“It’s Too Late America”

“It’s Too Late America”
By Kent Felder


Bonjour Américains, se réveiller! Oh merde, c'est trop tard. Dans ce cas bienvenue à l'Europe!
Hello and welcome voters! Welcome to the new world order in 21st century America, a Socialist Paradise looking very much like Europe. Except here we ingest lots of baloney while over there they at least enjoy lots of fairly good wine. With the U.S. economy in a downward spiral and adversely affecting the economies of most of the world’s nations, right now life here is not exactly a “paradis” of any sort. However, it is definitely moving toward more “socialisme”. In fact, if the voters last November didn't recognize the signs then, they surely will now. Even Newsweek magazine, usually an ally of the political left, admits it on their Feb.16, 2009 cover, declaring “We Are All Socialists Now.”

Seek your own definitions and understanding of socialism, but allow me to remind you of Karl Marx’s notion that socialism was the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. A famous American socialist and magna cum laude Princeton graduate, Norman Thomas, who ran 6 times for president, said: “The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism. But, under the name of ‘liberalism’ they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program, until one day America will be a socialist nation, without knowing how it happened." He went on to say: "I no longer need to run as a Presidential Candidate for the Socialist Party. The Democrat Party has adopted our platform."

Please don’t misunderstand me. I’m not completely opposed to the Democrats’ economic stimulus plan. Everyone agrees that our nation’s economic situation is grim and that relief is needed. But I am opposed to doing it unwisely and I don’t believe all the best ideas have been considered. I also distrust President Obama’s repeated promises that his plan is devoid of “earmarks” and “pork”. If in fact they are there, it won’t matter what sort of semantics games Obama and the Democrats wish to play, it’ll be politics as usual. Changing the process by which pet projects are inserted into the bill can’t hide them. The bill American Recovery and Reinvestment Act will be parsed, dissected and thoroughly analyzed in coming weeks, and no amount of rhetoric will fool the people or hide the truth.

I don’t think I’m alone with my concerns, unless this is the Twilight Zone, because I know I’m not the only one who has observed happenings since Obama’s inauguration. Regarding the economic “stimulus” bills, on January 22nd House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said “Yes, we wrote the bill. Yes, we won the election.” She was saying to all the Republicans who opposed her version of the bill, “get out of our way.” On February 5th the Democrats held a conference “retreat” in Williamsburg, Virginia. There, surrounded by his party members, President Obama spoke about the stimulus bill, decrying his opponents’ “8 years of tired arguments and worn ideas,” mocking them and demanding immediate passage of his stimulus bill. So much for bi-partisanship. He said “That's what the American people called for in November and that's what we intend to deliver.” To a few Republican congressmen he’d earlier made a big show about being bi-partisan, but now, for all his empty rhetoric, he too was saying “get out of my way and do what I say, and be quick about it.”

Undeniable facts and unmistakable trends lead me to my concerns about socialism. Except for anyone in a drug-induced stupor or in a coma, in just the last few months everybody in America has witnessed our government buying insurance companies, major industries, banks, Wall Street financial institutions, and mortgage giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. We’ve heard our government’s stated goal to impose more “controls and accountability” over those all entities. We’ve been promised (or threatened with) universal, government-regulated healthcare. Education is being increasingly federally subsidized. Our military is being denigrated and marginalized, with unsettling implications. Recently, another ominous action occurred late on Friday afternoon of February 6 when our new President moved control of the 2010 census out of the Department of Commerce and into the White House under Rahm Emanuel, his chief of staff. Ominous because things like that often happen late at night or late on Fridays. That way it’s expected that the news will be overlooked by most people, lost in the rush to the weekend. Over a few days the news will get buried among the back pages of the newspapers. No one notices or complains. People tend to quickly forget these things anyway.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution of the United States provides for a census every 10 years, by “actual enumeration”, and a statute passed by Congress specifically provides that the duties under that clause are to be performed by the Secretary of Commerce. Moving that responsibility to the White House politicizes it, empowers the chief executive even more, and gives control to the political party in charge. The census is used to allocate federal aid to states and to draw electoral districts. Census numbers are the basis for congressional redistricting, and they provide the data by which government spending is allocated for everything from soup to nuts. The census decision came last week after Democratic California Rep. Barbara Lee, chairperson of the Congressional Black Caucus, and some Hispanic groups complained to the White House that Judd Gregg, the Republican senator picked for Secretary of Commerce, couldn't be trusted to conduct a complete census. Sadly, Judd is reportedly an advocate for physical door-to-door canvassing to determine a more exact population count, as opposed to “sampling” which is favored by those making the case that minority populations have long been “undercounted.” In addition to who will be controlling the census, sampling provides a huge opportunity to manipulate the numbers, something that could favor those controlling the counting. Am I the only one seeing a pattern here? Is the Democrat Party not maneuvering for yet more control?

