obama both insist working for the government is a "higher calling," so that covers the middle-third of your day. In order to comply with the CDC and Michelle Obama, a trip to the gym should follow work. As with breakfast, reading material provided by the government will help you select a suitable dinner. After all, if combined into one book, the length of governmental writings on nutritional standards make Atlas Shrugged look like a leaflet on famous Jewish sports legends. For your brief post dinner enjoyment, the U.S. Congress makes sure every television program you view with your family has been rated based on content and Mrs. Obama's "Let's Move" website says gazing at the idiot box should be limited, i.e., you and your ankle-biters should watch five-minutes of Hannah Montana and like it. After putting the plate, off which your clan ate celery in accordance with regulations set by the CDC, The Center for Nutritional Policy and Promotion, in the dishwasher, you hit the sack, eager to get up and start a brand new day of borrowing Mrs. Obama's brain.

"Life is just like everybody else's," is the new, "Life is good."

For those of you who would present it; the argument, "Government websites provide useful information only for those who choose to use it," would only contain merit if leftists refrained from constantly attempting to make mandatory what the government now simply suggests.

If you care to make the dreams of the liberal come true by having the government plan your every hour, I'm sure the overpaid bureaucrats at the Division of Nutrition, Physical Activity and Obesity in concert with the CDC, in concert with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, in concert with the DOT, in concert with the White House, et al. would be happy to send you a daily itinerary.

Gotta go: it's almost midnight and I must be awake at 7:00 a.m. I want to get accustomed to a routine so my system isn't shocked once Emperor Obama begins automatically shutting off lights at a certain hour in hopes both citizens of the United States and Mother Earth have brighter futures.

Admit You Submit

2011-02-25T20:27:00.000-08:00

Matthew Perry recently slammed moderate TV personality Bill O'Reilly for failing to be humble in the presence of President Barack Obama.

I'm actually glad the former Friends star said this, because at least he's mature enough to admit he's a submissive man. Were Mr. Perry to enter a room in which President Obama stood, I'm quite certain the actor would immediately bow down to the Commander in Chief just as Mr. Obama bows to dictators whose power he craves.

Why can't all you liberals admit you submit?

When Mrs. Obama tells you what to eat, admit you put down your fork and abide. "Those fries are too fatty!" she insists. Admit you respond, "You're right First Lady, my waistline cannot afford another French fried potato drenched in salt. Please tell me what I can consume or else I'll starve to death screaming, 'Why won't she tell me what to put in my mouth!'."

Admit you hate making decisions that impact your own life.

Admit you're so ignorant regarding money matters that you deem anyone suggesting you personally handle the investing of your salary "evil".

We conservatives understand there will be differences of opinion, but we strenuously object to liberals fibbing for the express purpose of convincing the ignorant masses that they're not trying to control the entire population.

You often hear President Obama and Vice President Biden claim to be proponents of freedom, yet, for the first time in her history, citizens of the United States will soon be forced to purchase a product.

They can't have it both ways.

If everyone in America was a conservative, would ObamaCare be required, or would the country be full of individuals with either insurance or the financial means to pay for their treatment in full?

The Republican National Convention is wall-to-wall folks with ability to fend for themselves. The Democrat National Convention is full of whiners who cry out, "Pass legislation that allows me to scratch health care from my list of complicated issues with which I must concern myself. Though I am able bodied, please make it possible for me live the life of a helpless invalid. Seriously, how about a bill that mandates the mailman actually place Netflix rental's in my DVD player."

Why can't you liberals just admit you want to be average in every way? You want to spend a maximum of eight hours per weekday at work, then go home and watch mindless television until it's beddy-bye time. This is all you want out of life and freedom makes it impossible for you to proceed through such a vapid existence without worry. With liberty, you still have to pay for retirement and your own healthcare. "Take away everyone's freedom to prosper so I have comfort in knowing my laziness will never land me in the poor house."

If that means you're told what to eat and how many jumping jacks to perform nightly, you'll happily defile your face with the official White House wheat germ after working out with intensity typically displayed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright after he's dreamed up yet another way America has kept him down.

Just admit it, that's all I ask. Admit your ballot was cast for Barack Obama on November 4, 2008 so you could turn off your brain come January 20, 2009. You voted for him so future visits to the doctor wouldn't include the removing of your insurance card, driver's license and co-pay from your wallet and then presenting these items to the nurse/receptionist. You voted for Mr. Obama so you could walk into the office of any doctor and say, "ObamaCare".

Admit you attempt to shame people into believing this big bad world is too complex for conservatism. "Championing freedom and limited government isn't sufficient; we need complex solutions to complex problems," you say, hoping to force individuals to cheerfully give up their freedom for fear they'll otherwise be labeled stupid.

You liberals probably think your attempts at helping the masses are heroic, but how often do Herculean motion picture protagonists shout, "I will put down my weapons and wait for an elected official to get me out of this seemingly unsolvable circumstance!"

Collective Bargaining is a Four Letter Word

2011-02-21T11:11:00.000-08:00

A lot of Wisconsin teachers are protesting against their governor because he wishes to take away the right of their union to collectively bargain.

An end to collective bargaining doesn't mean the state can pull people off the street and say, "You will teach the first grade for $10,000 a year or face up to thirty-years in a gulag."

No more collective bargaining means a potential educator will walk in, receive an offer for his or her services, and then decide if they will accept said offer or find employment at a private institution. It's how most of us negotiate our salary and benefits. Despite right-to-work states like Florida and Texas prospering through these difficult financial times, this is yet another way Democrats claim to "save" the ignorant masses. They're saying, "If we leave you alone to work out a deal for yourself, you'll end up with a $50 gift card from Wal-Mart as a health plan."

Teacher unions have stooped to comparing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to Hitler. I remember Adolf Hitler slaughtering millions of Jewish people, not telling them they must negotiate their contracts individually, which Jewish people would have almost assuredly preferred. In other words, had they the option of being shipped to Auschwitz or negotiating their employment contracts individually, the latter would have been selected by the same margin Saddam Hussein won presidential elections.

The left-wing media has of course failed to mention the fact that Wisconsin teachers make great money. You'd do a spit take if informed how much they annually earn including salary and benefits. If their pay was pittance, 60 Minutes would profile three kindergarten teachers who are so poor they're forced to live together in a one-bedroom apartment with no indoor plumbing. The trio exists exclusively on noodles and dry cereal. Though Wisconsin winters are harsh, only one jacket between them do they have with which to keep warm.

Wisconsin teachers are like a child who demands their $75,000-a-year parents set his or her allowance at $80,000 annually. When the child is told there is literally not enough money, and including the house, car and utility payments, the child must sacrifice a small percentage of their weekly income, the youngster throws a conniption fit. This is understandable because you can't always reason with people whose brains haven't fully developed. It's a shame fiscally responsible politicians are unable to reason with adults charged with teaching the youth of America.

Why are American children testing so low in comparison to the rest of the world? Is it because they lazily play video games 24/7, or is it because their teachers aren't able to grasp the simple concept that employers can't dish out more money than they take in? No wonder we have a generation believing they're owed the moon and the stars; their teachers tell them, "The owners of the company that eventually employs you will undoubtedly posses a bottomless piggy-bank. If they don't pay you at least six figures, it's strictly because the CEO needs the funds to greedily attach an additional game room to his fifth vacation home."

Why Do Liberals Want One Bad Guy Ruling Each Nation, yet Oppose One Great Nation Ruling the World?

2011-02-15T19:11:00.001-08:00

Liberals are big admirers of Mao. Oliver Stone receives as much fan mail from aspiring directors as he sends to the palace of Fidel Castro. Sean Penn acts like a kid on Christmas Eve as he waits for his flight to Venezuela to take off. The actor has called for the imprisonment of American journalists who refer to Hugo Chavez as a dictator.

It doesn't matter how many citizens these monsters murder, liberals have no shortage of admiration for brutal thugs who rule with fists of iron.

While working for President Obama, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn named Mao Zedong one of her favorite political philosophers.

Liberals love single immoral leaders, yet are adamant American lawmakers have little ability to protect the very citizens that voted them into office. "We must militarily even the playing field," they say.

Rulers with no qualms about murdering thousands of their innocent subjects are elevated by today's liberals. These left-wing "defenders of the common man" insist America, the most prosperous, noble and generous nation in the history of civilization should chunk our protective weapons in the ocean so we don't have an unfair advantage over countries whose constitutions may as well include the words, "Kill all the Christians and Jews."

According to liberals, many U.S. leaders are to blame for the massive casualties suffered by the U.S. on 9/11 because our policies led to the justified outrage of the Muslim terrorists.

Yet evil dictators who literally order the murder of their own subjects are never referred to as "killers" by the left.

To liberals, demanding your troops brutally execute political adversaries does not make a murderer, yet instructing your troops to protect citizens around the world is equivalent to slaughtering innocent men, women and children.

Liberals often speak about a socialist utopia, but only if every country in the world begins living in accordance with the U.S. Constitution can a worldly utopia exist. Instead, the United States is abandoning the aforementioned sacred document and we're living in a world where protecting the innocent is labeled murder and brutal murder is deemed necessary to further social justice.

Al Gore Could Actually Do Good

2011-02-13T15:43:00.000-08:00

Perhaps there was a time I felt pity for people who bought into the whole man-made global warming hoax. Warnings the earth was near destruction spewed from the mouth of every member of the traditional media.

But I no longer feel a tinge of sympathy for people afraid their actions are causing the end of the world. There is simply too much information available if you're worried the earth is doomed and you are partially responsible. We now have proof that scientists, who for years insisted man is causing global warming, manipulated data and suppressed dissent. It's gotten so bad for Al Gore and his ilk that they now say with a straight face, "Whatever is falling from the sky outside your window, whatever the current temperature, whatever the five-day forecast; it's all due to man-made global warming."

Now that it's clear Al Gore is a complete fraud, I wonder why liberals don't admonish the former Vice President for failing to use his celebrity to help people they typically champion.

Conning average Americans out of their money to fill his overflowing pockets equals food out of the mouths of hungry children. Think of the good Mr. Gore could have accomplished if he'd spent the last 10-plus years raising money for the underprivileged instead of misleading folks into believing they need to purchase certain products or else the earth will explode.

He's similar to individuals who spend their life scamming and spamming. They run sophisticated operations, yet choose not to use their inherent intelligent to run legitimate businesses. IQ wise, Al Gore is a smart guy. Were he a noble man, he would use his fame to help the downtrodden instead of profiting from middle class American men and women whose trust he gained as a politician.

I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, and he's undoubtedly made a fortune since leaving office, but at least he teamed up with George H.W. Bush to raise money for charity.

Is Mr. Gore's chicanery a result of bitterness over not being elected President? Did he say, "Since I won't reside in the White House for at least four years, I'm going to take everyone's money on false pretenses and use it to buy a plethora of bigger homes! To prove how pathetic the American people are, I'm going to exclusively travel on private aircraft and use a thousand times more energy annually to power my dwellings than the average resident uses in his or her lifetime! To put it in a way even the dolts I rip off could easily understand: I'm going to convince everyone to turn off 80% of their lights while I increase the number I switch on tenfold."?

I don't know how many crimes Mr. Gore has committed, but I seriously doubt he would face prosecution if he came clean, especially if he spent much of the money he's nefariously obtained on meals to occupy plates that would otherwise remain empty.

Live Like You Work Hard

2011-02-07T20:14:00.000-08:00

A vote for a Democrat is a vote for you. You're telling the four-year-old eating a delicious ice cream cone, "Screw your chocolate covered face. I'm leaving you a mountain of debt because I want all I can get while I can get it. I don't care about your future financial well being and I certainly don't care if America is taken over by China, causing you to spend your entire adult life earning four cents per day assembling smart phones for elites. My only goal is making sure enough Democrats remain in power to provide me all the handouts I need to live like I work hard."

A few years ago I could see a politically ignorant individual voting Democrat because he or she truly believed every politician with a D beside their name was truly looking out for the downtrodden.

Today, however, a vote for any Democrat is clearly just another way of saying, "Don't take away my entitlements; take away any hope those soccer playing first graders have of living comfortably. They should only be allowed to eat after I spend my life gorging on government provided sustenance."

Despite the fact that America is at the breaking point; that today's child will begin adulthood well behind the starting line, Democrats, and those supporting them, still won't man up. They refuse to say, "We're adults and our refusal to act our age is ruining the future for children across this once great country. It's one thing to claim that reaching into the pocket of a rich man is noble, but even we can't spin the inherent evilness behind stealing from children. We're one step away from literally taking candy from a baby."

If a family of five for years has consumed fifteen pieces of chicken per meal, three pieces per member, and then one day find they're unable to afford a single piece more than ten, would it be socially just for the parents to increase their chicken consumption while reducing the poultry intake of their own children? "Times are tough; therefore the chicken ratio must change. Your mother and I will now eat four pieces each and you lads can split the remaining two," is it okay for the patriarch to say?

Evil conservatives are of the mindset that adults should make sacrifices that benefit the youth of America.

Liberals, on the other hand, demand endless gut expansion regardless of the tiny empty bellies their gluttony leaves behind.

No Boundaries is the New Talent

2011-02-05T07:01:00.001-08:00

Normally I don't pay attention to Hollywood trash, but, because I write a column, have decided to call out a couple celebrities who've made a name for themselves by, "telling it like it is."

Kathy Griffin and Chelsea Handler are famous for their ability to say what everyone else won't. These two "women" do this because they weren't properly raised.

Children can now legitimately respond to, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," with "Okay, but I'll never make millions of dollars in the entertainment industry."

Calling Sarah Palin's children degrading names normally reserved for grown streetwalkers is somehow considered talent in 2011.

I've actually heard seemingly reasonable people say, "That Chelsea Handler has no inhibitions, a quality I greatly admire."

Such a statement begs the question, "What happened to the days in which people with an uncanny ability to generate laughter based on wit and originality were popular figures, while people who regularly spewed jaw-dropping vulgarity were shunned by decent Americans?"

I miss those days; not because I'm a traditional man, but because I enjoy turning on the television and laughing at clever material.

Perhaps I, as a conservative, am too critical of filth. Perhaps, if people like me shrug our shoulders when vulgarity is uttered then those impossible to offend will realize their "ooooooooo's," "ahhhhhhhh's" and uncomfortable laughs aren't reactions to talented performers working their magic, rather reactions to dime-a-dozen hacks uttering words common decency prevents others from letting flow from their lips.

It's similar to a girl bringing home a complete jerk to meet mommy and daddy. As long as the authority figures have a huge problem with the bad-boy beau, the girl finds the relationship exhilarating and wild, but, once the parents apathetically say, "Do what you want," the daughter realizes her romantic interest lacks even a single worthy quality.

Therefore, on behalf of all traditional Americans, I say to those who equate uninhibited vulgarity with brilliant showmanship: "Do what you want."

The Party of "We Will Not Let You Molest This Land"

2011-02-01T21:50:00.001-08:00

If there are more Republicans than Democrats in the House beginning in January 2013... if a member of the GOP resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue... if that same party controls the Senate, will Nancy Pelosi vote with her adversaries in the Grand Old Party because the American people will have clearly spoken, or will she vote "no" on everything they propose? Will Harry Reid tell his constituents, "In accordance with the desire of my fellow citizens, I will vote for massive tax cuts for the likes of Rush Limbaugh."?

If Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi vote against Republican proposals, will the media claim they lead the "Party of No" or will a euphemism be created to make uncooperative Democrats appear noble in the fight against oppressive authority? "The Party of Helping the Downtrodden Survive a Hitler-esque regime" and, "The Party of We Will Not Let You Molest This Land," both come to mind.

Throughout the first two years of the Obama Presidency we constantly heard liberals say, "How can they expect America to prosper if Republicans vote no on every single poor person-helping, job-creating, earth-saving bill we propose?"

Translated, that of course means, "I'm exploiting the Republicans bad habit of voting in accordance with values they hold dear for the express purpose of making Joe Six-pack think they're Gordon Gekko types who have contempt for any American earning an income of less than seven figures."

If the media is non-partisan they will admonish any Democrat who doesn't vote with the Republican majority just as they've been scolding the GOP.

If former Speaker Pelosi is a fair-minded lady, she will put her own view of right and wrong aside and vote with her political adversaries without fail. After all, she slammed Republicans for their failure to accept her agenda as their own.

However, I have a strong feeling that, if the GOP controls Washington beginning in January of 2013, every criticism of Republicans from January 2009 to January 2011 will not apply to the Democrat minority.

It will be interesting to see everything change 180 degrees.

Voting against the majority will go from treasonous to noble.

Criticism of the 2013 Republican president will come from courageous individuals, whereas questioning the constitutionality of the unconstitutional ObamaCare bill is clearly racist.

I bet all of you can, within one second, tell me which president occupied the White House when Hillary Clinton said, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'"

The more things change the more things change...

Mr. Obama is Clinton; No He's Uber-Clinton

2011-01-25T08:11:00.000-08:00

As we approach the 2012 Presidential Campaign, I have a strong feeling Mr. Obama and his minions are sitting around a large mahogany table dreaming up lies they'll soon feed American citizens who, "just don't have the time to follow politics."

Because he promised the moon and stars, everyone assumed he was going to do exactly what they wanted him to do: close Gitmo, stop drone attacks, issue an executive order legalizing gay marriage throughout the United States, and get the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan completely.

Let's say your first priority in 2008 was voting for a man who would close the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay. Candidate Obama said, "I will bring hope and change this country so desperately needs," which made you think an "out of business" sign was on its way to Cuba.

Because Mr. Obama failed so many of you, who somehow believed a political philosophy unbreakably connected you, what can he now say to convince you 2013-2017 will be the four years during which your political dreams finally come true?

The media has been in campaign mode since the 2010 midterm elections. Recently on a supposedly unbiased news website were listed headlines regarding early GOP stumbles, the smoking habit of new Republican Speaker John Boehner, and how a random conservative pseudo-celebrity has publicly deemed Sarah Palin "un-presidential". They also ran headlines about how Barack Obama was focused on economic growth and had taken a page from Bill Clinton by moving to the center. This was only a couple weeks after running nonstop stories regarding Mr. Obama's historically productive lame duck session in which journalists claim he completely redeemed himself after two years of struggles.

More than ever before, the media will enter their offices every morning with a, "what can we do to ensure the reelection of President Barack Obama," attitude.

Will you be convinced by two simple words: "He's Clinton."? Or will they need to expand by claiming that Mr. Obama is Clinton sans marital baggage? "Mr. Obama's presidency has mirrored Mr. Clinton's, but Mr. Obama is actually better because he's a true family man. Mr. Obama would never have any reason to lie to a grand jury. Like Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama has moved to the center. Unlike Bill Clinton, Mr. Obama is nice to Hillary."

He's uber-Clinton.

If the Obama campaign, as well as members of the media, continues asserting that Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama are basically twins, then no ignorant voter will be required to learn a single piece of information regarding the state of the world. All they'll need to say, if asked why Mr. Obama earned their vote, is that he's uber-Clinton. "Clinton was too liberal at first, and then, after losses by Congressional Democrats, he moderated. The next six years were heaven on earth. Things are shaping up about the same, only this time we won't have to deal with blue dresses, cigars, or voluptuous interns we're too ashamed to tell anyone we find smoking hot."

The uber-Clinton angle makes certain every ignorant voter will have their talking point and therefore come off as enlightened.

Loyal lackeys of Obama are hopeful you're still dumb enough to believe that the vapid rhetoric that will undoubtedly spew from the mouth of a campaigning President Obama translates to, "If you vote for me, I'll do exactly what you want. Seriously, it'll be just like you're in the White House."

Lies About Gitmo

2011-01-21T11:27:00.000-08:00

Those on the left adamantly argue that the U.S. military prison in Guantanamo Bay is so deplorable that any caring person would feel an overwhelming desire to comfort Adolf Hitler had the Nazi leader been forced to spend more than fifteen minutes taking abuse within its walls. In reality, Gitmo is a very nice prison in which to reside if you've been apprehended attempting to kill innocent women and children.

But we're supposed to close Gitmo because terrorists are ignorant of the fact that the place would easily receive 5-stars if there were a Zagat guide for prisons? "If you're addicted to prayer, this prison is for you!"

Locked in your bedroom, let's pretend your wife gives you a massage for one hour each night. The neighbors begin to wonder what exactly you're doing in there from 7-8 PM, and, because one busybody swears he or she saw a fishy shadow through the window shade, spread rumors your wife is horrifically abusing you.

You attempt to tell them that the hour is strictly dedicated to massage, but the lies fail to cease.

"Sorry," your wife informs you. "But, based on the fact that others incorrectly believe I'm committing spousal abuse, I must stop treating you much better than you deserve."

America is run by such politically correct pansies that we allow incarcerated terrorists to practice the religion that instructs them to kill us!

We actually further their desire to murder our friends and family! Maybe a couple months sans religious propaganda would make them realize, "You know what, maybe we all should just live and let live."

Why not give wayward teens, jailed for minor offenses, a collection of works by Charles Manson and let them devour his nefarious words while they await release! What harm could come!?

Not only do leftists, as well as opponents of the United States (what's the difference, really?), pretend Gitmo is a location where unimaginable horrors take place; they also pretend it's a huge recruiting tool for Al-Qaeda.

Recent transcripts of conversations between terrorists have proven the existence of Gitmo's military prison is extremely low on the list of things jihadists tell potential Al-Qaeda members for the express purpose of getting them all riled up. (I think it's in between the fact that the straight guy who plays one of the gay guys on Modern Family won the Best Supporting Actor Emmy and a lack of Muslim managers in Major League Baseball.)

Despite proof to the contrary, Mr. Obama still insists Osama Bin Laden is signing up thousands of recruits simply because each and every one is irate over the fact that the glorified pre-school known as Gitmo remains operational!

Many of you expected Mr. Obama to move mountains, but he can't even look you in the eye and tell the truth. It is factually confirmed that Al-Qaeda does not often use Gitmo as a recruiting tool, yet the Commander in Chief is on television moments later insisting the exact opposite is accurate.

Quick: count up the number of overall campaign promises Mr. Obama has kept. Now count up the number of lies he's told... today.

Not even close, is it?

Siding with Celebrities

2011-01-18T14:37:00.000-08:00

What decisions in life would you trust with a celebrity?

Without hesitation, would you allow them to decide the best way to raise your child? Or would you tend to shun their parental advice?

Celebrities enjoy getting drunk. Celebrities enjoy exposing their crotches. Celebrities enjoy letting their nipples slip with the express purpose of increasing ticket sales the night their movie premiers on both coasts.

Because they view him as an artistic genius, most celebrities think it abhorrent that authorities wish to punish Roman Polanski for sexually assaulting a child. It's a good thing for children everywhere that most molesters are jailed for their crimes, regardless of the aptitude they've shown for performing vocational related duties.

I've never seen footage of Martin Scorsese pleading for the release of his world renowned gardener who moonlights as a pedophile. "Had you seen the likeness of me he carved into our shrubs you too would fight for his right to molest anyone that catches his fancy," the acclaimed director has never said while pounding his fist on a podium at the Beverly Hilton.

There are conservatives throughout the country that have as much artistic talent as the hottest liberal star, but instead of dedicating their life to entertaining the masses, they've chosen to produce goods of value. They've chosen to enhance the lives of their fellow citizen, not with two hours of mindless escape, but with products that improve mankind's ability to function.

The invention of the cotton gin was much more beneficial to humanity than was the 2010 release of Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps.

But, because those who wear shirts made of cotton don't have a picture of Eli Whitney as their desktop wallpaper; many would rather hear the political ranting of uber-dreamy thespian Shia Labeouf.

Nobody would say, "Unless citizens begin emulating celebrities in their daily lives, America will never again be great."

No parent would say, "Unless my daughter begins behaving more like a pop starlet I will ship her off to boarding school so fast her head will spin. I am sick to death of her failure to smash up a single SUV with an umbrella in between rehab stints!"

Yet, when it comes to politics, it's a badge of honor that liberals share the philosophy of those whose mug shots have made millions of dollars for The Smoking Gun.

From King to Jester in Sixty-Two Million Seconds

2011-01-09T11:47:00.000-08:00

Two short years ago a tingle would instantly shoot up the leg of 80% of people fortunate enough to witness Barack Obama enter the room in which they were standing. Even those who didn't vote for the political juggernaut recognized he'd been blessed with an immense gift.

Today the leg of only 20% of folks who come in contact with our esteemed Commander in Chief feel such tingle. 2008 was a huge year for sensations darting up lower appendages. 2010, however, saw the limbs of many suffer massive withdrawal.

An additional Twenty percent of current citizens who encounter Mr. Obama think, "I understand our President has implemented some controversial new laws but I'm sketchy regarding the details. Doesn't the First Lady look radiant!?"

The remaining 60% laugh.

The laugh of some says, "Man did that guy fool me."

The laugh of others says, "I warned as many people as I possibly could."

The laugh of the rest says, "During the final two years of the Bush Presidency, I paid exactly the same number of bills as I did during the first two years of the Obama Presidency. No hope and no change."

Let's dissect the current state of Mr. Obama and his fellow Democrats.

In their attempt to get unemployment benefits extended, liberals claim that paying people not to work actually assists the economy. I'm sure there are thousands of jobless twenty-somethings who've recently informed their parents, "Taking money from you helps your financial situation immensely! Were I to join the workforce, the value of your portfolio would likely plummet! By taking your money, I give and give and give!"

Because everyone believed his lies during the campaign, he assumes everyone will continue nodding along with each word he utters, no matter how asinine.

President Obama is supposedly compromising with Republicans by proposing the Bush tax cuts be extended for every American, including the filthy-rich. "Give him some credit," moderates and liberals in the media beg of conservatives. "He's finally moving to the center as you've been wishing."

You genuinely want us to credit President Obama simply because he took a stand for a policy he does not support due to the fact that otherwise would have secured the demise of his political career!? Please remember we're talking about a man who purposely ran the economy of the United States into the ground for the express purpose of creating what he considers a socially just society!

Had Jeffrey Dahmer given you a hug instead of slicing you up and storing your head in the fridge, would you have declared, "Jeffrey's a new man!" or would you have said, "I wonder if the unusually sweet gesture was an attempt to convince me I needn't be on guard while in his presence?"

I'm not comparing Mr. Obama to a horrific serial killer (at least not until members of his death panels report for duty); I'm simply saying that, after dozens of questionable acts, a single seemingly good deed doesn't mean anyone can confidently declare Mr. Obama is now a rational moderate.

Two years ago Mr. Obama was one of the most successful human beings in the history of our world, now he's the butt of jokes. His name is associated with incompetence and arrogance. He's shown nothing but contempt for the people who faithfully elected him to lead.

From king to jester in a matter of seconds.

You Call That a Tease!?

2011-01-06T17:11:00.000-08:00

While searching for a laugh, I recently perused the onscreen guide displaying information about television programs airing now and in the future on my cable system. Because there is currently only one situation comedy worthy of my eyes, I was forced to look elsewhere. Of course I immediately turned to America's number one cable news network: MSNBC.

"Only a handful of people watch MSNBC, how could they be number one?" you ask.

They are at the top of their game at creating unintentional comedy. Though it's not their goal; every host, contributor and guest is laugh out loud funny.

According to my onscreen guide, MSNBC personality Chris Matthews "moderates hard-hitting debates on key political issues." That same onscreen guide informed me that Fox News host Glenn Beck "provides an unconventional look at the news."

I suppose my onscreen guide defines "debate" as, "with a beet red face and thinning hair askew, shouting down anyone with whom you disagree." And it appears as if that same guide defines an "unconventional" person as someone who, "Believes America is on the decline because its people are straying from God and the Constitution."

Like liberals wish to do with "marriage", it looks like my onscreen guide is changing definitions based on its own political philosophy.

It's amusing how radical leftists are viewed as mainstream, while typical conservatives are considered far-right kooks.

Yahoo! News routinely insinuates stories, written and distributed by the uber-left Huffington Post website, are regular ole news stories. Funny how Yahoo! doesn't trick everyone into reading radio rants of Rush Limbaugh by transcribing his words and pretending they were formulated by unbiased reporters.

I no longer get angry at discovering extreme left-wingers are attempting to manipulate the general public, but do find it hysterical that even my onscreen cable guide tries to persuade everyone into believing that radical Democrats, who throw-up in their mouths a little bit whenever a right-winger speaks, enjoy robust debate, while conservatives calling for lower taxes and expanded freedom are "unconventional."