Other recent alarms went off when all the House Democrats, without any Republican participation, crafted and passed their version of an Economic Stimulus bill. On Februaty 13th the Senate Democrats followed suit and passed their “compromise” version of a stimulus bill with only 3 Republican supporters. Bi-partisan? Not so much. Many will say, “So what? I can’t wait until I get my check.” But perhaps they should ask, “What does all that mean?” Besides tremendously increasing the nation’s debt, devaluing the currency, causing inflation and burdening future generations, it also means that one political party controls our nation’s finances. It means one political party is quickly positioning itself to remain in power for a long time. By controlling the disbursement of current and future tax revenues, all borrowed, that one political party is solidifying itself as the government Godfather who all will depend upon. When people rely on the government to take care of all their needs, as people become more dependent, that government eventually becomes omnipotent. (Suddenly I can’t get out of my mind the picture of a rat in a cage, somewhere in a laboratory, drinking water from a little tube coming through the bars while waiting for a tiny prefrontal lobotomy.) Whenever a government determines and controls the flow of money, it isn’t a big leap to controlling ownership, the means of production and the distribution of goods. Does any of this sound somehow familiar? History shows us that when one political party or system controls a government, it hasn’t worked out so well. Those governments are usually administered by a small, elite group, or perhaps one person at the top, without input or consent from the rest. Even if it were not just one man at the top - such as the Pope of Hope as I like to call him - but maybe a small group, I really don’t want people like Nancy Pelosi, Barbara Lee, Barney Frank, Dick Durbin, Chuck Schumer, or Tim Geithner deciding what’s in my best interest. Frankly, I don’t believe they give a hoot about anyone but themselves.

Economically speaking, let’s examine how we got here from where we were. To be blunt, it was the government once again making bad policy decisions and dictating how money should be distributed, for the sake of social justice and equality, of course. Lending institutions, insurance companies, investment bankers, and home builders all cooperated. In fact, they reveled in an orgy of bad management because it financially benefited the few folks at the top of those companies, as well as a few who floated between the government and the businesses. Many became multi-millionaires, “for our benefit and for social justice”, of course. Jamie Gorelick and Tom Daschle are two examples that come to mind. But wait! After a while it was our government telling us that their own policies were causing problems and therefore needed more regulating. Simultaneously it was also our government who decided those policies were working just fine, thus no more regulations needed. Okay, which was it? I’m confused. Then our housing market, lending institutions, insurance companies, investment banks, and big auto manufacturers started hemorrhaging red ink. What did those smart industry experts do? They asked our government for money. And our government decided the best policy (déjà vu) would be financial bailouts, so those governing us, once again, gave all of the outstretched hands lots and lots of our tax monies. Hundreds of Billions of dollars.