Touching My Junk is the New Touching My Freedom

2010-12-31T07:52:00.000-08:00

Former NPR employee Juan Williams admits he instinctively becomes queasy at the sight of men in Muslim garb boarding the plane on which he sits awaiting takeoff. "Will their actions lead to the demise of everyone on board?" he asks himself.

Not me. I long to fly on planes where every other passenger, as well as the pilot, is a Middle Eastern man dressed in Muslim garb. I don't think of how the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks in recent years were perpetrated by men of similar appearance. I am so politically correct that I'm adroitly able to suppress chemical reactions that often occur within the body of less enlightened people, such as former NPR employee Juan Williams.

The reason it's okay for TSA agents to strip search five-year-old boys is because five-year-old boys are equally likely to blow up commercial airliners as Middle Eastern men dressed in Muslim garb. After all, five-year-old boys clearly hate us for our freedom. While they're stuck inside cleaning their room, or finishing their veggies, we're out supersizing our value meal at the local burger joint.

No, as a matter of fact I do not wish to hear statistics that make it seem as if five-year-old boys aren't a huge threat to our safety. If Peyton Manning completes twenty consecutive passes it doesn't guarantee he will connect on a twenty-first!

By being forced to remove their artificial limbs in the name of national security, it's okay those with prosthetic body parts are humiliated at airports because Al-Qaeda has threatened to use such devices in future attacks and therefore the same instinctive feeling of fear will well up within former NPR employee Juan Williams after he notices a fake-legged Methodist lady from Indiana sitting across the aisle while en route to the new vacation home he likely purchased after signing a lucrative contract with Fox News.

Don't tell me you're going to say I should question President Obama's sincere claim that forcing a Methodist housewife from Indiana to remove her prosthetic leg at a security checkpoint makes air travel much safer, and that, by asserting such nonsense, the Commander in Chief insults the intelligence of every American!?

You're probably going to add that you wouldn't feel safe sharing a plane with a limping Middle Eastern man dressed in Muslim garb had he not been randomly selected to pass through a full body scanner or receive an intense pat down. Then you're probably going to tell me that, even after receiving a pat down oozing with intensity, you're still not crazy about the idea of flying on the same plane as a limping Middle Eastern man dressed in Muslim garb because the patter-downer was an employee of the United States Government and, if getting your license to drive, registering your car with the motor vehicle department, or mailing anything of any size has taught you anything, it's that employees of the government are horrifically incompetent.

What kind of monster are you!?

Then, I have a strong feeling you're going to tell me that it's okay to yell at TSA employees who have their latex-covered hands down your underwear even though rational individuals understand they're just following orders!

You will probably argue that the "just following orders" argument holds no water because if every company and governmental body told its employees they must molest certain customers then each and every subsequent molestation would be justified, and, as a result, we'd live in a country full of molesters.

Next you'll probably say something asinine like, "Despite the struggling economy, TSA agents forced to sexually assault law-abiding citizens should take the high road and resign their post in the name of decency."

Then you'll probably have the audacity to say that this article is all over the place and makes no sense. That I'm throwing words against the wall hoping some kind of rational argument will stick and that my putrid attempt at persuasion parallels Janet Napolitano's habit of implementing random policies in hopes that, when combined, they will somehow make us safer.

You've got to be one of the stupidest people on the face of the earth and I can't wait to laugh in your face when the TSA apprehends its first terrorist. And don't you dare ask, rhetorically, "How much damage could a terrorist, stupid enough to get caught by the TSA, really do?"

Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to jury duty.

America has Moved to the "Right"!?

2010-12-21T14:34:00.000-08:00

I've heard more than one raging leftist claim they were fairly moderate until George W. Bush moved the country to the extreme right.

The only thing middle-of-the-road George W. Bush did, by starting two unpopular wars, was make it socially acceptable to call our president names that would make a sailor blush.

Despite a center-right population, the country is more liberal today than it was yesterday. Yesterday we were more liberal than the day before.

Beg to differ?

During World War II we threw Japanese-Americans into internment camps as if they were carpet-soiling animals. Today we fondle upstanding American citizens because we're too sensitive to ask TSA agents to peruse pictures of the men who committed 1,000 of the previous 1,001 terrorist attacks and then instruct, "When you see men of similar appearance, do whatever is necessary to make certain they're unable to harm anyone on the plane they wish to board. In fact, instead of randomly patting down passengers, we'll be randomly selecting TSA agents to accompany planes containing terrorist look-alikes government screeners were charged with searching."

School children once proudly pledged allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, now they are forbidden from displaying our flag on their bicycle because school administrators worry showing pride in the country on which everyone is freely standing will offend foreign minority groups that demand the rules of their homeland apply to whatever location they illegally travel. How would you feel if someone broke down your door, entered your house, said, "The rules of my dwelling apply within these walls!" and then demanded you remove your family crest because they found it highly offensive?

To prepare meals their customers thoroughly enjoy as measured by repeat visits, restaurants can no longer follow recipes perfected over time because certain ingredients are no longer legal. The next time you plan to slave over a succulent meal made from scratch, pretend you own a Manhattan restaurant by verifying you're lawfully permitted to use every ingredient called for by the recipe contained in what basically amounts to a mixing manual for deadly poisons on which your evil family has bestowed the euphemism, "Grandma's Down-Home Southern Family Fixins". I bet the altered food won't taste like you're living in a far-right bastion.

Republican George H.W. Bush won the state of California in the 1988 Presidential Election. Today residents of the Golden State happily reelect Democrats who've financially ruined the once proud home of Ronald Reagan. The first Tuesday in November of 2012, do you think most Californians will actually think about the burning cars and boarded-up buildings, where businesses operate today, they passed on their way to the polls? Or do you think they'll pull the lever for everyone with a "D" beside their name, because, despite the scarcity of food, they’re still convinced green jobs are the key to economic prosperity?

Though it's currently politically correct to call a black person "African-American", I recently witnessed a black man inform a television host that he didn't appreciate being referred to as an "African-American" and is in the habit of correcting people who address him that way. America is so far to the right, when speaking about a person of color we must first discover which description he or she prefers. If you return to a store and ask to speak with the African-American sales associate who helped you purchase a product, the conversation would go something like this:

Store Manager: Can you describe the salesperson with whom you dealt?

You: Not until I talk to him first.

Store Manager: Yes, but a description is needed for the purpose of locating him.

You: If it were only that simple...

Because leftists control the media, as well as most academic institutions throughout the United States, we'll forever be moving leftward.

Due to the emergence of the Tea Party, there is some hope we can reverse course.

However, knowing the violent lengths radical left-wingers will go to expand their reign of terror, a move to the right is far from certain. Of course I'm speaking of the conservative man whose finger was bitten off by a liberal wacko at an ObamaCare rally, as well as the "African-American" or "black" gentleman who was brutally beaten by SEIU thugs while attempting to sell paraphernalia at a peaceful Tea Party function. This begs the question: If a union beating leaves a black man incapable of speaking, do we refer to him as "black" or "African-American"?

This country is so far to the right that conservatives are literally beaten and eaten for the horrible crime of publicly supporting traditional values they hold dear. Despite the horrific nature of these crimes, the perpetrators get off scot-free.

America is so extremely conservative that left-wingers are allowed to chomp off digits, threaten voters, and senselessly pummel conservatives without fear of prosecution.

Yep, exactly what our forefathers envisioned.

Blame America

2010-12-17T07:15:00.000-08:00

I recently learned the best fate that could possibly befall a Palestinian man caught blogging against Islam is a lifetime behind bars.

In America, television shows are allowed to make millions by depicting Christian figures as buffoons.

Liberals, who are adamant no religious symbols reside near governmental institutions, are notoriously pro-Palestinian.

The same people, who wet themselves at the sight of a single commandment displayed on public property, openly root for execution-happy authoritarians who murder citizens for openly opposing the religion everyone is required to follow. In order to survive in these lands, many people pretend to worship a god in whom they don't believe.

Standing up for a foreign government usually indicates a desire to be ruled by likeminded leaders. Liberals praise socialist icons like Hugo Chavez while desperately hoping a similar man or woman one day controls America with an iron fist.

That means liberals would love to live in a land where they're forced to follow the uber-strict rules of a specific religion, right?

Instead of having a core set of values, most liberals automatically turn their anger against America, particularly American conservatives, while heaping credit upon international leaders who stifle the only freedom liberals appreciate as Americans.

Because those on the left believe they know what's best for persons of every age, they have a burning desire to control all aspects of our lives. Which religion we follow, if any, is one of the few decisions they graciously allow us to make sans governmental influence.

Liberals praise Palestinians despite the fact that they inhibit one of the few freedoms leftists cherish.

Why? Because America is traditionally pro-Israel; and liberals can't bring themselves to side with America.

Because America achieved superpower status through capitalism, liberals will always view her as evil and corrupt. America simply can do no right.

Were Hitler in power today, liberals would undoubtedly assert America's oppressive actions left him with no other choice but to loathe Jews.

It's clear my argument carries water for the simple reason liberals will forget about everything they hold dear in order to bash America. They say, "A man living in a Muslim country will literally die for posting internet messages that criticize the government mandated religion. Though I would falsely claim a willingness to perish in order for such action to remain free in America, with all my heart I will back the oppressive executioners in their fight against America-backed Israel. It doesn't matter how many non-compliant Arabs die in their quest to follow the religion they deem true, as long as America sides against the executioners, I will side with them."

And it's not like liberals refuse to turn against their heroes because of a simple unwillingness to grant their citizens the freedom necessary to select a religion. No, these religious zealots are actually killing people who've said, "You know, Islam just isn't my cup of Qamar Eddine."

To reiterate, liberals go ballistic over Nativity Scene sightings on public property in America, yet constantly side with regimes that murder religious dissidents. These liberals do realize that in lands where leaders hang those who follow the wrong faith, they also erect religious symbols on public lands?

I can't imagine a leftist saying, "Palestinians executed an atheist for blogging against Islam: that's fine. Palestinians had the audacity to place a Rub el Hizb where!?"

Professor Obama is Not Happy with Our Progress

2010-12-12T19:55:00.000-08:00

On November 2, 2010 we conservatives proved once and for all that we're simply not picking up what President Obama is putting down.

You see, Mr. Obama isn't of the opinion big government, massive entitlements and universal healthcare are right for America, rather it's an undeniable fact that all three are supremely moral, while every single conservative idea originated in the loins of Satan.

One day all of us will have that, "I get it!" moment, but, until then, we remain in the back of the class, desperately trying to catch up with the progressives seated in front.

President Obama is trying to convince conservatives that only his policies are worthy, just as we would attempt to convince a communist that only democracy leads to prosperity. In such a situation, we wouldn't assert we have a simple difference of opinion; we'd insist a communist government would cause the topic of conversation in America to turn from professional sporting results to length of bread line.

The difference, of course, is that conservatives have the history of the world on our side and can say with certainly that communism has led to scores of brutal deaths while Obama and his ilk can't point to one prosperous civilization and scream with joy, "Massive entitlements are the reason those people dance in the streets!"

History professors aren't hired to teach a class in hopes they can convince their pupils that the Allies were victorious in World War II, but will happily acquiesce if the majority of students are adamant the Axis powers now rule the world, just as Mr. Obama wasn't elected in hopes he could convince the American people that his progressive policies are both moral and sound, but will happily acquiesce if his fellow citizens believe they reduce freedom and lead to chaos.

The history professor has done his or her job only if students walk out of that classroom at the conclusion of the school year with knowledge that the Allies possess the trophy.

Mr. Obama has done his job only if the American people eventually believe progressive policies alone are acceptable for a civilized nation.

To Mr. Obama, universal healthcare is undeniably right for the United States and he must convince us of this fact just as a history professor must convince his pupils that the attack on Pearl Harbor occurred on the morning of December 7, 1941.

So don't act surprised to see Mr. Obama on television insisting he's going to press forward with his radical agenda because you wouldn't think twice about a history professor saying he'd never stop trying to change the mind of a student who claimed with certainty that breaking news coverage of the attack on Pearl Harbor preempted an episode of Two and a Half Men.

America as an Underdeveloped Nation

2010-12-08T19:12:00.000-08:00

The liberal "solution" to all the problems of the world is to reduce the quality of life for those of us who reside in America. In other countries, liberals don't wish to see the implementation of policies that have directly led to unprecedented prosperity in the United States.

Were they to achieve their goals, indoor plumbing would soon be the exception in Enid, Oklahoma. Families having the ability to serve their children three squares a day would be considered elite in Effingham, Illinois.

Had liberals reached their dreams years ago, thousands more would have died from natural disasters in America and around the world. People in Haiti are alive today because liberals have failed to achieve their goal of tearing down America on a widespread scale. Thanks to the prosperity and generosity of their fellow countrypersons, folks in New Orleans, who otherwise would have almost assuredly perished, now live comfortably in homes they were able to rebuild after Katrina.

Liberals criticized the Bush Administration for not doing enough to aid the victims of Katrina, yet, if those same leftists had their way, no president would have the resources to do anything other than recite a sympathetic statement. After all, in order to distribute money, the government must confiscate funds from people with the ability to generate profits.

In other words, liberals want massive funding for those in need, yet implement policies that will eventually make it impossible for the government to obtain such funding. Liberals want you to believe increasing taxes will mean the amount of cash available to Bill Gates will drop from $50,000,000,000 to $49,998,999,999, while thousands of hungry children will receive adequate food and shelter. But that's simply not the case. Bill Gates and his peers will stop hiring workers while the party in power will squander the money on loyal backers and expensive studies that primarily benefit shrubbery.

When you pull the lever for a liberal candidate, remember that you are greatly increasing the chances innocent people will suffer.

As a massive hurricane approached a third world country, can you imagine how much greater the sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach would be were America also a third world nation?

Knowing America, in its current form, will quickly mobilize to assist those in need brings an unmatched sense of relief, because, regardless the quality of sleeping bag offered by other countries, an overwhelming majority of governments lack the resources needed to save lives.

Were liberals successful in tearing down America, I suppose you would never have a sensation of dread in the pit of your stomach because you likely wouldn't possess the electronic devices necessary to learn a hurricane was approaching a third world country. Persons in certain parts of the world aren't heartbroken over the earthquake in Haiti because they aren't aware the Haitians suffered an earthquake.

No matter how much the DNC spins, it's not opinion that liberal policies lead to suffering on a massive scale. And the future looks even bleaker. The healthcare bill will lead to the suffering of people who fail to show a member of their death panel adequate respect. The stimulus package will lead to the financial suffering of future generations. As they talk about retail stores not making a profit until after Thanksgiving, parents are now forced to say, while holding their newborn for the first time, "He has his entire life ahead of him after he’s tirelessly finished working off his share of the massive debt accumulated by our generation."

Just think of it like this; customers wouldn't ultimately benefit if the CEO of a dreadful company declared, "The only way we can compete with our successful rival is by unscrupulously tearing them down. Therefore, instead of improving our entire operation from top to bottom, we'll sabotage theirs."

Would soft-drink fans benefit if Generic Brand Cola Company was somehow able to successfully complete their sinister, "We can't make our drink taste as good as Coke, but we can make Coke taste as bad as Generic Brand Cola," plan?

Christians Killed Us on 4/19/95

2010-12-04T16:09:00.000-08:00

When people say, "Muslims" attacked us on 9/11, liberals freak out because the word, "extreme" wasn't placed in front of "Muslims." Leftists argue, "Because Timothy McVeigh was responsible for the Oklahoma City bombing, we can claim that, 'Christians killed us on 4/19/95.'"

When you take a look at the terrorist attacks of the past 50-years, you'll see that their argument is bogus because the overwhelming majority of cowardly offenses were perpetrated by Muslims. If one Muslim committed one terrorist attack over a decade ago, not a sole would even bring up religion when discussing the attack. Not to mention the fact that Christians everywhere immediately condemned the Oklahoma City bombing, whereas many Muslims throughout the world took the "I wouldn't have gone to the trouble of learning how to fly an airplane for the express purpose of committing jihad against America, but can understand why they did it" attitude. It's very similar to Chris Rock suggesting it was the fault of Nicole Brown Simpson for getting murdered by OJ due to the fact that she was spending his money and allegedly having physical relations in the home he still owned. Mr. Rock said, "I'm not saying he should have killed his wife... but I understand."

Christians aren't flying planes into full mosques. If a few did, the remaining wouldn't say, "We're not saying they should have used those planes as missiles... but we understand. After all, it was primarily the fault of those inside the mosque."

The reason liberals argue that you must claim, "Christians attacked Oklahoma on 4/19/95" if you have the audacity to assert, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11," is because they can't say what they really believe for risk of losing their livelihood.

Joy Behar and Whoopi Goldberg recently walked out of an interview on their dreadful morning talker because moderate TV personality Bill O'Reilly said, "Muslims attacked us on 9/11."

Ms. Behar and Ms. Goldberg were likely upset they couldn't respond to Mr. O'Reilly's assertion with, "No, Bill, due to an oppressive foreign policy, we attacked us on 9/11."

"I'm not saying OJ should have killed his wife... but I understand."

Unless you make your living shocking people, liberal figures can't say what they really believe. They must rely on the ignorance of the American people, most of who don't care enough to learn the truth.

It's why President Barack Obama still has a few supporters remaining who aren't raging leftists. Because they buy his official stance that states he loves his country, they don't understand Mr. Obama implements policies that punish America.

That's the worst part of America's decline. Were liberals honest...Were President Obama to publicly say every American making a decent living is part of the problem... Were he to repeat with vigor, "redistribution of wealth and social justice are the keys to making amends for the many crimes of America."... Were Joy Behar to say America is to blame for every terrorist attack we have suffered... If they were simply to be honest, they would be shunned by most Americans.

But sadly, most Americans don't care enough about the future of their country to think critically. They don't care enough about the men and women who made the ultimate sacrifice to do anything more than catch five minutes of a debate and choose a candidate based on his or her speech pattern. Because the last time I checked, Barack Obama's oratory skills had yet to put food on anyone's table, whereas his policies have forced thousands to seek government assistance in order to secure a hot meal.

You can't rely on the righteousness of the liberal to "tell you like it is;" you must discover for yourself if their words are true. You can't assume, because you are always truthful about your intentions, everyone else must also say what they mean and mean what they say. If liberals want to get elected, they must lie, and because their only desire is forcing you to live a certain way, don't have the integrity to admit they're in the minority and bow out gracefully.

Liberals must tell you that they don't want to control your life in order to gain control of your life. Joy Behar must tell you to include "extremist" after the word "Muslim" when describing our attackers on 9/11 because it's an absurdity that won't get her fired, whereas honestly saying, "The extreme policies of America left the freedom fighters no other choice but to attack us on 9/11," would mean her days frightening children on daytime television would immediately end.

Never believe a liberal, and understand that they almost always mean exactly the opposite of what they say. I'll give you one example. Sure, I could offer up thousands, but will go with one I find particularly chilling.

"After healthcare reform passes, you can keep your doctor," means, due to the policy of the man you elected because you were 100% certain he would make your life better, you must say goodbye to the only physician you feel comfortable treating your children.

Who Wants Barack Obama Beside Them in a Bar Fight?

2010-11-30T20:21:00.000-08:00

Because I am a peaceful man, I never get into physical confrontations. If I were to find myself in an unfortunate altercation, however, I can say with certainty that the last man I would want by my side is Barack Obama.

Unfortunately the world is a very disturbing place. Yet many Americans are still under the impression that everyone is just as nice as they are. They also believe that if we removed from the mix any action that certain people find hostile, those with whom we're at odds would leave us alone. President Barack Obama is one of those Americans.

He genuinely believes the best way for a victim to handle confrontation is to admit they're at fault and agree to change everything about their life in order to please the aggressor, no matter how moral the victim and how immoral the perpetrator.

In Mr. Obama's world, you should not confront a raging pervert who makes a pass at your wife. You should instead examine your own selfish and antiquated policy that states a couple should remain monogamous after exchanging their wedding vows. And who are you to say a woman should have the right to choose her sexual partner?

In Mr. Obama's world, it's not moral to alert the police should a man or woman steal your vehicle, because your definition of "ownership" is likely oppressive and not relevant in modern society. You considering the automobile you purchased as, "belonging to you" represents greed and oppression. Just because you worked 80-hours per week to afford said vehicle doesn't mean you should have the audacity to assume it will belong to you until the day you decide to sell it. Why should you have a car while those on the sidewalk are forced to go it on-foot?

In Mr. Obama's world, should a man randomly punch you above the neck, you should immediately inquire as to why exactly your face was hideously mangled. Even if the response is, "Because you participate in activities you greatly value," you should change your behavior immediately. If the puncher tells you he annihilated your mug with a wicked left-cross because you work hard, because you attend a Christian church regularly, and because you're teaching your children that violence is wicked - but defending freedom is required by God; even if you're exceedingly proud of every one of these behaviors, you should change your ways posthaste. Based solely on the opinion of the aggressor, you should begin working sporadically, you should only attend worship services approved by your attacker, and you should teach your children that a violent death should come to those who don’t follow the Muslim religion.

With Mr. Obama at the controls, our world, once filled with freedom and prosperity, will cease to exist.

We didn't start out perfect, and no system will ever produce heaven on earth, but, were this country to continue travelling down the path our forefathers laid out, we'd come awful close.

Too bad Mr. Obama turned the cart around.

Conservatives Represent Responsibility

2010-11-21T00:10:00.000-08:00

It's difficult for us conservatives to understand why so many liberal elites despise every fiber of our being simply because we believe in small government, the power of the individual, and most importantly: liberty for all.

If you were to place a conservative next to Charles Manson; a liberal elite would debate for hours if asked, "Who do you despise with greater ferocity?"

Liberals claim we conservatives have an overwhelming desire to make the poor suffer by not providing them with a lifetime of entitlements.

Through massive entitlements, we conservatives think you harm the poor by removing motivation that ultimately leads to prosperity and reliance on self. Yet we don't accuse you of hating the poor.

And you couldn't get one sane conservative to say they were vehemently opposed to helping those in need. While government should perhaps play a small roll, we believe charity should be handled by churches and private non-profit organizations.

You don't really believe conservatives despise poor people. You don't really believe conservatives despise minorities. Yet your hate for us knows no bounds.

Is it because we represent authority figures? Is it because we represent work? Is it because we remind you that everyone can’t spend their lives chained to a tree in protest? Is it because we remind you that someone must provide sustenance?

A kid confined to his room because he refused to eat his vegetables temporarily despises his parents even though he knows he didn't follow the rules. He shouldn't have to follow the rules, he thinks. Rationality doesn't come into play. In his mind, he should be allowed to live as he chooses, and has great resentment for those who prevent 24/7 frivolity.

Most children eventually learn that productivity is essential for fulfillment.

But perhaps liberals go through life resenting anyone who reminds them of their duties as a human being.

Perhaps that's why Barack Obama is their hero.

Mr. Obama has never been keen on responsibilities. He's never produced anything. He's managed to live the life most children dream of before they grow up and realize production is a thrill unmatched. He's gone through life perpetrating the illusion that he's helped people simply because he bestowed himself a title, community organizer, that's vague enough to make people assume he's making a huge difference.

But as citizens of the United States are seeing, he doesn't help humanity prosper.

He aims to feed the child in all of us by promising that we'll never be forced to take on any responsibility; that all of us can live a carefree life and society won't crumble. In fact, he tells us that those who've spent every waking hour developing products that fulfill our lives are evil because they had the audacity to profit from their work.

Don't get me wrong, I still remember the rage that resulted from being forced to act appropriately. Before learning the thrill that accompanies simply doing the right thing, my favorite phrase as a child (to anyone other than a school administrator or parent) was, "You're not the boss of me," mixed in with the occasional, "You can't tell me what to do."

Most of us grow out of this phase. But, as a youngster cries "child abuse" because a parent has placed him or her in time-out due to his or her habit of taking an electric lime Crayon to the living room wall, liberal elites cry "hate monger" simply because conservatives believe in teaching the less fortunate to fend for themselves instead of giving them detailed directions to the governmental office that promises to provide the handouts necessary to sustain life.

Dems in the Know are to the Extreme

2010-11-18T18:40:00.000-08:00

If you know what's going on in the political word and vote Democrat, you are a far-left kook.

The majority of citizens who regularly vote Democrat, however, have very little clue regarding the inner workings of the Beltway.

The success of Democrats over the years can largely be attributed to their ability to keep the masses ignorant.

Like we're seeing with the Tea Party movement; as average citizens become more and more informed about the issues that impact their lives, the popularity of President Obama and his fellow Democrats greatly diminishes.

Political debates leave an overwhelming majority of people, typically uninterested in politics, thinking Democrats will find a way to give them money earned by other people.

Many of these people are discovering that Democrats actually have a plethora of clever ways to instead take their money. In fact, ordinary citizens are learning that even in these most difficult of economic times, the only desire of the Democrats is to confiscate money from the middle class for the purpose of funding studies on why Italians have an affinity for foods ending in "o" and "a".

It's unfortunate that it takes a troubled economy for so many people to see the light, to see that, were a Democrat politician to listen to the story of how their offspring's college fund had been reduced to pennies, the last of their 401K money was prematurely withdrawn weeks ago, they were unsure if they could keep their home, and the corporation which employed them had greatly reduced their hours, the politician would nevertheless call for an increase in their taxes so those coming into this country illegally can be provided with ample entitlements, so the NEA can make sure "starving" is never again used to describe an unemployed artist, and so some scientist can figure out exactly why Leopards prefer mating with other Leopards.

Democrats don't care about the hard-working little people. They care about the little people who perennially depend on Democrats to provide breakfast, lunch, dinner, as well as the fourth meal.

There will always be communists and socialists in the United States who vote Democrat, or worse. And there are unfortunately a great number of ignorant individuals still under the impression the word "conservative" is a euphemism for "member of the KKK that occasionally misses meetings."

The media helps perpetrate this stereotype with their misleading coverage of Tea Party rallies, but people are finally beginning to learn the truth. Ordinary Americans hear supposedly mainstream members of the media talk about Tea Party events as if it's difficult for attendees to concentrate on the conservative speakers due to frequent shouts of "Heil Hitler". Yet we see little footage of extreme behavior.

Because he knows many folks are ignorant when it comes to politics, Bill Clinton recently told Mr. Obama to continue pushing his agenda to the American people, despite a decline in poll numbers. In other words, Mr. Clinton told Mr. Obama, "People tell you that they hate what you're doing. It doesn't matter. Tell them you're right. Tell them they're so stupid, they don't understand how your policies will help the country thrive. Tell them that all the free stuff you promised will soon arrive in their mailbox. Tell them that it’s not about what they want; it's about what you want. Tell them to sit down and shut up, because it's your country."

Thank goodness people are wising up. Thank goodness they're learning that Democrats will lie to get your vote. They're learning that America became great because success was based on sweat emanating from hard work, and although it means there will always be some without, capitalism cannot be matched.

People are no longer willing to simply allow Mr. Obama to tell them they needn't worry their pretty little faces, as if he's akin to a 1950's style husband, because they know his ideal civilization punishes merit and rewards laziness.

The extreme policies of the Democrats in power are harming this country so badly that the American people are finally catching on, which means future elections will result in fewer Washington Democrats.

Are Conservatives Too Nice?

2010-11-13T11:39:00.000-08:00

Now that the stakes are incredibly high regarding the future of our country, I'm thinking it's time we conservatives stop being so darn nice.

Let's compare the behavior of liberals to the behavior of conservatives...

If you, a conservative, move to Hollywood, hopeful for a career in the entertainment industry, you are instructed to keep your conservative beliefs to yourself or else be shunned by the entire community.

In liberal dominated bastions, conservatives are afraid to put signs on their lawns, bumper stickers on their cars, and clothes on their bodies showing support for right leaning candidates.

Tea Party protests have all been extremely peaceful, except for the instance in which union thugs physically assaulted an African-American seller of conservative paraphernalia.

No physical harm would come to a Democrat that walked into the middle of a Tea Party rally and loudly declared, "I am a proud liberal!"

Great physical harm would come to a conservative that walked into the middle of a liberal gathering and loudly declared, "I am a proud member of the GOP!" If you're a progressive who doesn't believe this assertion, please attend a liberal event in your area wearing a Glenn Beck hat, a shirt indicating you've been 'Hannitized' while carrying a book authored by Ann Coulter, and then report back to me with the extent of your injuries.

Out of thin air, liberals made up racist quotes, which they attributed to Rush Limbaugh when he was in talks to buy an NFL football team.

Because many Americans on both sides of the political aisle have publicly expressed their opinion that it's unwise to build a mosque near Ground Zero, liberal journalists are writing column after column pretending that anti-Muslim sentiment among conservatives is on the rise in America, when, in reality, there has been little to no backlash against the American Muslim community.

Why do people, supposedly so confident in their beliefs, resort to lying to, shunning, and physically assaulting, their political adversaries?

Simply, because they're wrong. Liberal policies have never led to prosperity, a fact that can't be denied during civilized arguments. Liberals know this, and therefore refuse to engage in civilized arguments.

Because conservatives are keenly aware of the fact that insecurity in their beliefs lead to aggressive action by liberals, we've always turned the other cheek.

But let's start making stuff up. In fact, did you know that Keith Olbermann recently told his Countdown crew that the best way to starve a minority was to hide his welfare check under his work boots?

Conservatives, please start shunning your liberal friends and colleagues. If you're lucky enough to know a liberal is in your employ, immediately inform him or her that their services are no longer needed. Subtly make certain they know that, since they lean to the left, they will never work in your business again.

Delete them as Facebook friends, and then send them texts that say you're so disgusted by their politics that you've forever removed them from your contacts.

Remove signs promoting progressive candidates from the lawns of your liberal neighbors. Key cars displaying bumper stickers calling for the election of Democrats. Loudly scoff at those clad in left-leaning garb. Make them think, the next time they contemplate adorning their body with a pro-Obama t-shirt, "Do I really want to face public ridicule for wearing this shirt when a plain blue number will lead to only smiles?"

I suppose this article is all for naught, as even I don't support what I've suggested.

As over the top as he is, I don't hate Keith Olbermann and wish him no ill will. I certainly wouldn't attribute a vile joke to him unless he actually uttered the words. Despite the fact that he often refers to some of my favorite conservative thinkers as, "The Worst People in the World," I wouldn't even call him that. To me, the worst people in world are Osama Bin Laden, Charles Manson, and others who murder for pleasure.

But it's difficult seeing the decline of America because conservatives don't believe two wrongs make a right, because we don't believe the ends justify the immoral means, because we're compulsive tellers of the truth, because we believe in peaceful dialogue, because, instead of applauding his injuries, we'd actually come to the aid of a battered and bruised liberal lying on the pavement.

It's simply sad to see America fail because we conservatives aren't willing to stoop to the level of liberals.

But, as unfortunate as the results will likely be, I would have it no other way.

Why Did "You" Vote Obama?

2010-11-08T19:42:00.000-08:00

Whenever I encounter an individual who cast their ballot for Barack Obama in November of 2008, I have a burning desire to ask, simply, "What were you thinking?"

However this piece isn't meant to belittle anyone who voted for Mr. Obama, rather it's a call for the duped to reflect upon how they came about their decision, i.e., what did they know and when did they know it.

After all, they voted for a man who has ruined the economy. They voted for a man who favors the religion of terrorists, who brutally murdered thousands of American citizens, over his own religion. They voted for a man whose only desire is to radically transform the greatest country in the history of the world. They voted for a man inspired by a pastor who refers to America as the, "U.S. of KKK." They voted for a man who wants to implement universal healthcare, a system that has caused much misery throughout the world. They voted for a man who equates our founding fathers to the men who ran Nazi Germany. They voted for a man who is suing a state for the egregious sin of trying to protect their own citizens from violent deaths at the hands of illegal immigrants.

What failing in your life caused you to vote for Barack Obama?

Were you simply ignorant?

Ask yourself, Obama voters, did you see the footage his pastor, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, lambasting his own country on multiple occasions? Regarding 9/11, he said, "America's chickens are coming home to roost."

Did you see the footage of Mr. Obama telling a group of his backers that he had a burning desire to witness the eventual passage of universal healthcare?

Did you hear him say he wanted to radically transform the United States of America, and, if so, what did you think he meant?

Did you see footage of him telling Joe the Plumber that he planned to spread the wealth?

If all of this is new to you, ignorance was your downfall.

Perhaps you didn't believe one man could so radically change such a resilient nation. Hopefully your eyes are now wide open, and, before casting your next ballot, you will take the time to read every word, and listen to every speech of the man or woman who has won your political heart. Because the footage and the words of Mr. Obama were available to anyone interested.

Perhaps you underestimated the importance of your vote. "Everything will basically remain the same regardless of who resides in the White House," you may have said to yourself. Maybe that’s why you're so reticent to believe health care rationing is on the horizon, or why you won't admit that Mr. Obama has a deep-seated hatred for his own country.

But now you must face reality. Mr. Obama said he could fix the economy, yet he has failed miserably. He didn't say, "Mr. Bush has so badly ruined the financial system that, two years after I take office, it will remain in shambles." He told you he could fix it, but the truth is he doesn't want to fix it; because economic chaos leads to uncertainty, and uncertainty leads to the election of people who run on platitudes. It was obvious to those of us who did our homework that, once Mr. Obama's agenda came to fruition, America would begin losing her luster. Well, it's official; her luster has been lost. We'd need at least a thousand coats of luster to return to pre-Obama levels.

Don't let liberals make you perennially ignorant. They want you to immediately dismiss the words of Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck and Ann Coulter without giving the substance of their statements a single thought. While you brush aside traditional conservative talk, claiming it's from the mouth of evil hate-mongers, you consider the words of MSNBC hosts and other far-leftists, like Howard Dean, mainstream. But ask yourself, what group of people most closely resemble our founding fathers? By being a good little soldier in the liberal army, you don't realize that you’re actually saying, "Any criticism of Obama is racist, we should nationalize healthcare, social justice is the key to our future, and America is inherently evil."

It's never too late to start reading. It's never too late to begin listening to talk radio and watching Fox News, where you would have learned much of the information I've provided.

You should have known that you're not required to blindly follow conservative talkers. You can dissect their words and come to your own conclusions. But, by allowing the liberal media to convince you that listening to those to the right of Chris Matthews is akin to absorbing a speech by Adolf Hitler, you let them brainwash you so severely that Joseph Goebbels himself would applaud their ingenuity.

By the time the 2012 Presidential election rolls around, about of a quarter of the American people will likely approve of the job Mr. Obama is doing. Instead of business as usual, why don't we start a national, "Where did we go wrong," campaign? Into video cameras, ordinary citizens could tell the story of why they made the decision to vote for Mr. Obama and how, had they spent a few minutes each day taking in vital information; they would have clearly seen the light. They could then upload the footage to YouTube or Facebook.

Where did you go wrong?

Did you vote for Mr. Obama simply because he promised, "hope and change"?

Did you vote for Mr. Obama because the media had you convinced he was a centrist?

Did you vote for Mr. Obama because you saw an internet video of Tom Hanks asking you to, and you really like Tom Hanks?

Did you vote for Mr. Obama because every member of the uber-cool celebrity panel Bill Maher gathered for his HBO program, Real Time, was a staunch Obama-backer, and you've always wanted to run with the cool crowd?

Did you vote for Mr. Obama because the economy was hurting and you assumed Republicans were at fault?

Did you decide to cast your vote for Mr. Obama early in the campaign, but, if asked, would not have been able to tell the inquirer one pertinent fact about the man in regards to why he was your choice to run our country for a whopping four years?

Stupidity is difficult to overcome. Ignorance is not.

If you were ignorant, wise up. It's as simple as that.

Like a football player often follows a careless play with a foolish penalty out of instinctive frustration, please don't compound your error by again voting for a progressive. Realize that, in order to win your precious vote, Mr. Obama mislead you regarding his true intentions. He didn't tell you he would ignore the polls and force through health care. He didn't tell you that he would set up several slush funds for the express purpose of keeping his loyal backers happy. He didn't tell you that he would handcuff states so they couldn't protect their citizens against violent illegal immigrants. He didn't tell you he would take Air Force One to every corner of the world and apologize for the sins of the United States.

Had he told you these things, you wouldn't have voted for him. He played you.

Yet, many of us knew the words he used while debating Senator McCain were empty. We had seen footage, often grainy, of him speaking about his true intentions for the United States of America, and knew those words contradicted the ones he used while speaking to the masses.

We weren't fooled.

Why were you?

Please, learn from your mistake.

Don't be embarrassed.

Don't be ashamed.

We all have stories of how one unwise act led to many future decisions thoughtfully based on extensive fact gathering.

Perhaps your story could help someone refrain from erring similarly.

Please, our country hangs in the balance.

The Liberal Mentality

2010-11-02T18:55:00.000-07:00

The fact that liberals dominate the entertainment industry is amusing.

Mention conservatives to a showbiz professional and they'll likely throw a hissy fit.

Yet, when you compare behavior they consider acceptable with the policies of conservatives...

Let's take David Letterman... The supposedly monogamous Mr. Letterman used his immense power and fame to sleep with many young female underlings, while, during his nightly chat-fest, routinely criticizing Republicans for being disgraceful enough to attempt to lower the taxes of gainfully employed Americans attempting to raise their children while not letting money issues become a burden on their faithful relationships.

The liberal says, "I'm for policies that help the poor. Tax the rich! Damn the swine who feel otherwise! Now, please have someone from HR line up the most well endowed female interns because I have the house to myself for the majority of the evening as my domestic partner is planning to spend the next few hours back-to-school shopping with our kid."

To liberals, no behavior that directly hurts a fellow human being is wrong. Cheating on your wife is not necessarily a sin in the eyes of the liberal. However, when everyone is left to fend for themselves, they find utterly unacceptable the pain that eventually finds underachievers.

The liberal says, "With counseling, my wife will get over the few games of grab-ass I played with at least one dame from every school in the Southeastern Conference, but forcing a couch potato to watch his go-getting neighbor drive a fancy car is an injustice by which I cannot abide!"

Liberals believe that admitted statutory rapist Roman Polanski should be cleared of all charges despite the fact that he has never been punished for the vile act he committed upon a child.

Their attitude indicates liberals would eagerly endorse a plan to parade a group of prepubescent teens and low-level employees in front of comedians, directors, actors and Hollywood executives so that the industry giants may have their way with them.

If any of you perverts out there ever get nabbed in a Dateline NBC: To Catch a Predator sting, your best bet is to answer Chris Hansen's questions regarding the audacity of your actions with, "For most people, soliciting sex with an underage girl is morally reprehensible, but I direct really well."

Liberal elites believe that as long as they stand up for policies that assist an overwhelming majority of the population, it’s okay to use a few as sex slaves.

It's like how Al Gore sees nothing wrong with flying around in private jets while telling us to read in the dark.

As long as Mr. Letterman champions policies that will help the everyday slacker focus every waking moment on "World of Warcraft," liberals deem it okay for the one-time-funnyman to make sexual advances to recent college grads whose fathers didn’t dream their little girls would have been safer taking a job traveling around Tijuana on a Girls Gone Wild bus asking the daughters of drug kingpins to lift up their shirts for the camera.

I don't see why anyone would proudly stand with Democrats when no sane parent would allow their teenage daughter within a hundred yards of most male leftists. Not ones in the entertainment industry, or the political arena.

Because of his nefarious relationship with an intern, not Bill Clinton.

Due to his alleged propositioning of multiple masseuses, not Al Gore.

Because he enjoys sleeping with young underlings, not David Letterman.

Because he has trouble making connections with women his own age, not Roman Polanski.

It's sad to say, but if I were forced to allow my teenage daughter to fraternize with one male liberal for an extended period of time, I would probably choose William Ayers. At least it's been a few years since he tried to blow up a police officer...

What to Exchange for American Lives

2010-10-27T18:44:00.000-07:00

Some things are worth exchanging for American lives. It's acceptable that many of our beloved countrypersons have nobly paid the ultimate price in exchange for us retaining the ability to live in homes that are not searched daily by uniformed members of the military.

Despite the feelings of liberals, American lives are not worth sacrificing in exchange for Arab men retaining their ability to quickly pass through airport security without irrationally feeling violated by having to spend five extra minutes with members of the TSA.

Rational Arab men understand that because the overwhelming majority of terrorist attacks have been carried out by those with similar vibes, extra scrutiny at security checkpoints is a good thing, for they too want to make it home to see their families.

Liberals have decided American lives are worth sacrificing in exchange for illegal immigrants retaining the peace of mind that comes with police officers being powerless to expel them from the land in which they have no right to be.

Most legal immigrants understand that because illegal immigration is a tremendous burden on our resources, and has led to the violent deaths of many honorable citizens, it desperately needs to be stopped.

Liberals who oppose Arizona's new immigration law are pretending that Hispanic looking individuals will be harassed by police at random when the law clearly states the preceding action is illegal and immigration status will only come into play if another crime is being investigated. In other words, liberals can't even be truthful when the lives of innocent Arizonans are in constant jeopardy.

There are countless examples of liberals putting the lives of their countrymen at risk in exchange for the rights of criminals; regardless of whether the criminal has illegally crossed the border seeking a better life, or is plotting to murder thousands of innocent children.

"Because the policies of America led to the oppression of the undocumented criminal or Al-Qaeda member, we should make great sacrifices so that they can achieve their goals," the liberal proudly states knowing that the odds of anyone in their family being killed are astronomically small.

Regarding the lawsuit brought by the Obama Administration seeking to stop Arizona's new immigration law; a law implemented by the Grand Canyon State in an attempt to simply enforce what's already on the Federal books, let's look at best case scenarios...

If Arizona Governor Jan Brewer is victorious and her new immigration law is enforced, fewer illegal aliens will cross our border and, because immigration status will be questioned during the investigation of crimes, more illegal aliens who commit crimes other than crossing the border illegally will be deported. Therefore the chances of innocent Arizonans being killed decrease.

If President Obama wins the lawsuit and Arizona's new immigration law is struck down, criminal illegal aliens will have a much greater chance of remaining in the country. Therefore the odds of innocent Arizonans being killed increase - such as the rancher recently gunned down on his own property by an illegal alien.

To liberals, innocent Americans are like insects in the homes of vile criminals. We must be squashed so they can exist in comfort.

We're Proud Weaklings

2010-10-22T19:32:00.000-07:00

It doesn't amaze me that most Europeans are weak.

It doesn't amaze me that most Europeans curtsy to radical Muslims in hopes said show of respect will allow them to survive another day.

What amazes me is that most Europeans take great pride in their cowardice.

Many Europeans insist that Muslims, who have taken up residence in their land, be allowed to ignore the laws of their specific countries in favor of the strict Muslim law of Sharia.

I bet most Europeans favor Muslim immigrants having the right to abide by Sharia wherever their travel takes them; regardless the religion of the person with whom they're dealing.

I wouldn't be surprised to hear a European male say to his Muslim peer, "If you abide by Sharia and my wife has the audacity to look you in the eye with her face uncovered, you have the right to beat her like the dog that she is."

Of course America has her share of individuals who desire a fundamental transformation of their country in hopes of appeasing radical Muslims who behave in ways that would otherwise disgust them to their very core.

"They treat women as second class citizens and execute homosexuals; how repulsive... Oh, they're members of an underdog religion hailing from lands with a standard of living well below ours, why let's assist them in spreading their lifestyle across the entire world," the American liberal says.

Who knows whether their weakness stems from a desire to stay alive, or from a desire to break down anyone who has achieved success through merit...

I can't imagine being proud of my willingness to bow down to those who live lives of disgrace. Radical Islamists have only one desire, and that is to convert every human being in the world to their religion. Christian conservative Americans joke about converting all Muslims to Christianity in order to further world peace and are therefore labeled hate mongers, yet we're supposed to actively work to understand why Muslim extremists have the desire to spread their religion throughout humanity and even help them achieve their wicked goals.

U.S. President Barack Obama built his administration around weakness. Europeans respect his frailty as evidenced by his high approval rating across the pond. They respect a world leader who bows at the feet of his peers because they too look for ways to publicly display their spinelessness. They respect a world leader who shows admiration for a fellow president that calls for the annihilation of Israel because they too believe in the destruction of countries that promote liberty and defend their own borders from harmful intruders.

Europeans respect anyone lacking self-respect.

Going to bed at night with a feeling of pride due to the tasks I've accomplished is one of the greatest joys I regularly experience in life. I can't understand how satisfaction arises from thoughts of how you've allowed people, whose behavior you deem inappropriate, to dictate your agenda.

I suppose when you have no desire to achieve success, you are prone to allowing others to run your world. "As long as you keep the funds coming, I'll do anything you ask," is the stance taken by most Europeans. Now that the money has dried up, and the amount of funds has been reduced, and the amount of work required to receive said funds has been increased, those same Europeans are showing their displeasure by smashing bricks through storefront windows.

Most Europeans are children. "We'll do our chores for an allowance. If the allowance is reduced or you add washing windows to our itinerary we will embarrass you horrifically next time we visit the supermarket."

Most Europeans are cowards. "Because I allow people, who make it their mission in life to kill the children of folks who follow a different religion, to be my moral compass, I proudly declared that wrong is right."

1930's German Version of Bill O'Reilly: Jews in Ovens, You're Crazy Beck!

2010-10-18T17:44:00.000-07:00

If you're a conservative who watches Fox News, you've probably grown frustrated with Mr. Bill O'Reilly and his habit of always giving Barack Obama the benefit of the doubt.

During his regular appearances on The Factor, poor Glenn Beck attempts to inform Mr. O'Reilly of the devious plan President Obama has for the United States of America. Despite Mr. Obama saying, before he took office, "We are a few days away from radically transforming this country," Mr. O'Reilly doesn't believe the president has any desire to make significant changes to the structure of America.

The fact that a known communist was appointed to a prestigious White House position has no impact on the longtime Factor host. Mr. O'Reilly still believes our president is an average Joe who leans slightly to the left.

If Glenn Beck appeared on a late 1930's German version of The O'Reilly Factor, I can hear him warn, "Bill, you don't understand what Hitler has planned for the Jews. He erroneously blames them for all the problems of Europe and will wipe them out by the thousands!"

"I don't see it, Beck," Mr. O'Reilly would respond.

"But Bill, in a speech they won't show on (the late 1930's German version of) MSNBC, Hitler said, 'Today I will once more be a prophet: If the international Jewish financiers in and outside Europe should succeed in plunging the nations once more into a world war, then the result will not be the Bolshevization of the earth, and thus the victory of Jewry, but the annihilation of the Jewish race in Europe!' Bill, he's telling you that he is going to kill Jews by the millions!"

"You're crazy, Beck. How would Hitler kill that many Jews? There are no mechanisms with which to carry out such an elaborate plan. And come on Beck, do you really think our fellow Germans will just sit back and watch their Jewish neighbors get carted off to the killing fields. And once the Jews are gone, are you under the impression that the non-Jew Germans will steal the businesses that were established by said Jews! I suppose you're next going to tell me that the few Jews lucky enough to survive Hitler's master plan will come back and attempt to reclaim their livelihood, but will instead be murdered by the looters who'd taken everything for which the returning Jews had spent their lives working? Is that the crazy scenario you're proposing?"

"Yes; that's certainly a possibility, Bill!"

"Get real, Beck! Hitler was just trying to rally his base. I tell you what, if he kills even one Jew, I'll owe you a dinner."

"A dinner!? Bill, we're talking about the mass murder of..."

"Sorry, Beck, but regardless of how much irrefutable evidence you present, I refuse to label Hitler a pinhead just yet. As always, I'll let the viewers decide. We're out of time, but please stay tuned for viewer telegrams."

I'm not insinuating Barack Obama is planning genocide, but retaining the belief that everything will basically remain the same, no matter how radical the person is who occupies the Oval Office, is the exact reason those with radical agendas succeed.

Many of our fellow countrymen are either ignorant to the goals of the Obama Administration, or believe that somehow, someway, the current trends will be reversed. Our massive debt will be reduced, the wasteful spending will stop, and the White House will all of a sudden refrain from assaulting entrepreneurial spirit on a daily basis. Because we've never lived through a depression or genocide, and because we've never been led by a ruler who retains power by brutally murdering dissidents; why it must mean that we will never see a massive reduction in freedom and our friends will never mysteriously disappear after speaking ill of the government.

A positive outcome never awaits a nation full of apathetic and ignorant citizens.

The Justice Brothers and Their Unlikely Association with the KKK

2010-10-14T18:24:00.000-07:00

When I was a younger man, I remember watching all kinds of normally light-hearted programs that took the time to alert viewers to the evils of racism.

I vividly recall seeing a man rebuke George Jefferson on the sitcom The Jefferson's simply because Mr. Jefferson was African-American. The racist character on the show was a straight-up bigot. He wasn't made out to be a bigot because he disagreed with George on matters pertaining to politics; rather he was a bigot because he was disgusted by Mr. Jefferson solely due to the color of Mr. Jefferson's skin. Mr. Jefferson saved the life of the bigot by administering CPR. Upon hearing the news that he was resuscitated by an African-American, the bigot said, "You should have let me die."

Nowadays, those who disagree with President Obama are associated with the fictional character that was so repulsed by the proprietor of Jefferson Cleaners that he would have sacrificed his life in order to avoid physical contact.

Those who pretend their enemies are racist when their enemies haven't a single bigoted bone in their bodies are akin to members of the Ku Klux Klan. The Reverends Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton use race to incite hate. They make claims without the backing of facts in order to pit one race against another.

What; you think it nobler to falsely claim conservative Caucasians are racists than to openly declare your hatred of individuals whose skin pigmentation vastly differs from your own?

Used to be; people, like the producers of The Jefferson's, nobly attempted to display true racism. As hard as it was for those of us born into decent families to believe, they told us there were still people in existence who judged others solely based on skin color.

The Justice Brothers, Rush Limbaugh's nickname for the Reverends Jackson and Sharpton, aren't interested in exposing true racism. Their only concern is making it appear as if fair-minded individuals who disagree with their point-of-view are hateful bigots.

Despising a person solely based on the color of his or her skin is indescribably despicable. But can we really elevate The Justice Brothers, or any of the many Democrats who have accused Obama opponents of racism, above those who refuse to look into the eyes of minorities just as fundamental Islamists refuse to look into the eyes of uncovered women?

Conservative opponents of President Obama have the ability to prattle on for hours, as the aforementioned Rush Limbaugh does on a daily basis, regarding the reasons they deduce Mr. Obama's policies will eventually run the United States of America into the ground.

No matter, say The Justice Brothers; if said conservatives disagree with the anointed one, they are racist.

In other words, the only way The Justice Brothers would have refrained from calling Mr. Limbaugh and his ilk bigots would be if conservatives from coast to coast had declared every word spoken throughout their entire careers to be completely misguided.

Because, by preaching their mantra of small government and individual responsibility, they were accused of racism by people who posses the ability to secure airtime on MSNBC with the snap of their fingers, the only words conservatives could have uttered in order to stave off the racist label are, "Despite what I've been saying for 20+ years, I all of a sudden declare my ardent support for social justice, spreading the wealth, and large government. Now to what address do I send this sizable donation to the DNC?"

If you're a baseball fan who opposes the regular use of instant replay, as does Caucasian commissioner Bud Selig, would it make you racist if you continued your opposition to the practice when an African-American successor to Mr. Selig implemented large scale instant replay upon taking office?

Just as members of the KKK hate all minorities, the Justice Brothers aren't concerned with learning whether the conservative they label racist has character. They say, "I don't care what's in the heart of that conservative, I despise him because he disagrees with me politically and I will therefore portray him as a racist despite facts which reveal the exact opposite."

Justice Brother Al Sharpton will likely be burning a metaphorical cross on the Fox News Channel during his next appearance on the O'Reilly Factor; because, by giving the Reverend Sharpton a forum to spew his vile hate, Mr. O'Reilly is looking out for you.

Or you could turn your television to a normally light-hearted situation comedy that alerts children to the evils of racism via a character that shows his wicked side by disagreeing with the fiduciary stance of the African-American man elected to govern the land in which he lives.

I Can't Wait to Never Grow Up

2010-10-10T14:15:00.000-07:00

Maybe I shouldn't be such a stickler when it comes to freedom.

Maybe it's good the government blesses me with the ability to perennially live as I did for the first seventeen-plus years of my life.

Sure, being a child had what we thought of as negatives. When we got in the car, we were forced to buckle up. We couldn't smoke or drink. We couldn't eat the foods we craved. Once we were of age to be granted a drivers license; it was out of our control as to which steering wheel we got behind.

But, when we needed some spending money, by turning on the charm, we could usually convince mommy and daddy we were deserving of a hand out.

Are you recalling your pre-teen years in order to relate to the above; or a week ago last Thursday?

You remember a week ago last Thursday... the evening on which you got into your environmentally friendly car and then started down the highway littered with billboards reminding you to, "Click it or ticket."

After you made it safely to your favorite restaurant, you requested a nice juicy steak - just the way you like it.

"The government deemed the way you like it detrimental to your health," the waiter responded to what was once considered an, "order," but, due to governmental intervention, is now merely considered a "suggestion."

"We can prepare it close to the exact way you'd like it," the waiter continued. "Of course we'd like to cook it just the way you like it, and obviously you'd like to eat it just the way you like it, but the law states that our likes and dislikes are irrelevant when it comes to the illegality of food preparation."

While waiting for the meal you'd somewhat enjoy, you noticed a couple of non-smoking signs that reminded you how much you were going to miss your usual post-meal cigar.

Used to be, when we left the nest at 18, we'd have to make it on our own. We had the freedom to sink or swim.

Now we can only float.

Looking back though, weren't those the wonder years? Among our only concerns were which pair of jeans we'd wear to school on Friday and at which hang-out we'd spend Saturday night.

Nowadays I'm too busy to put much thought into my wardrobe, and am always so tired from working all week that I'm asleep three hours before the time at which I used to depart the house on a typical Saturday night.

Wouldn't it be great to only worry about such trivial matters throughout our entire adulthood?

Not to mention retirement. The government takes our hard earned money when we're young and gives it back when we're old. The time spent deciding the best investment opportunities to meet our long term financial goals can instead be allocated to reading movie reviews so we're sure to escort our sweethearts to the moving pictures that most put them in the mood.

"As kids, we never had to make an appointment with the doctor, and now we do," you cynically remind me.

Not to fear; because as soon as Obama's healthcare plan is implemented, the government will tell us where and when to go for all our medical related needs. No more pressing 2 for the scheduling desk, making copies of our insurance card, etc.

Soon they'll be just like the days in which our mom said, "Be outside the school directly after the bell rings so I can pick you up and drive you to your appointment with Dr. Frasier at 4:00."

I'm not sure the healthcare bill mentions this specifically, but maybe one or two pages detail the number of ice cream scoops we'll receive after exhibiting the minimum amount of bravery required to visit terrifying doctors who, before Mr. Obama took office, needlessly amputated limbs and removed vital organs.

You can't really blame our Founding Fathers for irresponsibly granting us so much freedom; for they had the misfortune of living prior to the birth of the Great and Honorable Barack H. Obama. Had they access to his staggering intellect, the U.S. Constitution would have undoubtedly been peppered with catch phrases like, "social justice," and "spread the wealth."

Thankfully their short-sidedness has now been corrected and we will forever live without that pesky freedom which led to the United States of America being the only stain on an otherwise immaculate globe.

Don't Do what I'm Doing or You'll Destroy the Planet

2010-10-04T20:13:00.000-07:00

What if Al Gore declared eating ice cream to be extremely harmful to our precious environment? (Due to the unrefined behavior of cows, he may already have made such a declaration. Who can keep track of the plethora of activities he claims are bad for the planet?)

Mr. Gore would stand next to you, eating a huge bowl of fresh-from-the-freezer Cookies 'n Cream, and say that it's imperative you refrain from opening your tub. "For the love of god, don't do it," he'd scream in opposition of you eating ice cream. "If you dig your spoon into that huge chunk of cookie atop the creamy vanilla we'll all die."

"Sure, Mr. Gore," would be the response. "You were Vice President of the United States, so even though common sense tells me your claim has no merit, you must be trustworthy. But I feel it my duty to respectfully alert you to the fact that, as we speak, you're eating ice cream."

"I know," Mr. Gore would respond. "I like ice cream."