Time out, time out! I recently calculated something to make a point and put perspective on the stimulus package. I looked up the latest Census Bureau study to see the overall U.S. median household income – it was $50,740. High-to-low median incomes range from $68,080 in Maryland to $36,338 in Mississippi. Using an example $50,000 annual salary, at that rate I calculated it would take 20,000 years for that man to earn $1 billion dollars. For a $100,000 annual salary it would take 10,000 years to earn $1 billion dollars. Assume you earn a $1 million dollar annual salary; it would take you 800,000 years to earn $800 billion dollars, and the latest “stimulus package” is about that size. Hmmm. I haven’t tried yet to extrapolate this into a political party’s term in office…

Back to bailouts: Unfortunately our government neglected to properly manage the last recent bailout monies given to the aforementioned institutions, so these geniuses are unable to tell us exactly where it went or how it was used. Or perhaps they’re unwilling. Even several Freedom of Information Act requests since last November and a news media lawsuit have not pried the proof from the Treasury Department as to where the money has gone. Yet every day lately we’ve been promised transparency and accountability, and no earmarks and no pork! Meanwhile, to me the only thing that is transparent, or apparent, is that our economy continues to disintegrate and our politicians continues to blow smoke and lie. So, what does our Democrat controlled government do? They unilaterally decided another best policy will be to hand out more money to those institutions, and even give some to state governments and to different departments of – guess what - our federal government. The House passed the bill just in time for Madame Speaker to leave for a week long government-paid junket to Europe. The Senate voted Friday night. Neither group will have been able to read the 1,100 pages of baloney they finally published around midnight – it would be impossible to read in that short period of time. “Our” representatives voted on something that they haven’t even completely read, obligating me to spend my 800,000 years of salary. Tell me, is my lobotomy over? I don’t feel anything. Oh, it was only a colonoscopy.

All these recent government moves have menacing overtones, but should not surprise anyone not suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder. Anyone that could read and had cared enough to do the research during the election will probably recall the things they read about our new President’s past. Plenty of information and data about Obama’s past, his education, his mentors, his associates, his memoirs, and his work record were available to anyone interested. There were plenty of indicators of his possible and probable future leanings. But the news media, being biased and politically correct, did not want to pursue anything controversial during The Chosen One’s campaign. They still avoid doing so today, and they sure as heck haven’t gone back to investigate or verify things they skipped over during the past two years.

I don’t know if you see or recognize the same pattern here that I do? Call me cynical or paranoiac, but to me it is apparent that our government doesn’t always make the right decisions for our mutual benefit or have my best interests in mind. Those “representatives” in Washington aren’t representing me. Therefore, having learned something from historical facts, I have large misgivings about the current direction of our government’s policies. The common factor among past and present failed policies governing our lives seems to be – guess what - the government. Hello, is it hot in here or is it just me? Is it just me that sees a pattern? I’m not talking about the Democrats’ mantra about “the failed policies of the past 8 years.” (Jeez, if I hear that phrase again I’m going to scream!) I’m talking about the failed policies of all our political parties for the past 80 years since the stock market crash of 1929! And I’m not debating whether Herbert Hoover’s and Franklin Roosevelt’s governments shortened the Great Depression or prolonged it. Research that yourself. But I am reminding you that numerous of their stimulus programs created government subsidies and a welfare-entitlement frame of mind that remain today. Look up their programs yourself. That dependency mentality hasn’t always been beneficial for America, and it is growing as we watch.

Here’s a definition I found in a dictionary: “Socialism is an economic system characterized by public ownership and centralized planning of all major industries (manufacturing, services, and energy), banks and insurance companies, agribusiness, transportation, the media, and medical facilities. It’s a set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration.”

"Change" by Kent Felder

This is the first contribution by one of my friends and readers.

"Change" by Kent Felder

“CHANGE WE CAN BELIEVE IN” has to be the most disingenuous catch phrase of any presidential campaign.  The reality of the new Obama administration belies that promise.  Suspicions confirmed?  That slogan seems to be just another mindless platitude among the loads of empty rhetoric swallowed by the drooling multitudes with blind gusto.  What change?  The Chosen One has surrounded himself with supporters from the Clinton administration plus a few friends from Chicago.  Same old self-promoting professional politicians.  Same old snake-oil salesmen.  Same old knowing people in high places.  Thus far it appears to be the "same old, same old" bullcrap in Washington, and we’re stuck with it for a long time folks. 