"Well, sir, by looking at you it's pretty obvious that you have a massive sweet tooth. But if eating ice cream will kill us all relatively soon, why are you still doing it?"

"I already told you," Mr. Gore would retort. "I like ice cream. So I'd rather convince everyone else to stop eating ice cream. That way I get my fix and humanity will continue existing."

"But, sir, it's difficult to cease a desired action, based on your warning, when you're doing the exact thing you claim will have disastrous consequences. If you said a meteor was heading our way and told me to run, then hastily scampered off, I would probably follow. If you told me about the meteor, and then stood perfectly still, chances are I would doubt the existence of an impeding meteor strike. Does that make sense?"

"Don't eat that ice cream," Mr. Gore would then repeat.

"You didn't answer my question. Doesn't my meteor analogy make perfect sense?"

"That's a good question."

"And..."

"I don't answer good questions. If you ask me about the things you can do to stop the planet from being destroyed, I will oblige you with an extended answer I'll claim has the backing of science."

"But you can't only answer questions formulated by yourself!"

"Sure I can; how do you think I've managed to stay married for so many years!?"

"But, like how you're ice cream eating while claiming that ice cream eating will destroy the planet; your refusal to answer difficult questions does not give me confidence in your assertion. Anyone who makes a claim, then says, 'The only other words I'll utter regarding the matter are words which basically mean the same thing as the words I just uttered,' should not be taken seriously."

"Don't eat that ice cream!" Mr. Gore would once again repeat.

Mr. Gore says high levels of electricity consumption and the flying of airplanes will destroy the environment. But he doesn't give up rides on private jets and recently purchased a gigantic home which runs on, you guessed it, electricity.

Mr. Gore won't debate anyone with a differing opinion regarding global warming.

Per the usual; a Democrat is advancing his or her agenda by lying to the world. If he was telling the truth, he would welcome questions from all dissenters. If he was telling the truth, he'd say, "Bring on the doubters; I'll convince them with facts and logic until none remain standing."

And this particular Democrat is making a fortune off his fellow partisans who happily purchase the manure he proudly slings.

"Thank you sir, may I have another," should be the perennial slogan of the Democrat Party.

Think of the Consequences, People

2010-09-28T18:42:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi is in favor of universal healthcare and massive entitlement spending. Why? So people can spend their lives as unemployed artists. Ms. Pelosi never stops to think about the fact that the nation cannot succeed if everyone chooses a career path that leads to the production of absolutely nothing beneficial to society.

"What do you mean you're out of Burrito Supremes?" the customer asks a Taco Bell cashier.

"Well, our tortilla supplier decided he much preferred life as an unemployed artist specializing in depicting the brutality of the Peloponnesian War though watercolor."

Many Republicans say big business needs cheap labor to be competitive, yet they don't stop to think about the fact that the illegal immigrants are coming to our country with no intention of assimilating.

A similar situation is occurring in Europe where Muslim communities are filled with folks who refuse to fit in with the current culture. Of course these communities produce terrorists who threaten to murder anyone speaking ill of their religion.

And because illegal immigrants, employed by big business, will eventually see to it that they are granted the right to vote; many districts throughout the United States will one-day soon have Nancy Pelosi-types representing them in Congress. These Pelosi clones will then pass so much anti-capitalist legislation that the very same businesses, which once claimed a great need for illegals, will be destroyed. I hope the owners of these entities will appreciate the irony of being forced to permanently close their doors due to the voting habits of the same illegal immigrants they once hired to keep them open.

Being pro-business, I understand the need for reasonably priced labor, but you can't say anything goes when trying to keep your business afloat.

So the basic problem with politicians and so-called community leaders on both sides of the political aisle is their, "sacrifice future generations in order to ensure my own success," mentality.

The economic collapse is unfortunately not causing these people to reconsider their positions. Instead it's causing them to blame the other side and insist that if we went further in their direction, every problem would be solved miraculously.

But in reality the solution is stunningly simple. If everyone were to abide by the law and the government were to get out of our way, prosperity would soon follow.

The New Real World

2010-09-25T14:35:00.000-07:00

The new real world is a strange place for individuals who believe in living up to their potential.

The real world was once a term used to describe the often harsh reality young slackers would face once they left the nest.

Now, the real world means something completely different.

Now, the real world is a magical place.

Today it's considered politically incorrect; but in the past, were an individual to say something colossally stupid, a sane person would respond, "Are you some kind of moron!?"

Now you can't ask such rhetorical questions.

The real world prevents it.

In the new real world; no one lacks intelligence. In the new real world; no one goes without the finer things in life because they choose not to work.

The new real world incentivizes young people to remain in the home of mommy and daddy until they're approaching 30 years of age. The new real world looks at people who work their way up the corporate ladder as thieves and oppressors.

The old real world taught us there was great value in proving to business leaders we possessed qualities similar to theirs.

The old real world taught us that life wasn't fair, and setbacks should only push us harder. The new real world teaches us that an oppressor is responsible for every one of our failures, and the sheer volume of oppressors makes moral success impossible.

In the new real world, only wealthy individuals who use their money to support the passage of policies that make it impossible for future generations to duplicate their achievement are considered moral. "I got mine, but it's not fair I leave you with the ability to get yours," they say.

In the new real world, recreation is honorable. Used to be, "I sat on the couch watching television all day," was an admission that would have been met with the same scorn present day Americans face after saying, "I put in thirteen hours at the office on Friday and plan to go in over the weekend."

In the old real word, a person's passion typically led to the betterment of society for all. In the new real world, the productivity of ones desired activities is irrelevant.

The old real world was responsible for creating the greatest country in the history of civilization.

The new real world is causing its collapse.

I Demand You Change Your Law Based on My Ignorance: A Letter from Steve Nash

2010-09-22T20:04:00.000-07:00

If Steve Nash of the Phoenix Suns drafted a letter to Arizona Governor Jan Brewer in protest of Arizona's new immigration law, it would probably go a little something like this...

Dear Governor Brewer,

My name is Steve Nash and I am a professional sports hero here in Phoenix. I know my opinion is valued over ordinary Arizonans because I dribble well. I dribble very well. I'm probably the most adroit dribbler Canada has ever produced.

I, with the backing of the entire Phoenix Suns organization, demand you not enact the controversial new Arizona law which specifically calls for the profiling of all Hispanic looking people simply because they are different.

Though I have not read a word of the bill, the media and internet have used scary words in describing hypothetical situations where people with dark skin are hunted down in the streets of Arizona.

If my sincere appeal, which I have thoughtfully based on vague information learned from watching MSNBC, surfing the Huffington Post, and speaking with our Stanford educated backup center Jarron Collins while playing Wii, is not enough to stop you from doing the right thing, Arizona is in deep peril.

I understand that a majority of Arizonans support this deranged new law, and that fact deeply saddens me. However, a majority of southerners once claimed slavery was morally just. In passing this law, you make the pro-slavery crowd resemble ardent supporters of the ACLU.

Only a little bit, does wearing a "Los Suns" jersey ease the discomfort I feel in playing in front of mostly bigoted fans. I am beginning to confuse Arizona with 1940's Germany. Sometimes, when I look to the upper deck, I expect to see Nazi clad spectators staring back at me. I have an inherent desire to advise all Jewish fans in the front row to flee the arena. After I swish a free throw, instead of cheering, I half-expect to hear 18,000 people shout in unison, "Heil Hitler!" On the way home, I expect to see a sign indicating Scottsdale is 20 miles ahead and the Arizona branch of Auschwitz is only another 10 down the road.

So please listen to someone who has not actively sought out any specific details contained in the bill and disregard the will of the Arizona people. I know they get upset at hearing that fellow Arizonans have been gunned down by Mexican drug dealers on their own property, but those incidents usually happen a couple hundred miles away from the condo in which I reside during the season. Besides, you don't think my eyes swell with tears after hearing fabricated tales about Hispanic fathers and sons terrorized by police while enjoying a couple scoops at their local ice cream parlor? So, Governor Brewer, please allow the horrific illegal immigration problem that's bankrupting Arizona to persist by preventing the implementation of this bigoted law.

I know it may seem strange to run a state based on the advice of someone who possesses only a modicum of knowledge regarding the thing on which he is advising, but how can a land run on advice from the compassionate be filled with anything other than peace and harmony?

With More Tolerance in My Pinky Finger than You Have in Your Entire Pasty Body,

Steve Nash
Point Guard - Los Suns

I've Been Waiting My Entire Career to Hassle Minorities

2010-09-16T16:31:00.000-07:00

Unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware of the fact that Arizona just passed a new law aimed at cracking down on illegal immigration.

In response to the laws passage, as leftists usually do, President Barack Obama told a tale so far fetched that, upon hearing it, the producers of 24 sarcastically suggested, "It's called reality, Mr. President; you may want to look into it."

Mr. Obama informed us of a nonexistent Hispanic-American man who took his child to an ice cream parlor where he was roughed up by the cops for no reason other than that his skin was brown.

Had Mr. Obama time to elaborate, the story would have gone something like this... "While the Hispanic-American father and his son enjoyed their delicious ice cream, two crooked white cops entered the establishment specifically looking to harass minorities. Immediately, their cold eyes locked onto the eyes of the ice cream consuming father. The police didn't like anything about the man, but they particularly loathed his smile, for they hated to see a Hispanic man enjoying himself in their country. Noticing the rogue policemen, the Hispanic-American man immediately sensed trouble and began trembling in fear. After spitting out a wad of chewing tobacco, the lead cop hiked up his trouser-pants and marched over to the American citizen of Hispanic descent and his son, who by that point had the most adorable little ice cream mustache atop his upper-lip, which perfectly complemented his beautiful brown eyes, which, until that day, had been shielded from our country's inherent racism. 'You look like one-dem eee-legals. You got yo papers, boy?' Crooked Cop number one then asked the father. 'No, sir; I didn't think I'd need any identification seeing as how I'm simply taking my son out for a little ice cream. As you can see, I'm enjoying a scoop of rocky road topped with M&M's while Junior here chose two scoops of chocolate in a waffle cone. My home is two blocks away - I will take you there and show you that I am a law-abiding American.'"

Seconds later, according to our esteemed Commander in Chief, the barrel of a gun is digging into the temple of the Hispanic-American father.

In telling a condensed version of the above story, Mr. Obama first assumes all officers of the law are vile creatures, incapable of anything other than evil.

Any rational human being understands that, prior to the passage of the new Arizona law; officers were not driving around in their cruisers fantasizing about a day on which they could needlessly harass minorities. A partner was not saying to his brother in uniform, as they waited at a stoplight, "Joe, I wish to god there was a law allowing me to exit this vehicle, jump across the hood, and then tackle that Hispanic man teaching his child how to ride a bicycle. Like you, harassing minorities is the sole reason I chose law enforcement as a vocation."

Will there be genuinely immoral police officers who don't abide by the actual law (a law that DOES NOT allow for the questioning of individuals simply because they are non-Caucasian) and racially profile certain Arizonans? Perhaps there will be. But such cops have likely already figured out a way to disregard protocol and dispense their own personal brand of justice.

And, when drafting legislation, you can't factor in fear that an extremely small percentage of the police force may act inappropriately.

By that logic, if a crooked cop framed someone for murder, we'd have to make murder legal. By that logic, we'd have to make everything legal.

Remember when President Obama called the Cambridge Police "stupid" mere seconds after admitting he didn't know specific details regarding their interaction with belligerent Harvard Professor, Henry Louis "Skip" Gates?

Well, any man who automatically stands against law enforcement does not look at new laws in terms of how they'll protect the innocent. Instead, the anti-police look at new laws in terms of how they'll "unjustly" burden criminals.

Opposition to the new Arizona law simply proves that liberals have the desire for millions of foreigners to enter America and immediately be granted the right to vote due to the fact that 98% of said foreigners would vote Democrat.

Liberals don't think about the fact that America can't adequately support six billion individuals. They don't think about the fact that laws are vital to the stability of any society. Leftists don't think about anything other than what deplorable actions are needed to increase the amount of power they wield.

This Just in: Operation Iraqi Freedom was a Slam Dunk

2010-09-12T10:41:00.001-07:00

One of the benefits to being a conservative is that you aren't required to lie in order to win political arguments.

But let's pretend for a second that President George W. Bush was forced to lie to the American people as frequently as the current resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. And let's pretend the media went with it...

After all, Mr. Obama claims the bailout bill is not a bailout bill. Despite grainy video evidence where he states the exact opposite, Mr. Obama now insists he does not support a single-payer healthcare system. Do the media question Mr. Obama about these and other discrepancies?

Not for one second.

From 2001 - 2009, what would the media have reported if W. possessed the same hypnotic power?

Not only would they have reported lies as the truth, they would have gone out of their way to campaign for the already-elected president.

Matt Lauer would have undoubtedly announced to millions of early risers, "The United States has officially conquered Iraq and Afghanistan. Though minor skirmishes continue, our military was able to accomplish this awesome feat the very same day on which we attacked each country. Mr. Bush is doing everything in his power to limit the number of civilian causalities and the toppling of Saddam Hussein statues throughout Iraq prove our brave soldiers are viewed as liberators."

Later, on MSNBC, a teary-eyed Chris Matthews would elaborate. "The tingle currently running up my leg is the result of seeing our troops boldly enter Iraq, and the reality that these heroic men and women are inspired by their fearless Commander in Chief."

The mainstream media would have reported that the war in Iraq was won long before Mr. Bush arrived with his infamous "Mission Accomplished" banner. Regardless of their aggression level, Code Pink and other anti-war protesters would have been labeled by the media as lunatics on the verge of violence. "After the break, we'll ask Dick Morris if Code Pink founder Madea Benjamin could be the next Timothy McVeigh," are words Bill O'Reilly would have used to tease the Factor audience.

The media would have bent over backwards to blame 9/11 on anyone other than George W. Bush, going as far as openly wondering whether or not his political adversaries had anything to do with heinous attacks.

"Though his short stay in the White House makes him blameless for the attacks on America, George W. Bush still had the guts to invade two countries. Of course the international community, whom we protect militarily, will unjustly criticize Mr. Bush for what they deem unnecessary aggression. He didn't start the war on terror, but he'll put his butt on the line to finish it. This is exactly the type of man we need leading America," New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman would have informed his readers.

Of course, with the exception of the "fair and balanced" Mr. O'Reilly, these pundits despised Mr. Bush, making the above scenarios laughably unbelievable. Yet the enthusiasm contained within each fabricated snippet mirrors the actual vigor with which the real mainstream media supports President Barack Obama.

As a conservative, the last thing I want is for the American media to behave in an overtly partisan manner, even if my side benefited as a result.

I just want them to tell the truth.

Living for Others

2010-09-08T16:50:00.000-07:00

Ask a Democrat what kind of country they want... If they're being honest, they'll tell you that they dream of a land in which everybody lives for everybody else.

"After a visit to the supermarket, you would transport your groceries to the dwelling of someone less fortunate. Then, after returning home, you would discover that an individual with greater means had stocked your pantry full of sustenance."

Conservatives are labeled hateful and cruel simply because we have a burning desire for accountability.

We believe the reason God blessed humanity with freewill is so that everyone could have a chance for success based on their ability and willingness to work.

Finally, after centuries of oppression, there is a country that grants each of its citizens the freedom to achieve greatness. Though this country's foundation has led to unprecedented prosperity, we're vilified for wanting to retain its foundation.

If one person earns a single cent more than his or her fellow citizens, liberals believe the unmatched wealth must have resulted from a broken and unfair system. This is the prevailing wisdom among Democrats despite the fact that Americans who achieve are much more charitable than citizens of countries whose leaders impose laws of utmost fairness.

To the far left, fairness is not achieved until the last person can act without consequence. If you succeed in life, then everyone is rewarded. If you fail, your stability will remain equal to that of individuals who have reached their lofty expectations.

But when the result of success and failure are equal, incentive to strive for greatness is nonexistent, thus resulting in a stagnant society.

The only way America can retain its superpower status is simply by ensuring that each of its citizens has the ability to retain what they produce. That's it. Just allow people to retain what they produce. Though this philosophy sounds too good to be true; it is labeled as disgusting cruelty.

President Obama and his ilk are forcing us to live for those with far less ambition. They are forcing us to hand over our hard-earned money to the government; an entity far less able to use it productively when the goal is assisting others.

President Obama demands our cash, which he will either lose via fraud and inefficiency, or use as a drug to keep the downtrodden coming back for more.

If left in our own bank account, we could carefully choose charitable organizations that help people forever fend for themselves.

And I'm not guessing that, if a majority of our tax burden was lifted, the less fortunate would still have a place to seek help. Americans have proven time and time again that their giving is unmatched.

But like pointing to thousands of countries where socialistic policies have failed miserably; informing Democrats of historical facts has absolutely no impact on their desires.

To them, socialism should work because it sounds good.

But to rational persons on the right, socialism not only sounds horrible; it has proven most ineffective.

Why else would rulers of socialist countries be required to govern using deadly force?

More Appeasing of the Irrational

2010-08-03T21:12:00.000-07:00

The problem with liberals is that they never stop trying to convince insane individuals to accept reality. It's an extreme case of the blind leading the blind.

The latest claim by those on the left says that if leaders of the United States proudly declare they are concerned about violent action perpetrated by homegrown right-wing militia groups more than they are about another attack from radical Islam, non-terrorist Muslim rulers worldwide will all of a sudden devote legions of men to aid America in the fight against terror.

But all rational people on earth know America has never been at war with non-terrorist Muslims.

The left talk as if President Bush instructed the Secret Service to pick off all followers of Muhammad that came within 100 yards of the White House. They talk as if, under Bush, the waterboarding of typical American Muslims was carried out with such frequency it became the new driving while black.

President Bush didn't care what religion the terrorist were. He justifiably had a "You come after us, we'll come after you," mentality.

Rational people understand the United States military is not stationed in Afghanistan and Iraq because Iraq and Afghanistan are nations filled with Muslims.

But if a few Muslims are unable to differentiate between radical Islam and Islam, there is no hope of intellectually convincing them of anything rational. It's not difficult to understand that if you put "radical" before the description of a person or "extremist" after the description of a person, it means you're not equating them with run of the mill people who fit that description.

It would be the equivalent of, during World War II, a German, who adamantly opposed the vile Nazis, hearing Franklin D. Roosevelt declare the United States was at war with Hitler and his radical German regime, and therefore picking up a weapon for use against the allies. "Yes, I despise Hitler, but since President Roosevelt uttered the word 'German' in describing the enemy of his country, I must fight alongside those whose cruelty is unmatched. I will toss aside a lifetime of kindness and decency and kill all Americans because their president didn't wisely choose the words with which he described his adversary!"

Attempting to talk sense into the irrational is an exercise in futility, but is nevertheless the backbone of liberal foreign policy.

They honestly believe that the appeasement of child-killing terrorists will immediately convince said evildoer to drop his weapon and do the whole 9-5 thing. With great anticipation, the New York Times awaits the day on which they can quote a terrorist as having said, "Now that America is acting in accordance with my worldview, I will put down my grenade launcher and erect a white picket fence in my front dirt pit, purchase a hybrid automobile and exchange the dynamite vest strapped to the chest of my teenage daughter with a Girl Scout burqa that, Allah willing, will soon display many badges related to her ability to avoid eye contact with men."

Liberals believe that if you meet every demand of a terrorist, the killer of innocence will cease to have another violent thought. In reality, if every demand of a terrorist were met, the evildoer would quickly expand his list of demands.

Liberals believe terrorists can be taken at their word while conservatives are rotten liars.

A liberal thinks, "Republicans are so hard to please; terrorists on the other hand..."

I suppose it's irrational of me to put so much thought into why irrational people wholeheartedly believe irrational people are rational when there is little mystery to the phenomenon.

Goodnight America, You've Been a Great Country By Freedom

2010-07-15T19:24:00.000-07:00

Hey America, Freedom here.

I just want to thank you all for an amazing run! We ruled the world from 1776 - 2010!

Throughout history, I'd looked for a place to reside without shame, and I finally found it in America.

Sure, pieces of me have lived elsewhere, but never like this.

We were Ross and Rachel.

We were Luke and Laura.

We were Dagny Taggart and John Galt!

Look at all we accomplished!

We created unprecedented prosperity.

Because of me, responsible individuals of America's middle-class only had to worry about which parent would pick the kids up from soccer practice.

Clean water was a given.

Food on the table was easily obtained.

For those who fell on hard times, private charity was plentiful.

I hope, in the near future, when you're enjoying a nice lukewarm bowl of imitation gruel at the American gulag, you'll think fondly of me. Please, not so much that you neglect to gaze at the overhanging picture of Supreme Leader Obama for the amount of time as required by law. (Of course you won't be able to discuss me with your fellow workers of the state, but you can recall with joy the days in which you were able to eat foods pleasurable to your taste buds during specific times of the day at which you were hungry.)

It's a shame that in the evolution of America, individuals without the ability or desire to achieve greatness looked at persons who had obtained prosperity on a grand scale and said, "I want exactly what he or she has, but I don't really want to partake in a lot of work. How can we make that happen?" Now that the majority of people in America are of that mindset, candidates promising to prop up undeserving underachievers are being elected by the thousands.

Of course, I, Freedom, understand that the resulting policies will only bring down the achievers, by way of government force, until there is absolutely no wealth with which to spread.

Being self-aware; I, Freedom, understand that I am no longer looked at as virtuous by citizens of the USA and will therefore go quietly into the night sky. I bring too much uncertainty.

Soon it will be as if I was never part of America. Those who still acknowledge my historical presence will claim my only contribution was heartache for the noble. History books will continue to falsely claim that my involvement in the USA caused nothing but misery because selfish crooks took advantage of my presence in order to cheat the common man out of their god given right to five luxury automobiles and a garage spacious enough to fit all those fancy cars.

Hey, remember the time I allowed Microsoft and Apple to go after one another with reckless abandon, thus creating unprecedented technology that makes lives better for millions of people around the world!?

Like you humans wax poetically about the college years; there will always be a special place in my heart for those days.

But I digress...

Please, don't feel sorry for me.

With the history of the world being oppression at the hands of demented ruling classes, I never thought I could be a strong presence for two years, much less two-hundred.

Now that my run is over, I must say it puzzles me why people look at the reason behind the unusual success of the greatest nation mankind has ever built and then turn away from me in disgust.

But I suppose it's better to have loved and lost, than never to have loved at all.

You had me.

Many of you appreciated my virtue.

With me it was up to you.

The majority of you now think I had a hand in the fact that a lobster dinner is only realistic four times a week instead of the ideal seven.

Though I admit the imperfection of humans makes me vulnerable, I am supremely confident in declaring that I have no equal.

Freedom out.

Why Would Conservatives Move to the Center?

2010-07-06T18:09:00.000-07:00

Whenever a member of the elite media interviews a conservative, they usually ask why the right-wing hate monger can't move their political viewpoints toward the center.

Conservatives understand that left-wing policies damage the country. Therefore, by moving toward the center, they would be agreeing to only partially damage the country in exchange for meaningless political harmony.

Let's say Democrats proposed each citizen be punched in the face five times per year, but conservatives rightly objected, saying we should never slug an American in the face for any reason. Then the Democrats say, "Okay, our desire is to punch people in the face five times per year while conservatives favor a policy that calls for the faces of our citizenry to remain unscathed; how about we compromise and punch everyone in the face thrice yearly." Unless Republicans agree to this revised proposal, they're labeled as the party of "No."

"All they do is say no to face punching. They're even trying to scare the American people into believing that the absorption of multiple fists to the face will produce pain and suffering," the MSNBC anchor declares with outrage.

Because Democrats now wield an exorbitant amount of power, the Republican Party is usually labeled as the party of "no" despite the fact that Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and President Obama refuse to even negotiate with them.

Of course they'll pretend to strive for bipartisanship by throwing out bogus compromises that fail to address fundamental problems.

"Republicans favor no punches to the faces of the American people. We Democrats favor no less than five right or left crosses to the jaw of every citizen," Nancy Pelosi says while stumping for the 3,000 page Face-Alteration Benefiting the Future of America bill. "So how about we compromise by punching everyone in the face five times and then dabbing the resulting wounds with an adequate amount of taxpayer provided hydrogen peroxide?"

At the "face-punching" roundtable, hosted by President Barack Obama, he proudly declares his intention to appoint a bipartisan commission to study the potential benefit of applying gauze to any cuts resulting from the implementation of his controversial proposal.

So the next time you hear a member of the elite media admonish conservatives for their refusal to agree with everything proposed by President Obama, remember that it's your face they're trying to keep pretty.

And while the face-punching legislation analogy is a little far-fetched, such a bill would do far less damage than Obama's healthcare "triumph", which will undoubtedly lead to millions and millions of Americans being denied treatment by the same government sworn to protect their liberty.

I know I wouldn't be the only one standing in line to take my share of punches to the face if it meant recently-passed Obama-care would never see the light of day.

Failure was the Goal

2010-06-25T19:02:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama recently insisted that he'd rather be a great one-term president than a mediocre two-term president.

Were he ever hired into the private sector, I'm sure Mr. Obama would have informed his boss, "I'd rather be a great employee and get fired on the first day than a mediocre employee who spends a lifetime working for your company."

Mr. Obama has a burning desire to exit the White House after only four years while citizens of the United States scream, "Why did you pass healthcare, we hate it!" and, "Why didn't you focus on jobs, we need them!" To hear those words after being prematurely voted out of office would make Obama feel as if he did a bang-up job.

I'm sure academics would agree with him.

In the chapter entitled, "The Greatest President Ever" words similar to the ones below would appear in textbooks across the country.

"What made President Obama special was his ability to ignore the wishes of the American people. He knew what was best for both his subjects, as well as the entire population of earth. Because most citizens of the United States are natural born oppressors who value their own selfish desires over the good of humanity, Mr. Obama's only chance to improve mankind was to implement unpopular policies the ignorant masses didn't realize would benefit their future. He selflessly sacrificed a second term so his people could live better lives and social justice could be achieved."

As president, Mr. Obama has spent many days apologizing for the past actions of the United States. He has vowed to change our self-indulgent behavior for the betterment of the world.

Such apologies and promises are akin to Mr. Obama saying to his private sector employer, "I will not strive to help us sell more of the products we manufacture. Selling more than our fair share harms the environment and leads to the concentration of excessive wealth in our bank account. Have you ever stopped to think about the bank accounts of your competitors? My job, as your employer, is to make sure the ledger sheet of you and your peers are equal. If you think, because you sign my paycheck, I will only help you succeed; you're not a part of the global world. I care about the well being of your competitors more than I care about the well being of this company. The first thing I must do is speak to the boards of our rivals and make sure they understand how sorry we are for making superior products. I will inform them that our success was before my arrival and will not continue on my watch."

President Obama's only concern is bringing everybody down. If he was hired by Nike to sell shoes, he would not take it upon himself to create new marketing strategies that benefit Nike, rather he would damage the once great company so much that the longtime maker of Air Jordan's would eventually have sales receipts equaling those of Dan's Discount Injury-Inducing Shoe Company.

A fictitious private sector Barack Obama wouldn't concern himself with employees of the company he ran into the ground, just like the very real President Obama has made it perfectly clear that he's unmoved by the plight of the unemployed in America.

Before the entire company went bankrupt, "private sector Obama" would elevate the status of its lower level workers. Though they did nothing to deserve a promotion, he would make them equal to those who for years had toiled tirelessly to help the company prosper.

In order to justify his actions, Mr. Obama would ridicule and demean the accomplishments of the successful.

It perfectly sums up liberalism: hard work deserves criticism. Excellence deserves accusations of corruption. A mentality of entitlement deserves honor.

It's backwards.

It's liberalism.

What else would you expect from people who swell with pride after having failed the entire country?

It was their goal from day one.

The Love-Hate Relationship with Barack Obama

2010-06-11T10:00:00.000-07:00

There is rampant speculation by many on the far-left that President Barack Obama is rapidly losing his popularity solely due to the color of his skin. But didn't 80% of the population approve of the man on inauguration day? Are far-leftists arguing that it wasn't until after they voted him into office did people begin realizing they weren't comfortable with an African-American man residing at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue?