 

Don’t get me wrong, I fervently want the new Administration to succeed!  You might ask, “If I’m not exactly an Obamaniac, why would I hope that the Pope of Hope is the most successful leader to date in American history?  Why?  Well, because I’m not crazy, that’s why.  We have problems – huge problems that must be solved if we are to continue living the types of lives we have always taken for granted.  There are thousands if not millions of nut cases out there who want to attack and kill as many of us as possible.  We have several hot wars going on.  We have several cold wars going on.  We have an economy in a downward spiral and those bills don’t stop coming in.  And we depend on China for everything except oil.  So, yeah, I hope he succeeds, but so far I don’t see much different in D.C.

 

The Christian bible tells us that Jesus fed the masses with a few fish.  Well, the biased Obamedia, left-wing bloggers, and Barack’s brain dead zombie followers are feeding the masses with baloney.  They are telling everyone that his appointment choices are “smart” since they represent experienced Washington insiders who know how to work in the system (read manipulate).  Obviously I misunderstood those campaign speeches about transcending red-and-blue politics, ending partisan ideological wars, and building a less polarized type of politics.  Certainly there is something to be said for experience.  You wouldn’t want an inexperienced surgeon doing your vasectory or your breast implants, for example.  But, it might be a good idea to have fresh faces and fresh attitudes in the Capitol, since business as usual hasn’t proven to be the most successful formula in the past.  So far I don’t see much different happening in Washington or Chicago.  Granted, Barack and Michelle seem to be very intelligent, but give me a break on Biden.  Joe is definitely not the sharpest knife in the drawer. 

 

Shall we examine this Great Change a bit more?  Let’s see… first Bill Richardson was nominated to rejuvenate our crumbling economy as Barack’s new Secretary of Commerce.  After all, he had experience as Energy Secretary and ambassador to the U.N. under President Clinton.  Unfortunately his new gig didn’t happen because of the “alleged” and very inconvenient timing of a corruption scandal that cropped up in New Mexico.  So that ended that story. 

 

Next in this Era of Change came the unsettling realization that, in addition to all the crappy products that come from China, America has a plethora of incompetent tax accountants advising our politicians and Wall Street financial geniuses!  After chubby Bill Richardson slinked out of the limelight, along came slim Tim Geithner whom the Messiah nominated for Secretary of the Treasury.  Timothy, too, has experience under Clinton, and not in the sense that Monica had experience under Clinton.  More specifically, Tim worked in the Treasury Department under Lawrence Summers who was one of Clinton’s Treasury Secretaries and who was a mentor to Tim.  (It also didn’t hurt that Tim Geithner’s father once oversaw a Ford Foundation microfinance program in Indonesia, something being developed at that time by Ann Dunham-Soetoro, mother of President Barack Hussein Obama.)  Now once again, another inconvenient truth reared its ugly head in the Geithner nomination, tainting the moment.  It was Timmy’s silly and temporary lapse of memory regarding unpaid back income taxes.  Seems he forgot about some pesky documents he signed when working for the International Monetary Fund which reminded him he would be liable for paying taxes on salaries they paid him.  Additionally, it seems he also claimed a few child deductions that were not too proper, either, but all that has been straightened out now.  Thank God he ‘fessed up to the fact that his tax accountant had erred and his TurboTax program didn’t warn him about the oversights.  I guess that’s just the way it is for these genius, absent-minded professor types.  So old Timmy was allowed to pay those back taxes in the nick of time for his confirmation to the Chosen One’s Cabinet. 

 