Are Americans saying, "On second thought, I do have a problem with the race of our current president and therefore will indicate to any pollster who calls on the telephone that I disapprove of the job Mr. Obama is doing despite the fact that I remain an ardent supporter of every single one of his ideas. As a result of my poll responses, hopefully we can get a white guy back running the show, even if said honkey's positions will damage the country."

Perhaps far-leftists are correct in their claim that the overwhelming majority of Americans are indeed closeted racists? Sure, we tried living a non-racist lifestyle, but in the end simply couldn't bury the truth and now must admit that we despise people with skin color different than our own. Forgive us, for we were born racist.

Or maybe this is what happened...

The American people received a wake up call when it became evident, early in his presidency, that Obama considers most of us to be capitalist pigs. It took some longer than others to realize, but the majority of reasonable Americans are now keenly aware of the fact that, because so many individuals living in our country hold center-right viewpoints, citizens of the United States do not poll well in the First Household.

Barack Obama only likes people unwilling to help themselves; people who sit in their dingy apartments playing video games as they wait for a president to come along and implement policies that allow them to live comfortably while achieving nothing more than progressing to the next level with 50,000 bonus points and the occasional power-up.

Those are the only individuals for whom President Obama has an affinity.

He wants you to want him.

He needs you to need him.

I can't imagine how crushing it was for people to learn that the man they loved so much not only does not reciprocate said feelings of admiration, but considers them the cause of what ails the world.

So we must give these poor souls time, for they likely remain optimistic Mr. Obama has something up his sleeve.

We conservatives would feel the same way if Rush Limbaugh went astray on his uber-popular radio show.

At first we wouldn't believe it.

We'd say, "Did the Doctor of Democracy just claim that he believes the Federal Government should mandate the kind of car we drive because we're too stupid to make appropriate automotive decisions? He's up to something. Wait for it... Wait for it..."

It would take us a while to come to grips with the reality that we were waiting for a reversal that was never going to happen.

It's not a perfect analogy because Rush has established a decades long track record, whereas, prior to being elected President of the United States, Mr. Obama had a career that equaled the time it takes Tiger Woods to seduce a porn star, but you get my drift.

So please give those who genuinely love Barack Obama time to accept the simple fact that he despises ever fiber of their being.

If Smart People Vote Far-Left; Why is the World Void of Socialist Utopias?

2010-06-05T20:57:00.000-07:00

Radical left-wing "comedian" Bill Maher recently said that the majority of his fellow countrypersons aren't bright enough to know what's good for them, which he claims is the reason most Americans don't support policies pushed by the Democrat Party.

By that logic, the state of California is filled with some of the brightest minds in the history of the world.

But, despite a Republican-In-Name-Only Governor, Democrats have run California into the ground. Seems the governor, who had no trouble saving humanity from make-believe villains, can't pay the very real bills.

In Mr. Maher's world, results aren't the least bit important.

I suppose Mr. Maher considers brilliant a patriarch who longingly gazes at a homeless family standing around a skid row trash can while thinking to himself, "The decisions I make in running my household will be identical to the decisions made by that grime-covered father at whom I stare."

Why leftists can't accept the fact that communism/socialism has never worked is beyond me. They always contend that communism/socialism will someday exceed our wildest expectations if we just do a little tweaking.

But why tweak a horrific system when a near-perfect system, as proven by the historic prosperity of the United States, is already in place?

Mr. Maher, would it be brilliant to work on your finely tuned Mercedes-Benz until it drove like one of those Toyotas that randomly accelerates at inopportune times?

To Mr. Maher, brilliance is giving control to individuals whose only objective is increasing the amount of power they wield. He wants the country run by modern day versions of Jim Jones, Charles Manson and David Koresh; all of whose followers Mr. Maher must consider to have been highly intelligent. "Drinking that cyanide laced Flavor-Aide was a brilliant move by residents of Jonestown," we're likely to hear in a future episode of Real Time with Bill Maher.

If Mr. Maher had a kid, I'm sure he'd tell him or her to submit without question to any stranger who asked the little tyke to fully submit to the supposed do-gooders every whim.

And I must mention that, throughout history, many individuals, subjected to tyrannical rule, wound up dead as a result of actions taken by their leaders.

Because healthcare rationing is an enormous part of the Democrats healthcare reform plan, it is crystal clear that policies proposed by Obama and his ilk will cause the death of Americans who otherwise would have had a chance at survival.

So, according to Mr. Maher, if you don't support policies that could directly lead to your death you're severely lacking in intelligence.

If someone proposed a piece of legislation that mandated anyone with the name Bill Maher must cease to exist by force of government, I sincerely hope the political commentator would be smart enough to support it. After all, he considers us short on smarts for not backing policies that could move up our appointment with the undertaker.

It's Not About Outrage over Incumbency

2010-05-31T17:04:00.000-07:00

Those on the left claim that politically knowledgeable American citizens aren't up in arms over the policies proposed by President Barack Obama, rather they're outraged over the partisan games perennially played by those in Congress, and therefore all incumbents better be on the lookout for scrappy newcomers.

But if a newcomer to the political arena announces his or her candidacy by shrieking, "I'm gonna vote with Obama - I'm gonna vote with Obama," they're likely going to lose, and they're likely going to lose by a wide margin.

The only good thing to come out of this whole Obama presidency fiasco is a country filled with more politically savvy citizens. And, because America is a center-right country, these individuals are discovering that they despise the policies of those on the far-left; not the policies of incumbents simply because they're being proposed by incumbents.

Why would a rational human being vote against an incumbent who they think is doing a bang-up job simply because the politician held the same position in years past. It'd be like the Saints coach telling Super Bowl MVP Drew Brees, "You did a great job last year in winning that Super Bowl, but there's a real anti-first-string-quarterback-from-last-year feel in the NFL community and we're therefore going to replace you with the guy we found cleaning johns at the Metairie Home Depot."

Let's face it, if people rejected the mindset of the far-left liberal in New Jersey (the election of Governor Chris Christie) and Massachusetts (the election of Senator Scott Brown) it means liberalism is on the decline everywhere.

Now the only question is: can conservatives take advantage of this golden opportunity?

Conservatism could hasten its ascendancy if Senator John McCain and the rest of his moderate RINO friends immediately stepped aside.

Mr. McCain, you got hammered by a man with no experience, who, every Sunday, listened to a preacher rail against the United States, yet he doesn't remember the Reverend Jeremiah Wright uttering a single anti-American word, meaning our Commander in Chief either has an attention span akin to Mallory Keaton or doesn't mind telling the occasional fib.

Mr. McCain, sir, it's time for you and your daughter to admit the "going moderate" route failed miserably.

Or, why don't you and Meghan start a grass roots movement for moderates and see how many followers you obtain. Something tells me your membership would only trail the Tea Party by several septillion folks.

It'd be great; you could hold rallies where you'd scream into the microphone, no need to turn it on - it'd just be for show, "We're tired of the 'business as usual' mindset in Washington and demand all Congresspersons call themselves members of one party while voting for policies championed by the other!"

We'll All Be Racists in 2012

2010-05-23T20:38:00.000-07:00

Unless President Barack Obama makes a dramatic turn to the right, it appears he will no longer occupy the White House come January 2013.

Between Election Day and the glorious afternoon he departs the Oval Office and returns to his police station bombing and "US of KKK" spewing friends, anyone who didn't vote for Mr. Obama will be branded a vile racist.

Even those who voted for his majesty in 2008 but elected to make a responsible decision in 2012 will be labeled a racist. Those on the left will claim these turncoats didn't like to see an African-American man making policies that impacted their lives after all.

Mr. Obama's unpopularity will have not resulted from his desperate attempt to pass legislation the American people vehemently oppose, those on the left will claim.

Healthcare reform is the first piece of legislation that comes to mind...

Obama says that citizens of the United States didn't like the process, but, despite what the polls say, remain ardent supporters of the healthcare bills passed by the House and Senate. As if the American people are declaring, "We love the finished product and think it would greatly improve our lives, but because of the way in which it was drawn up, we don't support its passage and wish to continue living in misery."

It'd be like New Orleans Saints fans saying they can't support their Super Bowl winning football team because the General Manager relied too heavily on free agency instead of building his squad through the NFL Draft.

Obama said he'd rather be a great one-term president than a lousy two-term president. In his mind he'll have been a great one-term president even though he pushed through legislation the majority of Americans overwhelmingly opposed.

The media will agree with former President Obama and therefore come to the conclusion that the only reason Americans didn't support his re-election bid was because they simply couldn't stand to see a black man in office for eight years.

The history books will be written with the express purpose of portraying Mr. Obama as one of the greatest men to reside at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. They'll declare that the backwards sections of our country simply weren't ready to listen to an African-American man give orders even though these messianic orders were in the best interest of every American except the fat cats on Wall Street.

Despite it being obvious that the majority of Americans opposed his far left policies, thus leading to his downfall, his supporters will cry racism. Refusing to give a single inch will also have played a roll in his short stint in Washington, though the media will cry racism. Lying about how those in the rival party offered no alternatives other than the status quo will have proven costly as well, though the intellectuals will cry racism.

The liberal media agree with every Obama proposal and anyone who doesn't share their far left view is simply being disagreeable because they despise people who look different.

In Defense of President Obama

2010-05-19T14:35:00.000-07:00

Moderation has never produced greatness. The most noteworthy accomplishments of George W. Bush resulted from his implementation of policies his gut told him were correct. He knew the world would be a safer place if he attacked Iraq. And he was right.

Look at Ronald Reagan; one of the greatest presidents of all time. He didn't compromise with the left. He did what he had to do to end communism. His own staff advised him not to utter the line, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" But Mr. Reagan smartly didn't listen.

Because the American people were naive enough to elect Mr. Obama president; he should ignore the polls and implement every single far-left policy congress will allow.

Of course, in the case of our current president, his uber-liberalism will likely result in only one-term in the Oval Office due to the undeniable fact that America is not a far left country. But when he returns to Chicago in January of 2013, he will at least be happy about the socialist programs he was able to implement. The majority of Americans will look at his entire term as a failure, but his vision of fairness and success differs from the rest of the citizenry.

President Obama believes wealth should be redistributed. He believes government should correct the great many wrongs produced by the United States Constitution. He believes a history that indicates socialism produces nothing but misery should be ignored because his smile will somehow make people achieve just as much despite there being no opportunity for reward.

If America elects a far-right president, and, after a few months in office, polls say the American people would like to see their commander in chief move toward the center, I would encourage the exact opposite.

Of course in my case I would be encouraging more liberty for my fellow Americans, whereas Mr. Obama is doing his best to stifle freedom.

But the bottom line is: elections have consequences, and it's not the fault of Mr. Obama that the American people didn't take the time to learn he was a far-left zealot before casting their ballot.

So, Mr. Obama, even though pushing through your radical leftist agenda will result in a short stay in the White House; I say keep pushing, because, when a conservative is elected president in 2012, I will insist he or she push through a right-wing agenda despite desperate cries of injustice from the esteemed blog roster of the Huffington Post.

Thankfully staying farther to the right will likely produce an additional term, because, when the first four years are complete, no American will have the ability to argue with success.

It's the Way We Treat Terrorists, Dummy

2010-05-13T20:09:00.000-07:00

There is endless speculation from pundits on the left and the right about why voters have been abandoning the Democrat Party in record numbers since his holiness, Barack Obama, was inaugurated one year ago.

Certainly a lot of it has to do with the insanity surrounding the two hideous healthcare bills the Democrats in congress are secretly trying to merge into one.

But most voter consternation is due to the Democrats refusal to treat terrorist enemy combatants as anything other than common criminals. Thoughts of Arab terrorists standing next to guys who stole cable or refused to pay child support in the holding cell really doesn't sit well with independent thinkers.

Yet Attorney General Eric Holder and the Obama Administration insist we prosecute terrorists as if they were citizens of the United States.

Providing security for such trials on American soil costs millions of dollars, terrorist organizations can learn how to blow us up with greater efficiency using information gleaned at the trials, and, most importantly, it prevents anti-terrorist officials from learning information that could potentially save American lives because, upon their arrest, suspected terrorists are immediately provided with an attorney who instruct their clients to keep quiet.

This angers ordinary Americans - especially when you consider the fact that there is nothing positive about treating foreign terrorist detainees the same way we treat those who get behind the wheel after sniffing glue.

Some will try and claim that even loud music played in the cell of terrorist detainees violates terms of the Geneva Convention, but the Geneva Convention is not in play when dealing with an enemy that wears no uniform, attempts to bomb children and hides out among civilians.

The left has also declared it a fact that the act of waterboarding is torture.

The problem is that the far-left's conclusion on waterboarding is nothing other than an opinion.

Many in America don't believe waterboarding is torture. Some, who are of the opinion it is torture, still want the practice carried out if there is a possibility American lives will be saved.

Yet you Democrats continue turning the American people off by declaring a hotly-debated opinion to be fact. This fallacy is especially maddening because, as a result of your leaders holding the opposite opinion, the entire country is in jeopardy.

If we were talking about brutally pulling off fingers from the hands of terrorist detainees, I would be behind you 100%. After all, the overwhelming majority of Americans would consider such an act torturous and vehemently stand up against the United States implementing such tactics in order to gain even potentially life saving information.

But a large group of Americans are tired of saying, "We think waterboarding should be carried out in order to save the lives of our fellow citizens because we don't consider the practice torture," then hearing back from the government they elected to protect them, "Not only are we going to refrain from harshly interrogating any suspected foreign terrorist, we are also going to declare your opinion to be an incorrect fact - as if you were stating, 2 + 2 = 5."

I know it's frustrating for Democrats to hold all the power in Washington and still not have the ability to turn the United States into a socialist utopia. But you must always remember that no matter how many seats you hold in congress, a large majority of Americans will continue applying reason to the important issues of our day, and the American people have decided that it's okay to expose a killer of children to a few minutes of discomfort if, as a result, our American brothers and sisters don't have to suffer pointless death and destruction.

Don Obama Can't Be Stopped

2010-05-05T21:44:00.000-07:00

They control the politicians, they control the unions, they control law enforcement, and they control the judges.

The reason the mafia isn't very prevalent today is because Don Obama and his dead fish sending consigliere are in complete control.

The health care plan currently being drawn up in secrecy by Democrat lawmakers need not be constitutional, because the only persons equipped with the power required to reverse it are under the watchful eye of Mr. Obama and his henchmen.

So don't worry Democrats, nothing can be done to stop your king. For the foreseeable future he will solely make decisions that will forever alter the future of our once great nation.

You have entrusted him to make every decision for you.

You don't worry that anyone who seeks the power to control every aspect of your life obviously finds it a negative to keep alive the American dream. You don't realize that in order to sustain the power he craves; he must make the masses dependent on him.

You don't realize there must be a source to which the chosen one goes in order to gather the money he generously hands out to the less fortunate.

"The fountain of funding has been in existence for over 200 years, there is no way it will ever run dry," you assume.

You are a loyal soldier to the all-powerful don. No matter what he decides, you will follow, because that is the hierarchy in which you chose to believe.

Like a member of Cosa Nostra, you pledged your loyalty to Barack Obama, and because your faith runs so deep, no matter how he chooses to govern, you will not put up a fight.

President Obama's approval ratings are plummeting and it appears he will saddle future generations with trillions of dollars of debt; yet you cannot question his authority because you went in all or nothing.

Your children will not enjoy the freedom you took for granted because you voted for Barack Obama.

You voted for a man who had failed to achieve anything of significance. His election is haunting us all, yet you remain loyal.

The election in Massachusetts of Senator Scott Brown would change the landscape of Washington during normal years, but somehow President Obama will find a way to push through legislation the American people vehemently oppose because that is what don's do.

I'm Prouder than the President

2010-04-30T19:53:00.000-07:00

Ever since I was a boy I've been thanking the Lord that I am one of the luckiest people on God's green earth because I live in the United States of America.

As many have said before me; the history of the world is of oppression. A few elites have always ruled the masses with an iron fist. The freedom enjoyed by Americans is the rare exception.

So it's rather depressing to awaken every morning with knowledge that the President of the United States is activity attempting to scale back such freedom because he is not proud of his country.

The only country in the history of the world that has always placed the rights of the individual over hindering freedom in favor of the so-called, "good of the community" is in the process of being destroyed by her highest elected official.

During the 2008 presidential campaign, his wife told millions that she had never been proud of her country until that moment; the moment her husband was one step away from residing in the White House.

I have always been proud of the United States of America.

The man entrusted with the job of protecting the United States was not proud of her until he was extremely close to being in a position where he could fundamentally change her into a place over which he had total control.

Now his Democrat yes-men are making back room deals, which, for the first time in the history of America, will make not purchasing something from a private company punishable by a stint jail.

It makes Mr. Obama proud to take away the freedom which allows you to remain health-insurance free.

Mr. Obama receives pride from reducing the freedom of individuals; freedom thousands of brave men and women died to grant us.

The President takes pride in reducing your opportunity to succeed.

The President takes pride in limiting choice.

It's simply a shame that if I, an ordinary American, were to converse with President Obama about the United States; I would have to defend her against his verbal attacks.

Beware the Thinker

2010-04-18T18:00:00.000-07:00

Democrats want you to beware of a certain type person. They don't want you to go near this type of person. Don't approach them. Don't look them directly in the eye and certainly don't engage them in conversation.

The person they want you to avoid is the thinker.

Thinkers are vile people, in the mind of a Democrat.

The thinker will tell you that you are much better at making life-altering decisions for yourself than the government.

How dare they?

Democrats want you to call the government if you get sick. They'll tell you which doctor to see, schedule the appointment, notify you of what's wrong, and then inform you when to return for any further treatment they deem necessary. The payment will come out of your paycheck, and even though you'll be paying more, you won't understand this and therefore not get angry when you have to pay the bill, because you won't directly have to pay a dime. No thinking required there.

The thinker will try and persuade you to believe that you and your doctor are better at making decisions regarding your overall health than a bureaucrat in Washington.

The nerve.

The thinker will tell you that you should be allowed to allocate your money the way you darn well please. That you should be able to decide how much to put aside for retirement and how much to invest in case of an emergency, and where you should put that money; because it's up to the individual to prepare for emergencies, as with freedom comes great responsibility.

Those disgraceful thinkers.

The Federal Government wants to take your money away, while you're young, and give it back when you're old in order to make sure you don't squander your future. The bureaucrat believes that if you're able to hold on to every cent you earn, after taxes, you'll never have the financial means to retire.

In other words: the thinker wants you to work forever.

Don't let the thinker convince you that you should have total control over your life, because you need help. You don't have time to read The Wall Street Journal from cover to cover each day. And without government oversight, as President Obama has said; your doctor will likely perform unnecessary procedures just to make an extra buck. He'll cut you up for the cash.

Healthcare and investing for your future are just two areas where thinking can get you into serious trouble, but hopefully Mr. Obama will reduce the amount of thinking you're required to do even more.

In the future, you'll likely not be required to think about the temperature of your home, the kind of car you purchase, or the type of food you consume. Someone in Washington will make all those decisions for you.

And so what if you can't set your thermostat at the ideal level to where you experience maximum comfort; you don't have any control of the temperature outside and you're always going there.

The U.S. Government will make these and other decisions for the simple reason they know what's best for you and the entire "community."

So continue disparaging the thinker without a thought about what they stand for, because specific reasoning as to why conservatives on talk radio are as divisive as they are disgraceful is completely unnecessary.

Don't give the thinker any satisfaction: turn off your brain and enjoy life!

Sanity Shouldn't Be Politically Incorrect

2010-04-11T15:46:00.000-07:00

If you're trying to eliminate the Crips and the Bloods, you're not going to shake down Caucasian grandmothers, are you? You're not even going to shake down African-American grandmothers!

While attempting to remove a Hispanic gang from the streets of your town, law enforcement officers aren't going to target Asian people, are they?

Of course not.

But we don't want to offend non-terrorist Arab males in their twenties and thirties by making them go through an additional layer of security at the airport even though there is no way such profiling could offend a rational person of any faith or ethnicity.

If you're cracking down on an Asian gang because they've been wreaking havoc in the community, and you stop to question an innocent Asian man, he's not going to call the ACLU if he has any common sense, because the crack down will assist him in staying alive!

We've got to stop bending over backwards in an attempt not to offend the irrational; just like we've got to stop trying to appease Al-Qaeda, because both tasks are impossible.

Terrorists are never going to be satisfied with concessions made by their targets and live in peace and harmony, and irrational human beings are never going to say, "Oh, that makes sense, I'll relax now," when confronted with sanity. Their inability to utter such words in the face of reason is what makes them irrational.

But we have officials in Washington that continually try to appease the unappeasable.

It's a crying shame our government doesn't make decisions based on how rational people will react. It's an even bigger shame innocent lives are at risk as a result.

The Media: Keeping America Ignorant

2010-03-21T11:41:00.000-07:00

The liberal media does a great job of portraying moderates as staunch conservatives. They make the masses believe conservatives, such as Rush Limbaugh, equal KKK Grand Wizards with better vocabularies and more teeth. They pretend extreme liberals Nancy Pelosi and Barack Obama are moderate, while regular liberals are "conservative Democrats." So when liberals try and call themselves Republicans, the media says, "The Republicans are so close-minded they won't allow moderates into their party."

How do the media do this?

They tell their followers that Rush Limbaugh praised certain aspects of slavery when he never once uttered a word in favor of the vile practice.

You have to credit the media for turning America left. They made George W. Bush seem like a staunch conservative when he was actually a very moderate man. Because they succeeded in making the masses think Mr. Bush held extreme views, it's easy for them to portray Mr. Limbaugh as an extreme right-winger, when in reality he simply holds conservative beliefs. But the liberals' goal is not spreading the simple truth. Otherwise they wouldn't fabricate quotes. They're only interested in you believing what they believe, even if it means lying to you over and over again.

Because of the constant lies, your children will not enjoy the freedoms you have taken for granted your entire life. Elections have consequences, and because you didn't have time to research your pick for president, instead choosing to rely on the likes of Katie Couric and Charlie Gibson, your children will face jail time for failing to purchase health care.

After all, it's because of you that people are being killed in the name of political correctness. Sure people died at the Fort Hood shooting, but at least the terrorist never had his feelings hurt in the years leading up to the massacre.

Your children will soon live in a world where they are targets of terrorists who could have been stopped if not for political correctness, who will face jail time if they don't buy health care, and who are unable to purchase the automobile best suited to fit the needs of their family due to speculation from non-scientist politicians who have a monetary stake in the world buying into their scientifically-unproven theory.

They talk about parents wanting more for their children, but your children will have much less freedom than you enjoyed.

And it'll all be because of you.

What's the Harm in Destroying Whitey?

2010-03-14T21:43:00.000-07:00

The Reverend Al Sharpton's response to those pesky justice-seekers who point out that he has several times tried to bring down white men for their alleged crimes, crimes that never took place, is one of contempt. He often threatens lawsuits against those who simply bring up facts.

You'd think a man who accused others of horrendous crimes would be contrite when it was proven that those men were in fact innocent. I'm writing specifically about the Duke Lacrosse case as well as the Tawana Brawley case.

But, to the Reverend Sharpton, it doesn't matter that his accusations were not based on anything other than unsubstantiated speculation, as long as the men he was attempting to destroy were Caucasian.

A claim of racism is one of the most serious allegations one man can make against another; yet Reverend Sharpton and his ilk do it on seemingly a daily basis. The same goes for cases of sexual abuse.

To them, the white man has been persecuting minorities for so long that a few innocent Caucasians rotting in prison or being branded as racists for the rest of their lives is only a drop in the bucket.

Deep down, the Reverend Sharpton probably believes that every white man feels African-Americans are second class citizens, or far worse. Why would someone think that way? ...Because Reverend Sharpton probably believes the same about Caucasians.

Other liberals likely wouldn't go out of their way to destroy the lives of innocent white people, yet have no problem cheering when others like Reverend Sharpton do the dirty work.

That's the different between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives enjoy debating ideas, while liberals enjoy destroying the lives of people with whom they disagree or individuals who don't fit into a particular ethnic group as long as the demonization of said individuals furthers their political goals.

Otherwise a person making false accusations would apologize once it became perfectly clear the accusations were indeed false.

But, to Reverend Sharpton, no apology is necessary, because, as long as his intention was to demonize whitey, he did right thing.

They Hated Bush Because He Was White!

2010-03-11T20:29:00.000-08:00

When you closely examine the policies of former President George W. Bush, you discover that he's a pretty liberal guy. In fact, he and the Democrats have a lot in common.

Let's look at some of the truly progressive things President George W. Bush did while in the White House. He gave more to Africa than anyone in the history of humanity, spent taxpayer money like it was going out of style, all but promised to go down to the border and escort illegal immigrants into America with a heartfelt, "Howdy y'all - stay as long as ya want now!".

He is a liberal in so many ways, yet liberals hated him...

Why?

It had to be because of the color of his skin.

They couldn't handle a white man in the White House!

You Dems might be tempted to argue that you fundamentally disagree with many of former President Bush's policies, but conservatives, who have always frowned upon socialism, are in the same boat.

A year before President Obama was even a candidate, if you would have asked a conservative for their reaction to the next president passing a huge stimulus package, attempting to cram universal healthcare down the throats of Americans, and filling the White House with radical czars, some of whom are admitted communists, the conservative would have most assuredly flipped their lid, despite the fact that their was NO mention of race.

But if icons such as Jimmy Carter say that conservatives who criticize President Obama are racists, then Jimmy Carter is a racist for criticizing President Bush, because anyone who criticizes anyone is only doing so because of skin color.

Since nobody can be for lower taxes and higher taxes, we're all racists.

Ah, but, according to you liberals, minorities can't be racists, because, based on your definition of racism, they lack the power.

So only white people can be racists, and since President Carter disagrees with African-Americans such as Clarence Thomas and RNC Head Michael Steele, it means he is a flat-out, unadulterated racist human being.

Throughout history, while minorities, such as Hispanic Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor, have been praised for saying people belonging to their own race are better than white people; all white people who have made racially insensitive statements regarding minorities have been terminated by their employers or forced to resign. See Jimmy "The Greek" Snyder and Al Campanis.

Therefore all whites should immediately receive their walking papers and minorities should be the only individuals left employed. Of course that would leave a lot of jobs that needed filling, which could easily be done using illegal immigrants.

White people could survive on what minorities in government (since Congressperson is a job, no Caucasian should be allowed to represent the people of America) deem necessary in the form of welfare.

It sure is a shame we will no longer get to see Peyton Manning hurl the football around on Sunday, Tom Cruise smash a few heads in his latest blockbuster, or Britney Spears bust a move on stage...

On second thought, maybe this new America won't be so bad.

And Hitler Could Have Choked on a Jolly Rancher

2010-03-01T16:31:00.000-08:00

One of my favorite arguments against the CIA using rough interrogation methods says that, though waterboarding, sleep deprivation, etc. garnered vital information which resulted in saved lives, we can't be certain the exact same information couldn't have been obtained using gentler methods.

So every aggressor in the history of humanity could have been stopped using methods other than those which have proven successful?

We could have made Adolf Hitler close every concentration camp through means other than attacking the German Army! We could have sent leaflets to the commandants asking them to please stop murdering Jewish people?

We don't know the allied forces were even necessary. Hitler could have caught the flu. He could have had an Ebenezer Scrooge-esque dream and changed his evil ways overnight. Today he could be held up as inspiration to those currently headed down the wrong path in life. Dog killer/quarterback Michael Vick could say in a press conference, "I thought about how Adolf Hitler turned all those concentration camps into theme parks for underprivileged children, and decided that if he could do it - So can I!"

But the allies had to go and attack Hitler's army, depriving him of the chance to turn his life around. And can you imagine the emotional toll brought about by seeing his army pelted with artillery!? He was getting daily reports on how his loyal soldiers were being killed! Oh the heartache he must have felt! Hearing from his generals had to be tougher on Hitler than a waterboarding session was for Muslim extremists. Yet you liberals don't admonish the allies like you admonish the Bush Administration. Why not!? In fact, you become extremely agitated when people compare you to Hitler. Why!?

Hitler wanted people dead and Muslim extremists want people dead. They had equal goals, yet you only admonish those who stopped Muslim extremists. You do realize that those who stopped Hitler used a plethora of armies equipped with real guns!

And do you really believe nicely interrogating terrorists would result in useful intelligence? Seriously?