During his recent two-year-long campaign Obama spoke of his beliefs about social and economic justice, especially from his days as a Community Organizer when he was dispensing Alinsky theories.  But what about legal justice?  That brings us to Barack’s nomination of Eric Holder as Attorney General to head the Department of Justice.  Eric is yet another ex-member of Clinton’s legal team.  Although Holder’s appointment is not yet approved, it is expected.  Holder will come to us as the nation’s top law enforcement officer, and as some like to remind us, the nation’s first black holder of that office.  I’d prefer to be told, instead, that he is the top candidate with the sharpest legal mind, capable of independent and objective administration of justice, and not someone’s political favor or favorite color.  Since black is one of my favorite colors, the only things I really find objectionable about Holder are his record on gun control and his role in recommending a pardon Marc Rich.  Just how fair and balanced and objective was the justice in Holder’s recommendation to Clinton to pardon Rich?  It allowed Bill to justify giving full a pardon to Rich on slick Willy’s last day in office.  Maybe you remember Marc Rich?  He was the billionaire who fled the United States in 1983 to live in Switzerland while being prosecuted on charges of tax evasion and illegally making oil deals with Iran during the embassy hostage crisis.  Marc Rich's wife and mother of his three children, socialite Denise Eisenberg Rich, had made large donations to the Democratic Party and the Clinton Library during Clinton's time in office.  Clinton critics have alleged that Rich's pardon had been bought.  Eric Holden was instrumental in the machinations to acquire the pardon.  Pardoned or not, Rich has never returned to the States, thus avoiding legal problems and civil suits.  Let’s Hope justice will prevail over political favors in a Holder system. 

 

And, weren’t there to be no lobbyists working for an Obama administration?  Well, maybe just a few, okay?  But The Messiah definitely puts his foot down when he says they won't be allowed to deal with government matters where their former lobby employer is involved.  Hey, that makes me feel relieved, especially since Tom Daschle is Obama’s Cabinet nominee for Secretary of Health and Human Services.  The Chosen One expects Daschle to help overhaul our national healthcare system, knowing that since old Tom left the Senate he has become a multi-millionaire by giving “advice and counsel” to firms and special interests that will be lobbying that Department.  Last year alone the law and lobbying firm Alston & Bird paid Daschle $2.1 million in wages and also provided him a 401k and profit sharing plan worth between $100,000 and $250,000.  That firm made more than $16 million lobbying before the HHS Department for powerful health industry clients during the three years since Daschle has been there.  Of course Daschle is not a lobbyist, just an advisor to several lobbying firms; therefore he didn’t have to register as a lobbyist.  Sound familiar?  Sound like the same old semantics game that politicians love?  Remember when Bill Clinton redefined the word "is" while lying under oath about the Monica Lewinsky scandal?  Daschle is not a lobbyist because he calls himself an advisor, only giving counsel to companies who lobby.  Oh, now I see the difference.  Tommy has advised many companies and been on their boards since being defeated for his Senate seat, and he has leveraged his political influence to earn himself many millions in just the past few years.  But no lobbyists will be working for the Chosen One!  Riiiiight....  Do as I say, not as I do. 

 

Although Tom Daschle hasn’t yet been confirmed for his Cabinet post, every Democrat that’s been asked says he will be.  Once again, though, there is an inconvenient thingy about some unpaid back income taxes.  With that same bad luck that plagued Tim Geithner, poor old Tom had another of those incompetent tax specialists, so he didn’t declare and pay income taxes on his full earnings for the several years since leaving the Senate.  To compound that bad situation, his incompetent accountant also declared some charitable deductions without documentation to prove them, so they were disallowed.  Fortunately for Tom, he was permitted to repay over $140,000 in back taxes.  So, that shows America he is obviously an upright and honest fellow after all, one who will work once again in the best interests of our nation.  Riiiight. 

 

Transparency?  Don’t forget about the campaign promises of transparency and doing all our governing in the antiseptic light of day.  The Chosen One and his fawning minions still have not chosen to release the data on all the sources of his campaign contributions, especially the illegal foreign ones.  That’s not so transparent and well lit.  Oh well.  But really, what's up with Geithner and Daschle, those highly touted geniuses picked by the Chosen One to help lead us out of the recession, and who conveniently are too dumb (or smart) to pay their own taxes, until they're caught?  Maybe that’s the transparency Barack was talking about?  Their actions are transparent to me.  Or are they apparent?  Honest mistakes?  It wasn’t their fault.  It was their tax accountant’s fault, or the computer’s fault.  Gimme a break.  If you and I did that, the IRS would own us, and we'd be in Guantanamo wearing orange suits, at least until the Chosen One closes it and releases all the bad guys back upon the world.  