Let's say someone kidnaps you with the express purpose of getting information that you're desperate not to give. Perhaps they would like to infiltrate ACLU headquarters, but can't work the internet and don't know where it is. They've got you tied to a chair and are demanding you tell them how to get there. You know they want to harm the ACLU, and if you spill the beans, the beloved association of which you're a proud member could be irreparably damaged... I'm sure asking you nicely is the best way to pry the information from your cold, dead brain; right?

The fact you people make the argument that nicely asking a captured terrorist if an attack is imminent may work just as well as using mildly forceful tactics is all you need to know about... well, you.

When you have arguments that don't make a lick of sense, your leaders need to lie, which is the reason President Obama insists he would rather Attorney General Holder move forward by not investigating Bush Administration officials for their role in so-called harsh interrogation methods.

But the truth is clear. And the truth is that you know full well harsh interrogation methods save lives, but since they save American lives, and you view Americans as evil oppressors, you're not as passionate about those lives. Because no person who wants their own country to win a military conflict would stand up and demand everyone be nice to the enemy.

The Post Office Is a Mess, So We're Going with Camels

2010-02-15T17:16:00.000-08:00

Though a majority of Americans are happy with their medical care, President Barack Obama calls the American healthcare system, "a mess." It is the equivalent of him saying, "The NFL is the most popular sport in America, yet I deem it, 'a mess,' and therefore we need to radically change everything about it."

Only he and a small minority feel a certain way, yet the President still wants to impose his will on the entire country. Most folks who voted for him even object to the U.S. Government taking control of healthcare.

In other words, he has no interest in representing the American people. He only wants to rule with an iron fist, regardless of whether or not his constituents are on board with his policies.

Obviously very few things in life are perfect, and that includes America's healthcare system.

The United States Post Office isn't perfect either; does that mean they should make radical changes that common sense say won't work? Should they replace mail trucks with camels? Maybe we should have a European style mail system where a governmental board, made up by Obama appointees, will examine your mail and decide whether or not your correspondences are of significance to justify the money required to send them. We can't let senior citizens receive letters from their grandchildren because the happiness they garner will not last as long as the satisfaction younger persons will receive after reading a letter from a loved one.

If the government is going to control our lives, why limit their power?

I'm sure they know what children want for Christmas better than parents. "Now go to bed kids, or the Obama appointed Holiday Enjoyment Czar representing our area won't come into our home using the key we were forced to send in with our taxes and put presents in the middle of the living room while making sure we didn't put up a Christmas tree pursuant to House Bill 666," will be heard on Christmas Eve from coast to coast.

I wonder if they'll cook our breakfast. Of course it will be healthy - perhaps an egg white omelet alongside a couple slices of turkey bacon? Anyone not in favor of the government cooking breakfast policy is adamant that the children of America continue eating fatty Sausage McMuffin with Egg's in order to line the pockets of executives at McDonalds.

You see, Mr. Obama lies by saying that everyone who is against his specific plan is against reform of any kind. If you listen to politicians who oppose his grand scheme, the first thing they usually say is, "While some kind of reform is needed..."

But Mr. Obama has never been interested in the truth.

He's the President of the United States for goodness sakes and he's not arguing that his plan is the best solution. Instead he's arguing that his plan is the only solution because, "Evil Republicans want insurance companies to keep getting richer and richer while the little guy lies dying in the street, penniless and neglected."

From saying America is filled with unscrupulous doctors who rip tonsils from the stomachs of children, to lying about the desires of his opponents, President Obama behaves like a spoiled child. In fact, in order to avoid getting a physical as a ten-year-old, I told my mom that the doctor would surely find something wrong with me so he could pad his pocketbook.

If only people who still support President Obama could face reality they would see how little he thinks of them. Because it's so asinine that they actually voted for him, I suppose it's easy to see why he believes his loyal followers will abide by his every desire.

If he wanted to cover roads with glass to discourage people from driving and therefore improve the environment, I'm sure many of his supporters would thank him and applaud his leadership.

I can't wait to hear what other "messes" hurt the people of the United States. Again, nothing is perfect and therefore it is possible to improve any aspect of life, but to pick things that only he thinks are messes and then admonish others for making the messes is absurd.

Would you Obama supporters enjoy working for a boss who behaved similarly?

"Your department is a mess!" he would exclaim as he walked into your office for the first time in over two years.

"What!? While we're always making improvements, the majority of our customers approve of the job we're doing. And our department is overwhelmingly better than rival departments in other companies."

"I am the sole judge of messes, and if I declare your department a mess, it means your department is a mess. No, I can't properly enunciate why it's a mess, but it is a mess nonetheless. Though I don't know anything about what you do, please shut your mouth while I fix your mess by implementing policies of less successful companies."

Experts Say Whatever it is I Want Them to Say

2010-02-04T17:23:00.000-08:00

One of the ways the liberal media deceitfully sways public opinion is by quoting experts.

"Experts say the earth will soon explode if Obama's environmentally friendly bill is not immediately passed."

"Experts say Obama's healthcare bill will save money and provide quality care to millions of uninsured Americans."

Of course I can find many experts who say we're not experiencing a warming of the globe, and I can find even more experts that say Obama's healthcare plan will increase cost and reduce the number of folks who are able to receive quality healthcare.

In other words, liberal "journalists" start out with a cause and then write a story that furthers that cause by locating experts whose findings agree with their worldview.

They don't search for experts with opposing points of view; they get a single expert and declare him or her to be an expert of such magnitude that opposing points of view are not necessary.

Disagree with us if you like, but no one can say we conservatives aren't truthful.

I don't sit here and say, "I know for a fact that man is not causing global warming." Instead I proclaim, "So many scientists differ that it's impossible to say for sure that pollution is ruining the planet and I'm not about to destroy the economy of the United States so that maybe we'll improve the environment when there is no conclusive evidence that says the planet is in danger of destruction."

My favorite from the mainstream media is, "Experts say the recession over."

Really?

The recession is over.

Is the recession over, or do you "journalists" want people to think it's over so they'll vote for Democrats in 2010 and 2012. Seems you "journalists" don't really care how the economy is doing as long as your party of choice remains in control.

If people lose jobs, that's fine, as long as the Democrats have power.

You don't want Americans to have all the information from which they can make a decision. Instead you want to mislead them into voting the way you'd like them to vote.

I'll never understand how "journalists" can exhibit the same behavior as oppressive governments.

It's amazing that having your favorite political party in power is the end. It doesn't matter if your ultimate desire means a lower standard of living for everyone, as well as a reduction of healthcare for hard-working Americans... as long as there is a "D" beside the name of the majority of those in Congress you're happy and will gladly defy your ethical responsibilities.

Democrats You're Wanted for Murder

2010-01-30T22:12:00.000-08:00

It's no surprise that the mainstream media is attempting to convince the American people that the Democrat's healthcare plan will miraculously expand coverage to everyone living within our borders, lower costs for everyone, and not cause the quality of healthcare to suffer. However it would be nice if every once in a while they'd mention the undeniable fact that it will directly lead to the murder of thousands and thousands of their fellow countrymen, and could eventually be the cause of their own demise.

In order to make Obama's healthcare plan feasible, many seniors will be denied coverage because the government will deem them too old.

Hospitals don't currently turn away dying illegal aliens. Therefore, in the future, the elderly and others will be forced to die so those who snuck across the border can get regular checkups for free. And in the long run it will actually be worse for illegal aliens, because now they receive medical care if they're suffering from a catastrophic illness, whereas, should Obama's healthcare plan pass, they'll be lumped in with the rest of us and only receive said care if they're of a certain age. But I suspect the only goal of Obama is to lump us all together, regardless of who must die.

Just think of the thousands and thousands of people in Canada and Great Britain who have died prematurely because they were on a waiting list, or their government decided they were too old to receive treatment?

On trial we put former Rwandan authorities for crimes of genocide, yet as long as they convince their people that it's in the name of compassion, the international community has let "civilized" nations get away with far worse.

I hope all this talk of putting Bush officials on trial for war crimes sets a precedent and administrations begin taking a long, hard look at the actions of their predecessors, because if they do, and Obama's healthcare plan passes, Mr. Obama and his ilk may be arrested for murder as soon as the first American unnecessarily dies.

Imagine being at a funeral and everyone saying to each other, "If only he had gotten sick before President Obama's healthcare plan was implemented... Instead of mourning his death we'd all be watching football together while he recuperated from surgery."

People who wouldn't die under the current system will die under the Obama system, i.e. his policies will lead to death, making him a murderer.

Like accepting American citizens being killed in the streets by Al-Qaeda in exchange for terrorists having unmonitored conversations via cell phone, Obama believes elderly Americans dying before their time is a fair trade off for illegal aliens, who are currently not denied life-saving health care, being given health insurance that is paid for by wealthy Americans. Here is another situation where Democrats want to risk American lives to assist foreign individuals. At least, with the healthcare plan, the Democrats aren't risking American lives for the benefit of terrorists.

Though it's tempting to explore motive, it's impossible to tell why the Democrats want to pass such a deadly plan. Do they want to expand their base? Do they want to make the well-to-do suffer for the perceived pain they've caused?

I suppose it really doesn't make a difference. After all, murder is murder.

You're Calling Me Stupid

2010-01-27T17:03:00.000-08:00

Two cases in which the word "stupid" was thrown around have become newsworthy lately. One received a great deal of press attention, while the other received relatively little.

In both cases, men accusing others of stupidity have behaved stupidly.

The first man is Barack Obama, who of course called a member of the Cambridge Police Department, "stupid" for arresting a belligerent African-American professor. After refusing to apologize, Mr. Obama invited the men to the White House for a beer to have a dialogue regarding the matter.

Dialogue?

The only dialogue should have been the two men, President Obama and Professor Gates, apologizing to Sergeant Crowley, and Sergeant Crowley accepting the apology.

Two men were in the wrong and one was in the right.

A police officer, risking his life as always, goes to investigate a break-in and is immediately accused of racism, instead of receiving a heartfelt, "thank you."

But Professor Gates wants Sergeant Crowley to understand why African-Americans always suspect racial profiling when dealing with police, and why Sergeant Crowley should take an even greater risk the next time he puts on his uniform so he won't be perceived as racist by the next African-American who immediately plays the race card anytime something negative happens. But in reality, any future behavior modification by Sergeant Crowley could get him killed.

As with their insistence the prison at Guantanamo Bay is shut down, liberals love to put the safety of decent Americans at risk to ensure the civil rights of criminals. And no, Professor Gates is not a criminal, but Sergeant Crowley didn't know that at the outset.

The other man is Bill Maher, who called Americans, "stupid."

Because they're busy working and spending time with their families, many Americans are ignorant about politics. It's not because they're stupid, Americans are the smartest people in the world, it's because they're busy putting food on the table, and spending the precious few moments they have to spare with their children.

The American people are also ill-informed because the mainstream media lies to them in order to promote liberal candidates.

But guess what Mr. Maher, that ignorance led to the election of Barack Obama, and is why your party, the Democrats, control Congress.

Had American citizens been completely aware of the fact that Barack Obama is a socialist, the majority of our center-right country would have never voted for the man.

But because, up until a few months ago, Americans had to work extremely hard to succeed, most were so busy that they didn't have time to thoroughly investigate then Senator Obama, and the mainstream media wasn't about to tell them the truth.

"Stupid" people are the ones who look at socialism, see that it has never worked, yet actively promote it with deceit and bully tactics. Stupid people are those you claim to be, "visionaries."

The Necessity of Jesus

2010-01-22T19:34:00.000-08:00

I find it fascinating when people who lack faith lump the Christian, Jewish and Muslim religions together. "They're all just fairy tales," the heathens say.

The problem is: only one of the previously mentioned religions is the correct path to the Lord.

Islam.

No, I'm kidding; it's Christianity.

Before you argue that I'm only a Christian because my father was a Christian, and he was only a Christian because his father was a Christian, etc., let me tell you something that may shock you: I'm a Christian because it's the only religion that makes sense!

God created this beautiful world and equipped it with everything humans need to survive.

He then added the humans.

After bestowing man with His gift, God naturally assumed man would join together and live near perfect lives. Instead, the people took his gift and went absolutely insane. Admittedly, they fought each other for what they thought were good reasons; but if you were God, you'd understand that there is absolutely no reason to fight, no reason to fib, no reason to cheat, and no reason to be cruel to your fellow man.

After all, if everyone simply acted responsibly and did the right thing, this world would resemble a utopia.

But the earth has never been close to a utopia.

Imagine His frustration: "What'd you guys do! I gave you food, sunshine, materials with which to build shelter. I made it where your only requirements were gathering enough sustenance for dinner and constructing a suitable roof under which to avoid inclement weather, and then you'd have the rest of the time to sit around and chat with one another and worship me. I even gave you varying talents so some of you could hunt, some of you could cook, some of you could build, etc..."

Also imagine His frustration watching the population grow to six billion. Not about the number would He have a problem, but He might be irked at the fact that about half of the six billion could be wiped out with a single weapon!

With man choosing to commit acts of needless destruction, why in the world would He welcome any of us into His kingdom!

Why would He reward people who callously ruined a near perfect opportunity! Parents say it all the time to misbehaving children, "We give you a roof over your head, clothes to wear, food to eat, and this is how you repay us!"

That's why Christianity is the correct religion - because it rationally deals with the problem of humans messing everything up.

He is a loving God, which is why He gave us such a grand opportunity. Despite the fact that He couldn't condone the debauchery, He gave truly remorseful people the chance to be saved. Because if you generally want to be a good person, yet falter due to innate urges, wouldn't it make sense that your attempt at wholesome living was rewarded by the creator?

And doesn't it also make sense that Jesus showed us what it is like to sacrifice by dying on the cross? By that example, we know it's possible to resist any temptation and sustain any hardship without losing faith, because nothing we could possibly face on earth will come close to Jesus' violent end.

In other words, the following makes perfect sense...

God creates the world and then adds people. People are brutal, so He reacts in kind. He then says, "Okay, even though you act boorishly, I'll give you a shot at redemption. I'll go as far as showing you what sacrifice is all about."

Present day: people are still brutal, but they at least have a chance.

So it isn't that Christians choose Christianity because we are taught that Jesus is the light - it's because we rationally understand that without Jesus there is no way we would stand a chance to eventually be granted entrance into the kingdom of heaven.

A lot of people say that Christianity makes so little sense that it's impossible for them to make the leap of faith. But I say it's a leap of faith to, either believe the world just magically appeared on its own, or a God glorious enough to create this wonderful world wouldn't give us a chance to join Him, provided we have goodness in our heart.

So while some parts of the Bible may be hard to understand and even contradictory, the main part of Christianity makes the most sense when compared to any belief, or non-belief.

American Men are Women

2010-01-19T20:06:00.000-08:00

There is no question America is a shell of its former self.

Liberals have ravaged this one proud nation. Success is no longer measured by how hard you work; success is measured by how long you can hold out your hand.

But why?

It's obvious that America became a superpower based on the Constitution; a grand document which guarantees our freedom.

History tells us that oppressive governments which hinder freedom always fail.

So why is the United States government beginning to resemble a Soviet Style Communist regime?

Could it be that communism sounds good? "Wouldn't it be great if everyone had three hot meals per day and clean clothes? What if well-to-do people bought houses for the homeless and then even people who wanted to lounge around all day could have a nice place to stay. Of course the rich people would have to hire maids to clean up after the homeless. And also someone to give them sponge baths and cook for them, and manage their allowances so they don't spend every penny on drugs and alcohol."

That sounds great, doesn't it? Of course the problem is that communism and socialism don't work. That's not an opinion, it is a fact!

Most men understand this, which is why the United States was able to build itself into a superpower from 1776 - 1920.

Then the Nineteenth Amendment passed and women began voting. I'm not saying I blame women or think women are dumb. I just think they have a harder time accepting the fact that a few motivated people working hard to make sure the downtrodden have everything their hearts desire will never work. Heck, the probable reason such a system can't function is because of men. If the earth were made up entirely by women, communism would probably thrive without all those pesky reeducation camps! So don't say I'm sexist, because I don't think less of women for voting Democrat. In fact, I fully understand the thought process behind it. Women are idealistic, and I find that refreshing.

But, in the past, the voting habits of men have kept America strong and free, for the simple reason they understand the nature of man, and that America needed to be the world's only super power if earth was going to remain somewhat safe.

But now the President of the United States is apologizing because America has been too successful. Now we have a president who champions mediocrity. Now we have a president who wants to transform America into a nation that closely resembles weaker nations; nations with limited freedom.

Since 56% of women voted for Barack Obama, and only 43% of women voted for John McCain, we can safely blame women for the current "Apology Tour" we're experiencing, and will continue to experience for (at least) the next four years, right?

Not so fast!

49% of men voted for Obama and 48% voted for McCain. That means the majority of American men have become women, and unfortunately, in a world full of men, we need men more than ever.

But sadly, the population of men, which has rapidly dwindled throughout the world, is now on the decline in the last place one could hope to find a great number of men.

It certainly has been fun, ladies.

I'm a Staunch Conservative Democrat

2010-01-03T18:05:00.001-08:00

Since there are no words I love to hear more than, "This is what I think you should do," I'm going to tell the Democrats what I would do to improve their political party.

Actually, because liberals are calling themselves Republicans nowadays, I'm going to switch parties, but still hold onto my strong conservative beliefs.

Sure a Democrat won the last Presidential election and we control the U.S. Congress, but that's only because the economy tanked during the 2008 race and Americans are still squeamish when it comes to defending our freedom.

I hate to say it, but, despite the great and powerful President Obama occupying the White House, the economy isn't exactly getting any better. And we Democrats can't blame that rotten George W. Bush too much longer, now can we?

That means those nasty Republicans are due for a big victory in the 2010 election unless we make some tough choices.

Since former Secretary of State Colin Powell (one of the liberal Republicans I earlier mentioned) can advise the GOP, I think I am well within my rights, as a now proud Democrat, to advise the party I have loved so dearly for going on five minutes now! Does anyone know where the 2012 Democratic National Convention is being held, I need to do some negotiating on Priceline!

This is what we Democrats should do: become more conservative. Push for lower taxes, encourage the CIA to cut off the fingers and toes of suspected terrorists, vehemently argue against gay marriage, and push for an increase in secret wiretapping of all Americans. Oh, and let's call for a massive expansion of the Guantanamo Bay prison! We could add luxury boxes where large party donors would sit and watch the terrorists as they are being brutally tortured!

What's that you ask? Why should you start pushing for all of those things when you don't believe they are moral?

Then why are liberals, like the aforementioned Colin Powell, advising Republicans they need to include liberals in the Republican Party?

Funny how liberals think the best way to solve America's problems is by having two political parties full of liberals.

But, now that I'm a Democrat and we're going to start inviting conservatives into our party, both political parties will be an equal mix of conservatives and liberals!

That way, people will stop voting for candidates simply because of the letter next to their name and start voting for candidates based on their qualifications, experience and political viewpoints.

Hopefully, with this new system in place, the next President won't be a community organizer who is friendly with domestic terrorists, as well as a person who will have been to at least a few church services where America wasn't being cursed while he or she nodded along, occasionally adding a well timed, "Amen."

Vote Democrat!

I'm Sorry

2009-12-10T20:03:00.000-08:00

As President Obama sat laughing at Wanda Sykes' joke about hoping Rush Limbaugh's kidneys fail, it occurred to me that the 44th President of the United States would also like some part of my body to break down.

Sure, I don't posses the power Mr. Limbaugh holds, but I strongly assume President Obama would be thrilled to see an obituary filled with dead conservatives.

The reason it's acceptable to wish that a great plague hits the GOP, is because those in pop culture have done a good job in portraying conservatives as evil swine.

In hopes that people with whom we disagree stop wishing us dead, I would like to apologize on behalf of my fellow conservatives:

I'm sorry for wanting to kill Ahmed before Ahmed comes to kill me. I am sorry that Ahmed's father, brother, uncle and great-aunt have been telling him, since he was two, that Christians are devils. However that fact does not make me want to lay down my life so that he may terrorize humanity. And for that I am sorry.

I'm sorry I believe that the definition of words should not be changed based on the emotional feelings of a specific group. Forgive me for not wanting to read the dictionary anew each morning to make sure I'm up to date, so that I don't embarrass myself by using a word the way I learned it in first grade, only to later find out it's been changed because the original definition was hurtful. For wanting to keep the dictionary the same, I am truly and completely sorry.

For wanting to inflict pain on Ahmed and his friends in order to persuade them to share information that could save the lives of innocent Americans, I am sorry. I am sorry for wanting to have my coffee made by the same barista each morning, my hair cut by the same barber each month, and my oil changed by the same mechanic each 3,000 miles. I am sorry for getting to know those people so well that I would be sad if they were blown to pieces. I am equally sorry for not feeling bad for Ahmed's physical pain.

I am sorry I don't want to give half my money to the government of the United States. While I don't wish for anyone to be without the necessitates of life, I am not the least bit confident the government can distribute my money in the most efficient way. I would much rather give my earnings to those with proven track records for helping people survive today, and become self sufficient tomorrow; while the goal of the government is to keep people continuously needing. I am sorry I see the government as it really is.

I am sorry for understanding that liberalism has never worked.

I am sorry I am not a racist person. Please forgive me for having faith that all races, religions, creeds and genders can succeed beyond their wildest expectations. I am sorry for not seeing a minority and saying, "There is no way he can succeed with help. He simply can't do it on his own." For my undying optimism in everyone, I am remorseful.

Forgive me for loving my country. I am sorry I do not wish that the United States resembled countries I do not respect; countries that value collectivism over the individual.

Lastly, please accept my deepest sympathies for not completely altering my viewpoint because it's not in line with the Democratic platform, or even in line with the viewpoint of liberals who call themselves Republicans. Would I agree with said Democrats and liberal Republicans, I would have their unwavering support.

Oh, and please forgive me for not seeking the unwavering support of Democrats or liberals who call themselves Republicans.

A Future Free from Freedom

2009-11-11T18:08:00.000-08:00

Be honest, why did you vote for Barack Obama?

If the reason is because you believe that people who earn millions of dollars have no right to keep the vast majority of their money, or that it's better for thousands of innocent people to be killed in a terrorist attack than the person responsible be detained or waterboarded with the express purpose of preventing said attack, then please go post something on the Daily Kos website wishing a horrific fate to befall someone with whom you disagree politically.

If the reason is because you assumed he would bring much needed change to Washington - yet you're not sure what that change is: read on.

If the reason is because you think he has a great looking family: read on.

If the reason is because he's an African-American: read on.

Now that we've weeded out the people who refuse to listen to reason, I would like to tell the rational people of America who aren't amateur political scientists, that you may want to dig a little deeper, or else run the risk of waking up one morning and realizing you've lost a great deal of freedom: freedom you've likely been taking for granted.

I would like to ask that you do research on your own in order to discover what President Obama is all about.

If you're worried because a conservative is telling you that Obama is an enemy of liberty; go into your research with the express purpose of proving that Barack Obama has no desire to restrict freedom, and that every action taken since he's been President has only been in response to the struggling economy, and his saying things during the campaign such as, "I want everyone to share the wealth," in no way means he wants to limit prosperity.

Though the current Democrat establishment thinks otherwise - letting a billionaire keep his hard earned money is not a negative, or flaw in the system.

Though it's usually not wise to vote based solely on what will benefit you, please consider the fact that President Obama will not reduce taxes for 95% of the population, because liberals, as far to the left as Mr. Obama, fundamentally oppose a reduction in anyone's taxes.

That means, while you won't be financially assisted by President Obama as you were promised, you won't be harmed by his policies either, right?

In response to him proposing a cap in CEO pay, you say, "He's talking about limiting the salary of CEO's who run huge financial companies (whether or not they received bailout money) and I'll never be the CEO of a financial company."

But what if he eventually takes his plan a bit further?

Let's say you wake up in the middle of the night with an idea that will make you a lot of money. You take it to a friend of a friend, who helps make it happen, and when all is said and done you're making $250,000 annually.

But wait, you forgot to consider the possibility President Obama won't allow someone in your position to earn that much money. Perhaps he will have capped the salary of first time entrepreneurs at $100,000.

And even if does let you keep the money, you've got to factor in taxes.

According to President Obama, you will have become rich and are therefore entitled to only a fraction of what you've earned.

Individuals, who don't believe people should keep their money, don't believe anyone should be allowed to keep their money, and therefore will come after folks who make less and less as time goes on.

Blurting out, "We'll give 95% of the American people tax cuts," is a great campaign strategy, but needs to be questioned when it goes against everything the candidate stands for.

Conservatives say, "Lower taxes for everyone," which makes more sense than picking and choosing who receives higher taxes, because the net will be a lot bigger by the end of the tax-raising candidates term - meaning the nice fellow you see walking to the bus stop every morning with a sack lunch in hand will soon be considered, by the government, to be a rich man. You heard right; a rich man who can barely afford public transportation.

Don't take it from someone you label a "Conservative Hate Monger," do research for yourself and think about how President Obama's actions will hinder freedom.

Actions such as...

He wants to limit charitable donations by decreasing tax breaks for charitable givers.

He wants to limit the pay of CEO's of companies who haven't received a dime of bailout money.

He wants to strip the freedom of workers to vote in secret when casting ballots on whether or not to unionize.

He wants to strip you of the right to visit any doctor you wish to see.

Though President Obama says he does not support the Fairness Doctrine, many Democrats in Congress wish to forcibly remove conservative hosts from the radio. The major television networks, they will say, are "fair and balanced." In addition there have been proposals by legislators to bail out near bankrupt newspapers which overwhelmingly favor liberalism. Agree with Rush Limbaugh or not, surely you don't wish to strip him of his First Amendment right to speak while the government uses taxpayer money to further unprofitable newspapers who only offer one point of view. You may not agree with Rush, but can't argue with the fact that he makes lots of money. And if you want to hear a differing opinion; just turn on the television to any over-the-air network or pick up any newspaper.

And we already live in a country where, in certain areas, you can't set your own smoking policies when opening a restaurant!

Let me ask you this: when did freedom become a bad thing?

Not only have governments, which greatly hinder freedom, proven to be miserable failures throughout history; no government has proven ineffective because the people under their control had too much freedom.

In no history book has the following statement been written:

"The country then began to crumble because its people, who had the freedom to prosper using their own ingenuity, simply sat around and did nothing. They didn't strive for greatness, they all waited for someone else to achieve greatness so they could mooch off them. Unfortunately there was never anyone one off whom to mooch. Thankfully a dictator came along and began telling everyone what to do. Suddenly great physicians, inventors and artists popped up everywhere. With freedom, they were miserable; under the steady hand of a dictatorial regime, unlimited wealth was created."

Though now maligned by the news media, entertainment folks, and college professors; freedom is the most important thing we possess.

And instead of taking the word of Chris Matthews, Tim Robbins or Professor Lewis L. Lordington III, you better start doing some research for yourself; then maybe you'll join in the fight for freedom as all patriotic Americans should.

You Got Straight A's; Now Go to Your Room!

2009-10-21T15:49:00.001-07:00

If sending a child to his or her room without dinner after they've arrived home bearing a report card full of A's sounds like bad parenting, why does the act of punishing successful entrepreneurs sound so delectable?

Children who get straight A's work very hard. So do successful entrepreneurs.

Children who get straight A's use brainpower to achieve their goals. So do successful entrepreneurs.

To most conservatives, conservatism just feels right and liberalism feels wrong. One of the reasons we get a bad vibe when a Democrat speaks about raising taxes on the wealthy is because we feel it punishes success. And punishing success is wrong.

As the above argument can get a little stale, let me try to illustrate the problem that might occur if society were to begin punishing other successes.

Let's go back to the child with perfect marks in school. He or she is sent to their room without dinner and therefore stops reading books. In order to avoid further sanction they also fail to complete another homework assignment for the rest of their life. As a result of every child with determination being punished, those who even manage to graduate are ignorant. To fix the problem of children graduating without knowledge, we pour more money into the schools. Of course, because we no longer encourage children to strive for success, none of their predecessors have the know-how to create wealth and the government has no one to tax.

You see what happens when you punish noble behavior? And it's not as if only Republicans view hard work as virtuous.

"With the proper motivation anyone can achieve the American dream," President Obama says. "And when you do I will be standing proudly by your side (with my hand out). And once I get your money, I'll distribute it to those who just felt like 'chillin'' as you worked your butt off."

If we continue down the road of punishing good behavior, future conversations will go something like:

"Wow, I can't believe you pay so much for car insurance!"

"Everyone tried to tell me, 'Speed up, you're not going to hurt anyone!' but I wouldn't listen."

Call us conservatives crazy, but for some strange reason we don't believe a country can function where bad is good and good is bad.

But since Democrats control everything I might as well get used to it, therefore I am just kicking myself for the well articulated points I've made in this piece. I hereby curse my brilliant brain and adroit typing skills!

Curse the: brilliant brain and adroit typing skills!

I'm Just Looking for an Honest Place to Eat

2009-10-01T19:09:00.000-07:00

I know a lot of you probably wonder why we conservatives have such a huge problem with taking what amounts to a few measly dollars from a rich person and giving it to a person of limited means.

Though America leads the world in good people; the majority of U.S. citizens are rotten.

Liberals want to give money to the least deserving of the rotten, i.e., the worst of the worst.

As long as people continue listening to Rush Limbaugh and other conservative talkers who promote moral self sufficiency, America will always have her share of those who take pride in their job and only desire to bring home money they earn.

And the people that listen to Rush don't want bailouts from the government. They simply want to keep the majority of money that they make, as well as retain the freedom that enables them to earn as much as possible. For these people, living within their means is a source of pride.

Under Obama's plan: plumbers, car salespersons, mechanics, contractors, etc. are people who will get money at the expense of brilliant men like Bill Gates who made our lives much easier with his invention of the computer operating system you likely use.

Sure, there are a few bad apples in the bunch, but the majority of wealthy business owners are in the mold of Dagny Taggart and Hank Reardon of Atlas Shrugged fame. They are noble. They are driven to success.

Of course many talented men and women work for wealthy entrepreneurs like Mr. Gates, and a good number of them make less than $250,000 a year - and therefore aren't considered "rich."

"Those people will also benefit from Obama's generosity," you say.

But those are the people who don't want the money, because they didn't earn it.

It's the people who either don't want to work, or attempt to cheat their fellow citizens during every job, that will take advantage of the "free money," provided by hard working wealthy individuals. I know President Obama talks as if it's his money, but it ain't.

It's not taking from the rich and giving to the poor; it's taking from the best and giving to the worst.

"I worked hard all day so you don't have to."

And if you think America is not full of rotten people, most of whom are liberal, just look at all the professions I mentioned earlier: car salespersons, contractors, mechanics, etc. These are people with whom we all hate to deal, because we're scared to death of being cheated or harassed. Should a person in one of these professions have a 50% success rate at performing a task, their clients would jump for joy.

You can't say, "People are inherently decent," when you have huge chunks that are known for spitting in the face of their fellow human beings.

Conservatives are overwhelmingly good.

Everyone else is either a crook, or possesses a job that doesn't allow them to cheat their fellow man as much as they'd like.

While hooked up to a lie detector test, ask mechanics why they chose their profession and I bet most wouldn't respond, "Because I love to work on cars." Rather I bet most would say, "Because I knew it meant I could cheat people who are ignorant about automobiles, thus earning money for work I did not accomplish."

If you think about it; that's what liberalism is all about: giving money to people who don't deserve it.

Let's pretend it wasn't well known that fried foods lead to weight gain.

"I'm looking for something healthy. Are you sure this is good for me," you would ask your waiter after receiving your meal.

"Oh yeah, that chicken fried steak sandwich slathered with mayonnaise and French fry combo plate has only five grams of fat and 20 calories," they would respond, not wanting to lose the sale.For most people; if they could get away with it, they would.

These are the people to whom President Obama wants to give money; money he took from hard working Americans who know right from wrong.

How Dare You Not Approve Failure!

2009-09-01T18:41:00.000-07:00

This is the football equivalent of President Barack Obama attempting to convince congressional Republicans to vote for his stimulus package.

Coach: "We haven't scored a touchdown in a while. In order to boost our point total, I want you, my quarterback, to take the ball and run toward the opposite end zone."

Quarterback: "I don't think that will work."

Coach: "What are you saying? You don't want to score a touchdown!?"

Quarterback: "Of course I do, I just think your method of making that happen is flawed. How can I go along with something I don't think will work?"

Coach: "Because, I am in charge and you should automatically be agreeable to everything I propose. And if you don't agree with it, it means you want the team to fail!"

Quarterback: "No, I want the team to win, but running the wrong way won't help us do that."

Coach: "I stayed up all night devising my 'running the wrong way' strategy. Do you know how tired I am?"

Quarterback: "The fact that you worked hard on your plan doesn't mean it's the right strategy."

You read correctly, folks. During a speech to congressional Democrats, President Obama actually said one of the reasons the stimulus package should pass is because various leaders and their staffs worked long hours drafting it.

So if the Nazi architect that designed Auschwitz said, "You should embrace this camp where we kill innocent men, women and children because I stayed up all night giving Commandant Hoess' living quarters a homey feel," everyone in Poland should have hoped for its success?

In his speech, President Obama basically said that Republicans who oppose the massive spending bill (which won't stimulate the economy) want Americans to go without jobs, while voting for the measure means you not only want to put everyone to work, you also want America to create scientists and save lives! That's right, he said the stimulus package would create scientists and save lives.

I assume the scientists he's talking about are robot scientists, because I don't see how a bill meant to stimulate the current economy could transform people directly into scientists.

So if you support President Obama's stimulus package, you are diametrically opposed to the creation of robot scientists who can perform CPR.

Sorry, that's wrong.

If you don't support President Obama's stimulus package you are a racist who diametrically opposes the creation of robot scientists who can perform CPR.

How Dare Dick Cheney Worry about the Lives of Americans!

2009-08-19T17:40:00.000-07:00

President Barack Obama promised to change Washington and boy has he done just that.

Gone are the days when level-headed George W. Bush made sound decisions that kept America safe for seven and a half years; decisions that caused the extreme left wing media to criticize the then-President for making the world hate us.

Now far-left Commander and Chief Barack Obama makes crazy decisions that leave all Americans in danger; decisions that cause the extreme left wing media to applaud the current President for uniting the world in harmony.

Already President Obama has dropped all charges against USS Cole bomber Tariq Al-Nasir Rahaman. (Okay, that's not his name, but I bet most of you didn't even realize it and I don't feel like looking it up.)

And of course it's considered improper etiquette to criticize the President, especially if you once held a similar position.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently warned that the closing of Gitmo could have catastrophic consequences; a warning that has Democrats up in arms.

"How dare the Vice President break the unwritten rule that prevents former Presidents and Vice Presidents from admonishing their successors! I mean, if you don't include Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, no former Democrat President or Vice President has spoken ill of a Republican in the White House."

"It's especially insulting because Mr. Cheney said something as tawdry as, 'I don't think President Obama should make decisions that put the lives of Americans in grave danger.'"

The Democrats are throwing a hissy-fit over the equivalent of former Vice President Cheney saying, "I don't think it's a good idea" in response to President Obama allowing a group of Al-Qaeda members to enter the country with a nuclear weapon. (Is a group of Al-Qaeda members referred to as a "group" or a "herd"? We'll go with "gaggle" until we figure out the proper terminology.)

The major retort by liberals when asked, "How does releasing a gaggle of Al-Qaeda members into the wild make America safer?" is "It just will."

There is no rhyme or reason behind arguments made by liberals regarding National Security, so they attempt to get by with their version of, "Because I said so."

But why do they stop with terrorists? America has a problem with gangs; why are liberals not calling for the release of gang bangers from prison? I can picture Nancy Pelosi saying, "If we show them we are willing to let them get away with felonious assault, maybe they will stop committing felonious assault."

We could wipe out crime completely if we simply let all criminals get away with the crimes we're trying to stop them from committing!

Wow, these Democrats are smart!

Now that Obama is President, America will be transformed from a nation that refuses to negotiate with terrorists, to a nation that refuses to capture terrorists.

"What did you do?" a Federal Prosecutor will ask a man with dark skin. "I tried to kill innocent Americans in the name of Allah," the terrorist will respond. "Oh, you're free to go. That's a relief, for a second I thought you lied to a Federal Grand Jury about the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports. You stick with that killing innocent Americans thing, because steroids could get you in a lot of trouble."

I recently viewed a PSA regarding the dangers of steroids, perhaps President Obama is thinking about producing commercials to air on Al-Jazeera warning Muslims about the risks of getting involved with terrorism. He did do his first interview with Al-Jazeera after all.

The problem is, now that we're going to make it easy for terrorists to operate without fear of American resistance, there really is no danger in becoming a terrorist.

Ideally Democrats would like everyone to stop bringing up the annoying little fact that they're making America less safe while they continue putting innocent men, women and children at risk in an effort to appease their base.

After all, if there miraculously is no attack under Obama's watch the Democrats will have killed two birds with one (Nerf) stone.

Understanding Liberals and the Gitmo Controversy

2009-08-07T18:37:00.000-07:00

A lot of times we conservatives try and make sense of the Democrats way of thinking.

We probably shouldn't, as the attempt usually leads to immense frustration.

But for some reason I am trying to figure out why Democrats are so hell-bent on closing Gitmo, the prison in Cuba where we house terrorist detainees.

The prisoners at Gitmo, who are determined to kill innocent men, women and children simply because said men, women and children don't believe in the exact same religion as they do, have a better life than most American prisoners currently serving in the U.S. penal system. In fact, we bend over backward making sure the needs of the prisoners are met.

You liberals, who support multiple organizations that go to great lengths to make sure Christians in America are bashed because of what you consider oppressive and antiquated viewpoints, are ready to stand up and fight for the rights of Muslims who kill innocent people who don't share their even more oppressive viewpoints!

You admonish Christians for not letting gays join the Boy Scouts, but you don't admonish terrorist detainees who murder those who simply tolerate gays.

That doesn't make any sense.

Because you care for these terrorist detainees, whose freedom of religion we must respect, you want them moved out of Gitmo so they can be treated worse in the American penal system!?

Let me give you an analogous situation. You love other people's rotten children more than your own children, who are by and large, good. Because of your undying affection for offspring not taken from your loins, you desire a better life for them, regardless of how much despair their immoral actions will cause society. Therefore you bitch and moan until the children are moved from their middle class home where they are being raised by parents who enforce somewhat strict rules as a survival mechanism and put into a dilapidated orphanage where they will be raised by a real life equivalent of Miss Hannigan from Annie who will simply turn her head as they're constantly being tormented by the their new brothers and sisters.

Perhaps the above scenario was a little too confusing, let me start over.

Your view of the Gitmo situation is the equivalent of you saying, "Even though Timmy has broken all of our rules, he deserves a reward. Let's spank him!"

I suppose I shouldn't complain, because in the end little Timmy gets disciplined for acting up, just like the Gitmo detainees will get what's coming to them when they're transferred to a maximum security prison somewhere in the United States.

Because you know what, Bubba, murdered of three, isn't beholden to the Geneva Convention. Neither is the United States Military when dealing with terrorists, actually, but I have a feeling Bubba cares even less about hearing criticism regarding his bad habit of ignoring conventions.

I just don't understand why you would condemn Cletus from Mississippi for saying the following (in a cartoon-like southern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should not be allowed to get married," yet when you hear Abdul from Syria say the following (in a cartoon-like Middle Eastern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should be hung by their necks until they were dead. Or stoned to death - I really don't have a preference overall, just depends on my mood, really. And women are beneath men. They should not be allowed to look at men or drive cars. If a wife is not obedient her husband has the right to beat her," you liberals respond, "What can we do to understand Abdul better. We've got to open up a dialogue."

Terrorists are nuts and therefore can't be reasoned with. I know that's been said many times before, so I'll try a different approach in hopes you liberals will finally catch on.

99% of all Muslims are not hell-bent on killing innocent people. But according to the 1% of Muslims who are hell-bent on killing innocent people, the Koran indicates the killing of innocent people is required of them. 99% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to act peacefully. 1% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to kill. The 1% is crazy.

Let's say a million people read Little Red Riding Hood. 99% of the readers think that while the book has a message, it doesn't call for violence against anyone, while 1% of the readers think the book is telling them to go kill everyone with the last name "Wolf."

Think you can talk sense into the 1%.

I don't, because you can't talk sense into crazy, no matter how many times you call crazy, "misunderstood."

I Hope Barack Obama Succeeds by Morphing into Ronald Reagan

2009-08-06T18:44:00.000-07:00

For the past eight years Democrats not only rooted for George W. Bush to fail miserably in every aspect of his presidency, they also cheered for the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat our troops. Other than the lunatic fringe who consider our military personal to be the real terrorists, I don't believe they wanted harm to come to our brave men and woman fighting overseas, but were so desperate for Bush to be proven a failure; they couldn't help but cheer for a U.S. defeat in the Middle East.

Despite their wish that America fail, they don't understand why conservatives are unwilling to at least give Obama a chance to succeed.

Let me get this straight, you want conservatives to give Obama a chance to "turn the country around," yet were so desperate for Bush to fail that you not only openly wished we would lose two wars, you refused to admit it when Bush did succeed.

"The troop surge did not work," you said after the troop surge worked.

So if we acted like you, and Barack Obama turned around the economy, defeated Al-Qaeda and discovered a cheap alternative to oil, we would say, "Barack Obama did not turn the economy around, defeat Al-Qaeda, or discover a cheap alternative to oil."

But that's not the main problem with you admonishing us for not hoping President Barack Obama does a bang up job during his time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

The problem is that we don't agree with Barack Obama!

Do you wish a verbally abusive father success in raising respectable children? "Sure I disagree with his method of constantly calling his child a 'worthless joke of a human being,' but I wish him nothing but the best in all his parenting endeavors."

You can't wish a president success when you believe his "success" will damage the country.

If Barack Obama takes $5 billion from Bill Gates and gives it to 50,000 people who have lost their jobs, you liberals would cry "success!"

But while you were screaming, "Hallelujah, he turned the economy around by helping the poor," we would say, "Number one, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is not right. And number two, that particular method of revitalizing the economy is not a long term solution; it will only work to ensure that future generations will never produce a Bill Gates because it removes incentive from those who aspire to achieve greatness."

So do I root for Barack Obama to succeed?

If your definition of a successful Obama presidency is, "President Obama morphing into a modern day Ronald Reagan by reducing taxes, increasing opportunity for entrepreneurs to succeed, and crushing our enemies throughout the world," then I say "Go Obama; get busy succeeding!"

Basically the Democrats view of success is "Turning the United States into a country opposite of what our forefathers envisioned."

Our view of success is, "Helping the United States once again resemble the country our forefathers envisioned."

So we conservatives do root for Mr. Obama to succeed, but in order for that to happen he would have to somehow obtain an entirely different system of beliefs, and despite your love for the man, I doubt such a transformation would make you Democrats very happy.

You Couldn't Make This Global Warming Stuff Up!

2009-08-05T13:04:00.000-07:00

As I read daily updates about states, counties and cities passing financially burdensome laws with the aim of curbing global warming, I become more and more amazed that the people who dreamed up the whole, "Man is creating global warming" theory actually got away with it.

They took two things that science can't prove have anything to do with each other and presented it as a fact that one was causing the other.

And people bought it.

Not only did they buy it, it's costing American citizens millions of dollars.

I find it hilarious when gullible morons get fleeced by politically correct do-gooders, but when laws that make everyone suffer financially are passed, it is cause for alarm. Especially in the trying economic times we face today.

Say I get together with a bunch of scientists who claim walking on Tuesday will eventually kill you.

Sounds far fetched, but because there is no evidence indicating man is causing global warming, those of you who believe it without question would surely believe something like walking on Tuesday is deadly.

Sure hundreds of scientists come out and say you can't link walking on Tuesday and death. But they can't prove it. No one has ever made a conscious decision to stop walking on Tuesday and everyone eventually dies.

As more and more people come to believe there is a correlation between deaths and walking on Tuesday, laws would have to be passed making it possible to go about our daily routine on Tuesday without putting one foot in front of the other.

Motorized scooters and padded mats that make crawling to your desk easy on the knees are just the beginning.

And of course everyone can't be expected to purchase their own motorized scooters and padded mats, therefore the bill will go the taxpayers, i.e., motorized scooters and padded mats are on the rich!

Also, each and every scientist who claims that walking on Tuesday is not detrimental to ones health faces tremendous scorn, and in some cases, receives death threats.

That really happens to scientists who conclude there is no correlation between man and global warming. The global warming freaks, who deride faith-based teaching in schools, also deride scientists who don't buy into the "Global warming is caused by man" theory; a theory based solely on faith.

So if you do accept the non-scientifically backed assertion that global warming is caused by man, you probably want to change your, "If you are of a certain ideology I will believe any words that come out of your mouth," stance, because the people you trust may eventually take advantage of your naiveté.

But don't worry; walking on Tuesday is perfectly healthy.

But I'm sure you'll still want to check with Al Gore.

Minorities Will Revive the Republican Party

2009-07-22T18:22:00.001-07:00

You hear a lot of political pundits predict that the Republican Party will cease to exist due to the fact that minority groups will soon become the majority.

Basically the "experts" say that the Republican Party must turn into a party of liberal ideas in order to remain relevant.

It's true that the country is on the verge of embracing socialism and the Republican Party is in for some difficult times, especially if no adequate leader emerges.

After a while, however, the minorities turned majorities will grow up and become annoyed they're still being told what to do every step of the way.

"You're an adult now and can make your own decisions, Jose. Now, this is what doctor you'll go to, this is what university you'll attend (because they're in desperate need of Hispanic students), this is how we're going to invest your money, so you needn't worry about that, etc..."

Then Jose's going to say, "But I want to make those decisions myself. I can think for myself. I can create my own success. I want freedom to prosper."

"But freedom is what caused your people to be oppressed, Jose."

"Look at all the successful minorities in this country, starting with Barack Obama. The only thing that matters is my ability and determination," Jose will counter.

"That's antiquated thinking, Jose. Now I'm going to get started registering you for the classes society thinks it's best for you to take?"

I don't mean to go all Ayn Rand here, but the simple fact of the matter is that if you strip freedom away from people they will revolt, and unfortunately the naïve among us are currently electing individuals who wish to strip more and more of our liberty.

So while the pundits are correct in saying that the Republican Party will be in shambles once the minority becomes the majority, it will only be a temporary situation.

Because regardless of race, creed or color; people hate being told what to do, which is why children are in such a hurry to grow up.

And I'm confident this country will eventually grow up.

We're All Closeted Racists

2009-07-21T16:20:00.000-07:00

Unfortunately, if you're Caucasian, everything you're doing not to further the cause of a minority is racist.

Sorry, I know you don't want to hear that you're constantly acting in a racist manner, but we can no longer deny facts.

And please excuse those of us who can't keep up with the definition of "racism" as it changes frequently and seems to differ based on which minority is speaking.

Because I think we missed the day where the definition of racism changed from, "discrimination based on race," to, "not asking yourself, 'will my actions assist a minority group,' before doing anything."

Because if every action we take is not to further the success of a minority; we're racist.

During the 2008 Presidential Campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain, bringing up the fact that Barack Obama had a spiritual guru who'd uttered phrases such as "God damn America," and, "the US of KKK," was considered racist.

Again, even mentioning the aforementioned Jeremiah Wright was considered racist; though it had nothing to do with the fact that Reverend Wright or then Senator Obama are African-Americans.

Why? Because those vile enough to bring up the subject of Reverend Wright and his fervent Anti-Americanism weren't furthering the career of Senator Obama or Reverend Wright.

Let's talk college football.

If you choose to hire a Caucasian coach to lead your college football team, you are a racist.

It doesn't matter what your reasons are; no African-American head coach equals blatant racism.

Why?

Because the racists in question are not living every moment of their life to reverse decades of racism.

When you download a CD from iTunes, do you choose the new Travis Tritt, Jewel, or John Mayer offering? Or do you go with a 50 Cent, Kanye West or Lil Wayne recording?

If you answered Travis Tritt, Jewel or John Mayer, why that means you're a racist.

Just like it doesn't matter if there is a legitimate reason to hire a Caucasian coach, it doesn't matter if you went with Travis Tritt because you like country music, Jewel because you enjoy her soothing voice or John Mayer because you're confused about your sexuality. No, none of that matters. It only matters that you didn't further the career of a minority.

Shame on you.

Don't buy music from a Caucasian artist that you'll enjoy; buy music produced by a minority and learn to like it.

Because it's not about what you want; it's about what's best for the minority community as dictated by the minority community.*

Remember, what you want has nothing to do with you; and if you think differently... why you're a raving bigot.

*Minority community retains the ability to change their mind on a whim.

It Takes a Little Thought to Vote Republican

2009-07-19T12:41:00.000-07:00

There is a lot of news out there about a Zogby poll that scientifically proves those who voted for President-elect Barack Obama were woefully ignorant about the issues. (Basically the poll revealed that most Obama voters didn't know basic facts such as which political party currently controlled Congress, etc.)

What a shocker!

In response, Democrats are asking, "Are you calling us stupid?"

The answer would be no. We're calling you ignorant regarding the issues; which the poll proves. It was you who called Republicans stupid after George W. Bush got re-elected in 2004.

See, the problem with your, "Republicans are stupid while Democrats are smart" argument is that it takes a little thought to vote Republican, while we learned today that voting for the Democrat means you know very little about the state of our great country.

And it's not that you're stupid, so please don't accuse everyone who points to a scientific poll, the one that says Obama voters were not well informed, of making disparaging remarks about your intellect.

Obama voters just simply don't follow politics. If I asked someone who won the 1985 Super Bowl and they responded with a blank stare, I wouldn't call them an idiot. I would simply deduce they don't follow sports.

See the connection?

You see, being ill informed means you were easily swayed by the partisan media and persuasive Barack Obama talking points.

Barack Obama said things like, "I'll give 95% of the country a tax break," and you non-politics-following people thought, "He looks like an honest guy and I heard somewhere that Democrats do look after the little guy."

Of course you don't realize that Democrats love taxes and we could very well have a case in which Mr. Obama was relying on your ignorance. He knew you weren't going to discover for yourselves that he and those with similar viewpoints believe taxing everyone is the way to go. He told you what you wanted to hear – and you bought it.

The other night Jon Stewart tried to tell Bill O'Reilly that an Obama victory meant that the country was not center-right as most polls suggest.

But let's break down the advantages held by Barack Obama going into the 2008 Presidential Election:

The United States is in the midst of two unpopular wars.
The mainstream media was in the tank for Barack Obama.
President George W. Bush is extremely unpopular.

When you add the fact that Barack Obama hid his far left beliefs from the country by campaigning as a centrist, along with the fact that John McCain had a lead in the polls until a Democrat-caused financial crisis hit the United States, it's a wonder why Obama didn't win with Reagan over Mondale type numbers.

(For those of you who voted for Barack Obama; Reagan defeated Walter Mondale by 512 electoral votes. That's a lot.)

Instead Obama only won by 8 million votes. A healthy number yes; but a decent McCain campaign would have cut that number in half... and possibly kept a Republican in the White House.

And Mr. Stewart mentioned that far left people like him are not really far left. Instead he claims that they simply believe in an increase in taxes for the richest in America from 36 to 39 percent. But something tells me Jon Stewart is currently only paying the minimum as required by law. Actually, he probably has a team of lawyers trying desperately to make sure he pays far less than the minimum. In other words, Mr. Stewart won't give the government what he believes a person of his income should give until he is forced to do so.

That's the Democrats new mantra, no?

"Come tell us how to live, President Obama – without you we are sinners; with you we are noble."

I guess we can't blame the Democrats for not having faith in the American people when they don't even have faith in themselves.

No Checks and Balances with Obama Win

2009-03-20T21:11:00.000-07:00

Not only will a victory for Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama mean the White House and Congress will be under far left rule, it will also result in the media becoming, if you can believe it, even more irrelevant.

Currently the media believes its job is to harm Republican politicians by any means necessary. Lying, cheating, stealing, writing articles that insinuate John McCain has had an affair despite an overwhelming lack of evidence, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.

I know some of you refuse to believe in press bias, so please let me speak to the rational citizens of the United States for a moment. According to the media, Democrats, especially Barack Obama, can do no wrong.

Hang out with terrorists... ABC is cool with that.

Steal from the rich and give to the poor... AP Analysts Analyze that they like that.

Choose a preacher that says America is to blame for everything bad in the world... MSNBC says, "That's exactly what we've been saying!"

Basically this means the radical liberals in Washington, after an Obama victory, will pass insane laws that hinder liberty and take material possessions away from those to whom they rightfully belong.

The only place you will be able to hear from the couple whose house was taken by the United States Government and given to a bunch of homeless homosexuals so they'd have a safe place to have gay sex, is Fox News. (Unless Fox News is shut down due to the soon-to-be implemented Fairness Doctrine because the liberals running Washington will consider Fox News to be the only biased television network while they deem one Republican for every 200 Democrats on MSNBC completely in accordance with the Doctrine.)

Those in the media left standing after the passage of the Fairness Doctrine will applaud the stealing of the house belonging to the straight white couple and spin it to make it sound like an achievement of Robin Hoodian proportions.

I can already picture the article...

"During the Bush Administration, whenever Joe the Homeless Guy had gay sex with a strange man it was always on top of disease infested syringes in a dumpster behind the Arby's off I-47, which means his partner wasn't the only thing poking Joe in the butt. But thanks to a bill recently signed by President Obama, he'll now have the use of someone else's comfy bed."

Of course an Obama Presidency will mean the end to traditional marriage due to the fact that President Obama, Congress, and the media will ally with each other and pass a law making gay marriage a permanent fixture in America. The Supreme Court won't be able to save marriage as being homosexual will probably be a requirement for nomination.

What am I talking about – having ties to, or previously having been, a terrorist will probably be a prerequisite to being a member of the United States Supreme Court. After all, there will be a lot more terrorists walking around after Obama is elected – and they deserve representation!

I suppose my fear can be summed up by the famous quote "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."

The liberals are going to have all the power. The media will refuse to negatively report on any controversial action taken by the Democrats. "It's good that they did that," the press will say in a creepy, Twilight Zone sort of way. Instead of Jonestown, the United States will become Obamatown.

Yes, it's safe to say Democrats will enjoy power of this magnitude and do anything they can to retain it – perhaps even some of the things for which they have previously criticized Republicans.

You liberals need to think about how kindly you take to opposing viewpoints. Do you calmly listen to conservative speakers or do you pelt them with rotten eggs?

Well, if, sometime down the line, you have a disagreement with the Democratic Party which controls the White House, the Congress, the media, as well as the courts, where are you going to turn? Are you going to call your neighbors and start a grass roots movement!? Good idea, but are you sure you and your neighbor are the only ones on the line? Perhaps there was already a similar case where the person with the idea to begin a movement went missing and was never heard from again!

After all, Siberia is a pretty big place, and I have a feeling Putin is one of the first men President Obama will attempt to befriend.

No, the Democrats would never take a, "the ends justify the means" approach!

Well, they are involved in voter fraud (ACORN), they do lie about Republicans (McCain had an affair), they refuse to admit their actual plan (redistribute wealth), they pretend it's the Republicans fault that the economy is in shambles (Democrats forcing Fannie and Freddie to loan money to people who were clearly unable to pay it back).

But people who believe in a "let's look out for the common man," approach wouldn't abuse power, would they?

Sure, there were a few loose cannons who enjoyed butchering their subjects, but that could never happen in America, right?

Oh, it could happen, because to Obama and the rest of his cronies, retaining power by any means necessary is in your best interest; whether you think so or not.

Reexamining Female Suffrage

2009-03-12T18:38:00.000-07:00

If you examine the 2008 Presidential poll numbers you'll notice that one group could very well be deciding who occupies the White House beginning January 20, 2009.

Women.

Women currently favor Barack (Hussein) Obama overwhelmingly, while men favor John (I Don't Know His Middle Name, But I Know It Ain't Hussein) McCain.

With rare exceptions, men run everything in the United States. If you had a convention consisting of the most successful business people in the nation let's just say the men's room would constantly be over-capacity while the women's room would only see a few visits from the lady who turned eBay into a multi-gazillion dollar business.

And, not to belittle her accomplishment, but the business with which she was successful revolves around two things women are notoriously good at: sitting on your butt and shopping.

Sure, there are ladies who are "successful" in politics.

There is Hillary Clinton who rose to the top by marrying a known womanizer who also happens to have the ability to put a voodoo spell on half the country.

There is Nancy Pelosi who rose to the top by doing nothing other than purporting a far left wing agenda in a district full of the most radical left winged people on the face of the earth. If you find someone successful simply for rising to the position of top loon in a land of loons, you have to consider People's Temple leader Jim Jones (who convinced his followers to commit mass suicide) one of the greatest men to have ever graced the earth.

The only truly successful women in politics are Republicans.

Condoleezza Rice comes to mind as a woman who made it based on merit. But unfortunately for those on the left, she does not have a liberal equivalent.

So the gender that hasn't really done much in terms of progress is the one that gets to decide the President?!

Fortunately there have usually been enough smart women to keep a Republican in the Oval Office.

However Democrat Bill Clinton became President because he was charming, good-looking, and full of non-specific ideas that he promised would "change" the country.

Uh-oh!

It looks like we might, once again, be facing a situation where someone gets elected President of the United States because they're sooooooooo dreamy.

That's one of the reasons we're looking at an Obama Presidency.

The second reason is because (and this is not meant to be sexist in the least) women don't understand how things work.

Women hear: "I'll cut taxes for 95% of the American people," and they instinctively react, "Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeah!" Women don't understand that raising taxes on businesses, which Barack plans to do, will cancel his prospective tax cuts to the working class because of the fact that they, and every other woman, spend their husband's money purchasing goods created by businesses that will pass their tax increases onto the consumer.

They also don't understand that Barack Obama won't cut taxes to 95% of the people because Democrats fundamentally believe in higher taxes across the board!

Again, not to be sexist, but women only care about how things feel – while reality is a pest that should be pushed aside.

That's the reason they're likely to vote Democrat.

The Democrats shovel the following talking points which are very effective in convincing people who don't think...

"We will raise taxes for the rich, who won't miss the money. We will cut taxes for the poor, who desperately need the money."

"Republicans will lower taxes on the rich while offering no relief to the poor because poor people aren't like them – and Republicans despise people that aren't like them."

So if you women would do one simple thing before heading to the polls, I guarantee this country would be better off...

Ask your husband for whom you should vote.

Of course there are some men who make every decision based on irrational emotion...

We call them gays...

...Not that there's anything wrong with being intimate with members of the same sex. In fact, I'd rather they have inappropriate relations with their own kind than make decisions that effect the entire country based on irrational emotion.

Fernando Would Hate the Democrat Party

2009-02-14T21:20:00.000-08:00

"It's better to look good than to feel good," was the favorite saying of Fernando: the Saturday Night Live character made famous by Billy Crystal.

For the Democrats of today, however, it's all about feel.

"We feel like everyone in America should have a beautiful home; why don't we "strongly encourage" the lenders to make that possible! Poverty discrimination is just like any other form of discrimination."

It's the same thing with minimum wage.

A company pays Tim and Jim $8 an hour each. Minimum wage rises to $10 an hour. The company can't afford $20 an hour so Jim gets the axe. Eventually a lack of manpower causes the company to fold and Tim is also out of a job.

Do Democrats care?

No, they're at home feeling good with pictures dancing in their head of both Tim and Jim going home to tell their families about the huge raise they just received. Then they imagine those evil CEO's pounding their fists in frustration because their ability to exploit the less fortunate has been greatly diminished.

And if you try to inform Democrats of Jim and Tim's termination they will likely put their fingers in their ears and scream at the top of their lungs. They do this because learning of layoffs doesn't feel particularly good – especially when it was their actions which directly caused working class people to lose their jobs.

Matt Damon said the rise of Sarah Palin resembles a bad Disney movie.

What! The entire ideology of the Democrat Party resembles a bad Disney movie!

Bosses are evil! Having the audacity to desire a profit is immoral! If you have employees you are automatically trying to screw them and the only reason they're not chained to their chairs is because you fear incarceration!

To the Democrats, everyone who employs others is Ebenezer Scrooge – only without the inherent ability to reform themselves!

In the mind of a Democrat, this is how a typical business gets started...

Husband: "Let's open a corner bakery."

Wife: "Why, so we can be our own bosses, provide for our families and do something we love?"

Husband: "No, so we can (expletive deleted) over the working class!"

Wife: "That sounds like soooooooo much fun – I'm in!"

Why do Democrats think like that?

Because it feels good.

They hate when people work hard and achieve greatness without help from the government, and therefore it makes them feel good to think of bosses as evil individuals who are only successful because they practice deviant behavior.

Everything liberals believe revolves around feel.

Reality: We don't know that global warming is being caused by man.
Democrat Mindset: Putting my empty water bottle in the blue receptacle as opposed to the trash can makes me feel like I'm saving mankind – just like Superman!

Reality: Those willing to kill women and children are usually somewhat stubborn and therefore difficult to appease. Democrat Mindset: Applying that "Give Peace a Chance" sticker to my bumper felt great! Besides, the shade of taupe they used for the peace sign matches perfectly with the ocean water in the picture of the earth they used for "O's" in my "Make Love, Not War" bumper sticker!

Why don't you Democrats try and improve America by paying attention to that which is real. Sure, reality doesn't always feel great, but isn't that what life is all about!

The Government Isn't to Blame for Everything

2009-02-04T20:30:00.001-08:00

Listening to the Democrats speak, I can't help but get the impression they truly believe that the United States Government is responsible for everything that goes wrong in America. Scratch that, I get the impression Democrats truly believe that the United States Government is responsible for everything that goes wrong in the world.

"President Bush made my boss fire me."

"Those damn Republicans made it where the drug company must charge me $30 for the medicine required to control my gout."

"The House of Representatives moved that coffee table on which I stubbed my toe, thus further aggravating my gout!"

Have you ever thought that your boss may have fired you because you were never on time, as well as took the overall attitude that he or she owed you something? Maybe, like all Democrats, you thought of your employer as evil and tried to perform an exorcism on him or her? Or maybe the CEO of your company inexplicably tried to switch from selling windshield wipers to selling exotic Sri Lankan cheeses and the business folded?

Maybe the drug companies charge you $30 because they must receive $30 in exchange for their product in order to turn a profit. I mean, you're not saying that the people at the drug companies should lose money and therefore get sick because they can't afford to purchase their own products, are you?

And perhaps your lack of focus caused you to stub your toe? Maybe you were dreaming about Barack Obama solving all your problems with the stroke of his pen and weren't paying attention to the path in front of you?

The point is that the government cannot be blamed for any of the problems that you Democrats regularly complain about. And I would say the same thing no matter which party was in the White House. The job of the government is to build roads and protect its people - that's it. They're not supposed to hold your hand from the moment you're born until the moment you die. The government is not supposed to make sure you're always gainfully employed. The government is not supposed to make sure you can afford everything your little heart desires, and it's not supposed to make sure you can retire two years after your 20th birthday.

I mean, why do you Democrats ever leave the home of your parents if you want to be taken care of from the cradle to the grave?

And I would like all you Democrats to give me one example of something the government should do to create jobs? Should they invent a bunch of governmental busy work? Force large conglomerates to hire people they don't need?

I can't wait to go to Wal-Mart and hear this, "Hello, my name is Bonnie and I'll be in charge of following you around with a calculator in order to give you an updated total, including tax, of all the items in your cart."

"But I don't need that service."

"You might not have wanted to put your seat belt on during your trip here, either, but it wasn't your decision, was it? In other words, it's mandated by the government."

Call me crazy, but I still have this wacky belief that the private sector should create jobs.

And I love it when Democrats speak about giving citizens everything they want, without the citizens having to lift a finger, and then declare that if you work hard you can accomplish anything.

Translation: "With hard work your wildest dreams can come true, but if you'd rather sit on your butt and do nothing we'll make sure you're taken care of just the same. It's win-win!"

Or I suppose what the Democrats are really saying is that if you worked hard and didn't succeed it's the fault of the government.

Ordinarily Citizen: "I worked like, really hard, you know, and I ain't got me nothin' to show for it."

Barack Obama: "That must mean that the government prevented you from succeeding due to racism, sexism or ageism."

On second thought, the Democrats believe government is the cure for everything.

Now I'm confused.

It's the government's fault you lost your job and can't afford medicine, so the government is going to help you get a job and pay for your medicine.

It's kind of like asking Mike Tyson to help protect you from Mike Tyson.

You Democrats are always talking about the Bible being contradictory; have you looked at your own system of beliefs lately?

"You can do it!"

"Actually it's really hard so we'll have to help you."

"Some of you can do it!"

"But if you do we're going to take all your money and give it to other people."

Repeating What People Say is Not an Attack!

2009-01-23T18:19:00.000-08:00

Michelle Obama said recently, "For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country."

Ladies and gentleman I have just attacked Michelle Obama.

Because in today's political climate attributing words to their original speaker is dirty pool.

So the next time a Democrat tells you something like, "Michelle Obama said it should be a priority to heal the sick children of America," you should admonish them for their ruthless attack on Mrs. Obama!

"How dare you repeat what she said like that! Have you no shame!"

"But Mrs. Obama stands by her statement that the sick children of America should be healed," you say.

Well how are we supposed to know which statements she stands by and which statements shouldn't be repeated by anyone, at anytime, ever?

And what if we're asked? "Did Mrs. Obama say, 'For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country.'?"

If I answer yes I am attacking her! If I answer no I am lying! Do I say, "I cannot confirm nor deny any previous remark made by Mrs. Obama, Senator Barack Obama, his campaign staff or any Obama supporter."?

If I direct them to Wikipedia and they discover she said, "For the first time in my life I am really proud of my country," am I guilty of indirectly attacking Mrs. Obama?

I have a better idea, why don't we all openly discuss what the candidates and their wives say on the campaign trail and then use the information we've gathered through intelligent dialogue as a basis for our decision regarding who we vote for come November! Sure it's radical, but I think it's just crazy enough to work!

Oh, that's right, you Democrats are all about free speech as long as it doesn't harm your candidate or oppose your beliefs.

I'll start working on another plan.

Darn it, I really thought I had something there with my idea of using information to help us choose a candidate.

How Can You Hate America and Not Be Un-American?

2008-12-16T23:29:00.000-08:00

Wo, hold on there (insert name of any radical left-winged loon; whether it be Democratic pundit, Hollywood celebrity, or mainstream media personality)! You criticize everything America does and wish we were more like our European "allies," yet, according to you, you are not "un-American."

Not only that, you are deeply offended at the suggestion you are rabidly anti-United States.

I know your thinking is backward, but it's hard to believe even you can assert that you love America.

After all, I don't think this country was founded by brave men and women who held two party talks with the British until the Red Coats decided to leave America and return to the Mother Country.

You'll have to excuse some conservatives who don't think you're pro-American because you openly state that there are hundreds of countries whose policies you favor over ours.

"I like Dr. Pepper the best; followed by RC Cola, A&W Root Beer, Pepsi and then Coke. But don't you dare try and insinuate that I am not pro-Coke, because I love Coke very much; I just want to change its formula so that it tastes exactly like Dr. Pepper, but you can't equate that with anything other than true love for Coke."

It sounds pretty absurd when you put it like that, but it's exactly how the radical left think: "We love America; now what’s the most effective way to go about changing everything about it."

Now, I'm not saying I don’t have a problem with Barack Obama's plan to drastically change the way things are done in America. You can bet I will be the first to throw a fit if there comes a time I can't go to the doctor of my choice because "ObamaCare" mandates I see a doctor who got his PhD from the Guatemala School of Medicine.

But the difference between you and me is that I want things in America to be the way our forefathers envisioned, while you want America to be like the country we defeated for our independence. England isn't as horrible as some of the other European countries, but you get the idea.

So, (insert name of any radical left-winged loon; whether it be Democratic pundit, Hollywood celebrity, or mainstream media personality), the next time you talk about how much you loathe this country and everything it stands for, think about the fact that it is exactly the same way I feel about you, and I don't think you'd consider me pro-(insert name of any radical left-winged loon; whether it be Democratic pundit, Hollywood celebrity, or mainstream media personality).

President Bush's Approval Rating is Perfect

2008-12-12T17:15:00.000-08:00

On an average day, how many sane people do run across? I know I can count on one hand how many reasonable people with whom I come in contact.

In other words, the amount of people with their heads on straight in this country and around the world is extremely low.

So it doesn't bother me that these freaks think President Bush is doing a bad job.

Most people's belief system is so out of whack it would concern me if they agreed with the President's policies. So why is everyone up in arms about Bush's low approval ratings?

That's why President Bush is a great President. He doesn't care about approval unless it's self-approval. If he approves of himself then he's doing a good job. That's the bottom line and his only concern. After all, we didn't elect him to do what we wanted; we elected him to do what he wanted.

When you leave your house every day do you act in accordance with the wants and needs of others, or do you act how you want you to act?

And what do we call those who live their lives accommodating the wishes of others? We call them spineless cowards.

It's liberals who always pay attention to the polls. "We'll only change things if people want them changed," is what they say. "Even though it will help preserve freedom, we're not going to invade such-and-such country because people don’t enjoy seeing war footage on the nightly news."

Name the last time a Clinton did anything without looking at opinion polls. "I'm for the war. Now, I'm against it. I'm against the troop surge, but if it starts working I might change my mind."

Who does that sound like?

Hillary Clinton?

Yes, but also Barack Obama. Sure, Mr. Obama was against the war from the get-go, but lately I've been hearing a lot less, “Get the troops out of Iraq immediately,” from the President-elect.

I suppose it's a good thing that his worldview won't really affect policy, because he'll just do what the majority of us think is best.

On the other hand, I was hoping to have someone smarter than the majority of us running the country.

The President is like a parent in that he must do things for our own good, regardless of whether or not the masses agree. And by not giving him the benefit of the doubt, you act like children.

If a single father has three kids and they all vote to ban baths, does that make baths evil? By your logic it does, simply because 75% of the household is anti-bath. Of course baths are not evil, and that's why the dad makes sure that, despite protests, everyone takes one at night or in the morning; something the children will thank him for when they get older.

Just as America will thank President Bush when history proves he has done the right thing an overwhelming majority of the time.

I’m sure, in response to this article, liberals will say, "Why would we go along with Bush's asinine policies!?"

Too bad the same liberals who say that, also say, "Even though you'll disagree with every policy he implements, you should give Barack Obama a chance to lead. He is, after all, our President."

Led by the mainstream media, I'm sure the ignorant childlike adults of the United States will declare that Barack Obama is doing a great job, which will keep his approval rating high.

But you know what, if the single father I spoke about earlier cut out baths, tooth-brushing and vegetables from the lives of his children, I'm sure his approval rating would be off the charts among members of his household.

Would that mean he's doing a good job?

Oh contraire.

Let's Pretend Barack Obama Doesn't Win

2008-12-04T18:54:00.000-08:00

I know the liberal talking points insist the United States is in such great turmoil that a Democrat taking the White House in 2008 is inevitable.

But, just for my amusement, let's say Barack Obama doesn't win the 2008 Presidential Election. Because if McCain is somehow victorious in the election I can't wait to hear your attempt to try and woo Hillary Clinton back to the forefront.

Barack Obama won the nomination because of the extreme far left wing of the Democratic Party, and a loss to John McCain will mean, by the end of McCain's first term, the only Democrat who will have occupied the White House in 32 years is a member of the Clinton family.

You Dems finally found a couple that Americans will actually vote for and you're not smart enough to nominate the one remaining who is still eligible to represent your party in the general election!

I know you Democrats control Congress and therefore it's a given that Obama will be victorious. But do you realize the only reason you control Washington is because the American people are too chicken to understand we're in a real war and have to face terrorism head on, i.e. wage war against the terrorists?

Obama won the nomination because of the far left; if he loses Democrats will be forced to come to grips with the fact that far left people can't get elected in general elections.

It's not that difficult to comprehend: A Clinton one once, a Clinton can win again.

It's kind of like a plain Jane who starts dating a guy out of her league. He lavishes attention on her and gives her confidence. Then she thinks to herself, "If this guy likes me, they'll all like me, therefore I must be able to find someone better looking and richer." Then the girl breaks up with the boy and spends the rest of her life alone, all the while regretting her decision.

Republicans know when we've got something good.

Even though George H.W. Bush lost his reelection bid to Bill Clinton we Republicans were smart enough to realize that people would vote for a member of the Bush family for President and nominated George W. Bush in 2000. Guess what? He won.

Unfortunately you moderate Democrats aren't influential enough to make sure your party nominates someone with a chance to win.

Oh wait, sorry, for the time being I have to pretend Barack Obama will win the general election because those on the far left are absolutely certain this will be the case.

But in the event Obama loses, or the election is "stolen" from him, you need to create a sales pitch that would convince her to run again in 2012.

Here's my idea.

"Hillary you are our god. Like Eve eating of the apple we shamefully doubted your wisdom and infinite knowledge. We were worshipping a false idol. As the Christian God does, we ask you to forgive us of our sin. We will never again doubt your power. As soon as your beautiful and talented daughter Chelsea turns 35 we will of course nominate her, provided she keeps her maiden name. After her terms are up we will nominate her husband, provided he hyphenates his last name where it reads something like Doug Smith-Clinton or even Doug Clinton-Smith. Please, we will do whatever we need to make this right. We love you, Hillary Clinton, and we were wrong for ever wavering in our devotion to you."

Whatever it is, Democrats, it better be sincere and it better show just how sick you are that you pissed off the people responsible for stopping "Democrat President" from becoming an oxy-moron.

Vote Liberal: We'll Give You Stuff Others Have Worked For!

2008-11-09T11:51:00.000-08:00

We're approaching another in a long string of elections where the Democrats are proposing hope for the poor, a better future for all, blah... blah... blah... What are the Republicans proposing, you ask. Basically the same thing, only they offer a different way to achieve success.

But let's break it down in a way everybody here can easily understand.

Liberalism calls for the distribution of wealth and conservatives call for wealth to be accumulated by hard work.

In other words; Democrats can campaign on giving the majority of its citizen's free stuff using wealth a small minority of the people have worked extremely hard for.

Why aren't there even more Democrats in power?

Maybe they need me to devise their campaign strategy.

Pay close attention liberals, because this is what your conversations with potential voters should resemble.

Liberal: Hello Sir or Ma'am - I am speaking to you on behalf of the Democratic Party. If our candidates are elected to office we pledge to give you stuff others have toiled for under the guise that they achieved vast riches only because of good fortune. They woke up at 4:00 in the morning and busted their butt until midnight so you wouldn't have to! They'll pay so you can continue sleeping until noon every day!

Potential Voter: I don't know – shouldn't I work for my possessions?

Liberal: Let's apply your question to every day life. If you were taking the family out to a restaurant, would you go to the one that gives you free food or the one that makes you pay?

Potential Voter: The one that gives us free food.

Liberal: If someone offered you a free t-shirt would you decline it in favor of receiving one from another individual who wanted you to mow his or her lawn in return?

Potential Voter: No.

Liberal: So what's the problem?

Potential Voter: I don't know - doesn't that mean some of my money will be used to go to people lazier than me?

Liberal: Do you think you had anything to do with the amount of motivation you were born with? Just like you, other people have no control over how hard they are able to work. It's in your DNA. They shouldn't be punished because they don't have the same natural aptitude as yourself.

Potential Voter: Wow, I never thought of it like that. I suppose I should help those born with less ambition.

Liberal: Of course you should. But we'll make the rich provide so much money your cost will be extremely minimal.

Potential Voter: And those rich people, who've worked so hard, have accumulated more money than they'll ever be able to spend.

Liberal: Exactly! What good are all those funds doing sitting in a bank! And besides, we shouldn't really call what rich people do "work."

Potential Voter: What do you mean?

Liberal: How long did you play video games yesterday?

Potential Voter: Five hours.

Liberal: Did you enjoy it?

Potential Voter: Yes.

Liberal: Do you think a multi-millionaire enjoys the process of accumulating wealth?

Potential Voter: I suppose so.

Liberal: Of course he does! It's just fate that he happens to enjoy something that provides wealth for his family while the thing you enjoy doesn't provide anything but fun!

Potential Voter: And it's not like I'm going to get rich from the U.S. government seizing money from America's wealthiest individuals.

Liberal: No; they're just helping you make ends meet - and maybe buy the new Metal Gear Solid video game when it's first released, instead of waiting for it to hit the discount bin. And perhaps one day you'll come up with some random idea that makes you a million dollars – like the Pet Rock!

Potential Voter: Yeah, I could still get rich! But if I do accumulate vast wealth I'm going to want to keep a majority of it.

Liberal: Don't worry - I know a crafty accountant.

You're welcome, Democrats – I've just given you a way to sweep Congress and take back the White House.

Leave Barack Alone!

2008-11-09T11:50:00.000-08:00

Newsflash: Barack Obama has quit his church!

Did he quit because of inflammatory statements made by those who spoke there?

No, he quit because the media reported those inflammatory statements.

The media played clips and reported exactly what was said at the Trinity United Church of Christ. How dare they!

It's pretty simple from my perspective: Either Barack Obama stands by his church or he rejects it.

Either he says, "Like everyone I don't agree with everything they say at my church, but I will continue to stand by it," or "Too many offensive statements that I did not agree with were spoken at my church. Though they are responsible for many positives, my conscience simply does not allow me to remain a congregant of the Trinity United Church of Christ."

But Senator Obama wants it both ways. He rejects certain statements made at his church while condemning the media for reporting them as controversial. Senator Obama, why are you condemning the statements if there is no reason for the media to report them?

Something tells me if there were no media reporting on the church Senator Obama would be in the front row applauding Father Pfleger as the Catholic Priest did his best impression of the Junior Senator from New York crying about her struggles to secure the Democratic nomination.

And Senator Obama seemed to believe this would be a situation that any churchgoer would face should they choose to run for public office. But how many of you attend religious institutions where the sermons are so controversial they are newsworthy? How many of you hear your preacher say things that would make a large portion of the population seethe with anger?

And according to the Senator, the media was hounding the sick and shut-in members of Trinity United Church of Christ. That darn media; they ruin everything with their reporting of the facts, sometimes which require speaking to other people!

Now, if a member of the media picked up the phone with his grubby little hands and knowingly and repeatedly called a shut-in while wearing a smart-alecky grin - that would be an unfortunate situation. But despite how eager the media can be, which often causes them to lack manners most of us posses, do we really think they were "hounding shut-in's?"

To Senator Obama, it's always someone else's problem. The preachers at the Trinity United Church of Christ made outrageous statements; yet the media is the reason he is quitting the church. Michelle Obama says this is the first time in her life she is really proud of her country; yet the media is responsible for attacking Mrs. Obama, and they better lay off.

Did the media make it all up? The preachers said it; his wife said it - the media just told people about it.

Barack Obama calls disseminating information an "attack." The media tells us, "Barack Obama's pastor of 20-years said the U.S. Government created the HIV Virus to control the black population," they are attacking Barack, according to he and his supporters.

We supposedly live in a time when running for president is a dirty, nasty business. It seems to me that it's exactly the opposite. When reality is unpleasant for a candidate they can just blame the entity which brought the truth to light, as well as those who had the nerve to repeat the facts.

All This Sh*t Just Happened

2008-11-09T11:49:00.001-08:00

There is continued debate in the public school system about whether or not we should teach our children creationism in science class alongside evolution, which is already taught.

The scientists who say we shouldn't even bring up creationism in school maintain there is science to back up evolution, while creationism is solely based on faith.

When I was a kid I had a theory that scientists were smart. I am now rethinking that theory.

I ask the scientists to answer the question laid out in the title of this piece: Do you really think all this sh*t just happened? All the miracles in the world are because of happenstance? There was nothing and then all of a sudden there was something. That something led to a planet that could be inhabited by human beings with opposable thumbs!

The oceans, the Seven Natural Wonders of the World, the weather in Hawaii and Anna Kournakova's luscious ass are all just products of dumb luck.

Oh, what's that you say? It was the Big Bang?

According to the Big Bang theory, the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state. Since then, space itself has expanded with the passage of time, carrying the galaxies with it. The Big Bang is based on Hubble's Law: the statement in physical cosmology that the redshift in light coming from distant galaxies is proportional to their distance. The law was first formulated by Edwin Hubble and Milton Humason in 1929 after nearly a decade of observations. It is considered the first observational basis for the expanding space paradigm and today serves as one of the most often cited pieces of evidence in support of the Big Bang.

Oh, well then, I have changed my mind. Yes, that sounds like a perfectly reasonable explanation as to how the universe began.

You see people, that's how they get you! They say a bunch of confusing words that regular people can't understand and tell you because they are scientists, and their words are based on science, it is the truth.

Then when we say "God created the world in seven days and because Adam & Eve ate of the apple there is sin," they say, "prove it. Oh, you can't prove it, then we can't even bring it up in the classroom."

Then they reiterate their theory that the universe emerged from an extremely dense and hot state. Since then, space itself has expanded with the passage of time, carrying the galaxies with it. "Prove it," we say, only to hear them praddle on and on using scientific words that no one without a Phd can understand, and say, "There's your proof."

What! That's no proof, that's a lot of mumbo-jumbo is what that is.

Look, I'm a reasonable man, I'm not saying we should only teach creationism in school and say that it is fact, I'm just saying that telling our kids the world might have been created by an Intelligent Being is a little more appropriate than saying, "Look kids, all this sh*t just happened."

God is Watching You!

2008-11-09T11:48:00.001-08:00

The ACLU, or ACL - PEEEEEEEEEEEEEEUUUUUUUUUUUU, as I like to call them, are always trying to scare the American people by telling them that if we're not careful we could end up living in an Orwellian nightmare where big brother is watching every move you make.

Well guess what suckers? We already do!

If anyone would ever take the time to read the Bible, they would find out that God is omnipresent. For those of you educated in a public school, that means He's everywhere, fools!

And guess what, there ain't a damn thing the ACLU can do about it.

Let's go over their usual tactics and see which one of them could prevent the Lord Almighty from constantly watching over us.

Bitching?

Nope – not going to work.

Moaning?

Don't think so.

Lawsuits?

Not today my friend.

Going on Donahue? Donahue got cancelled, ya liberal pansies!

Everybody said Orwell was way ahead of his time by predicting a society where your moves were monitored at all times, but according to the Good Book, he was a few thousand years behind.

Let Me Get This Straight; We Can't Portray Terrorists as Muslims After They've Attacked Us; But When They Weren't Attacking Us It Was Perfectly Fine

2008-11-09T11:37:00.000-08:00

Before September 11th, 2001 there were countless Hollywood movies that portrayed Middle Eastern men as terrorists.

But since nineteen Saudi Arabian monsters perpetrated one of the worst terrorist attacks in history Hollywood has stopped casting Arab actors as terrorists because it’s not politically correct.

In other words it was perfectly fine to portray Muslims as terrorists when they were doing small jobs, but when they stepped it up a notch it became a faux paux to show them as the cold blooded killers some of them actually are.

They are not killers; portraying them as killers is okay.

They are killers; portraying them as killers is politically incorrect.

Forgive me please, but I don't understand!

And these movies are made in Hollywood for crying out loud; the politically correct capital of the world!

Of course the Hollywood elite never said that every Muslim is a terrorist, they just cast people to blow up buildings that look like the people who actually blow up buildings. Crazy, isn't it!

Hollywood is doing this so we don't anger people of a religion that has members who occasionally attack America. In other words, the people being killed are appeasing the killers.

This is just another example of the politically correct solution of refusing to discuss a problem that exists. There are a small percentage of Muslims who desire to murder innocent people; that's a fact, how dare they fictionalize it!

If White Supremacists wanted Hollywood to stop portraying them as terrorists would their best bet be to attack America? Would motion picture studios then go back to casting Arabs as terrorists? Is it a case of, "What have you done for me lately?"

Would a scroll at the bottom of the screen help? Throughout the movie there could be a disclaimer that stated... "This movie shows Arabs as terrorists, but it does not mean all Arabs are terrorists. In fact the actors portraying the terrorists aren't terrorists; they are professional actors. The guy playing Abdul was in an episode of According to Jim last week and the guy playing Abdul is currently starring as Master of Ceremonies in a Chicago production of Cabaret."

So I ask Hollywood to please cast Arabs as terrorists so I don't have to roll my eyes the next time the villain is introduced as Harvey, a Montana militiaman who is tired of the government trying to restrict the number of semi-automatic weapons he is allowed to give his five-year-old daughter.