 

No more "pork" or “earmarks” in legislative giveaways?  Gimme a huuuge break!  No pork?  In a pig's eye!  The Pope of Hope’s latest so-called stimulus package is nothing more than a hog-sized, waste-laden, gov't-dependence-building, socialism-strengthening, giveaway of our tax monies in order to cement support for Democrat, socialist, entitlement-mentality policies.  How can billions of dollars for keeping the California state government functioning help unemployed workers in the other 49 states?  How can billions for more food stamps help stimulate industry, or stimulate anything that will create jobs?  It will definitely provide more welfare to current handout recipients, but it doesn’t fix anything or employ anyone, especially not any taxpayers.  How can $4.19 billion for "neighborhood stabilization activities" (read low-income advocacy groups, i.e. ACORN) stimulate manufacturing or stimulate anything except the pockets of ACORN leaders. Uh, yeah, ACORN associates are real titans of industry, magnates of manufacturing, tycoons of technology, guys who unquestionably spur economic growth and generate jobs…riiiiight.  I saw them on the streets registering voters during the campaign. Sharp dressers.  Hey, here’s an idea!  If those ACORN workers would make charitable donations of the gold in their mouths to help feed millions of low income unemployed citizens, we wouldn’t need so many more billions for additional food stamps!  You get the point, though, without the sarcasm.  There are way too many of the package’s plans that have more to do with paying off supporters and funding politicians’ pet projects than with putting money into the business areas of the economy which can actually strengthen our country’s economy, create jobs, and put people back to work.  Those billions of our tax dollars should be going into the areas of the economy which CAN be stimulated to expand and provide employment.  Helloooo!  And how might they help businesses expand?  Cut taxes so they have an incentive to grow.  The “stimulus package” is fraught with enormous dollar waste that has nothing to do with stimulating our economy, but has plenty to do with political payoff.  Change you can believe in?  Not so much.  I till see Pelosi, Reid, Biden, Daschle, and now Geithner, Barack, et al.  Same old, same old, just a different group in charge.  If there’s any consolation to be had, at least we know Blagojevich won’t be among them.   

 

I suggest we all start praying for real change.

Abortion: Necessary for a better society

OK, so according to the media, and to many supposed “thinkers” today, abortion is “established policy”, with a long standing precedent since the Roe-v-Wade case.

Some feminists argue that “a fetus does not have a right to be in the womb of any woman, but is only in there by her permission. This permission may be revoked by the woman at any time.”

Abortion is not murder, because “a fetus is not a human being -- it is a potential human being, i.e. it is part of the woman.”

According to some of America’s brightest minds, “a fetus is merely a parasitical creature that uses the mother as its host.”

And, according to others, “let me say that from a pro-choice point of view, the status of the fetus is a peripheral issue. Regardless of whether a fetus is a human being or has rights, women will have abortions anyway, even if it means breaking the law or risking their lives. Even women who believe that abortion is murder have chosen to get abortions, and will continue to do so1.
That's why we should leave the decision up to women’s moral conscience, and make sure that they are provided with safe, legal, accessible abortions.”

So, there you have it, in a nutshell: A human fetus is not human; it’s just a collection of cells with the potential for becoming human, and resides in the mother’s womb by her choice, with its permission to be there revocable at any time. In fact, a fetus is a blood sucking little creature that is more akin to a parasite than a human being.

Conservatives, embrace reality. Abortion is here to stay. Breathe deeply. Exhale.
Isn’t science wonderful? With some scientists such as David Lovelock saying that billions of humans are going to die over the next century because global warming in “inevitable” and “irreversible”, I guess the value of human life has decreased significantly.

Oh, by the way, did you know that there are scientists claiming that there is a gay gene? Yeah, dig it, man. There is a gene that determines your sexuality. No choice involved. You either like people of the opposite sex or of the same sex because you were programmed that way. Interesting, right?

So I’m wondering: why not demand that the government make sure that all citizens have ready, cheap access to the test for gayness, so we will know right away if our sons and daughters are more likely to be queer?

And then, of course, we’ll just abort them.

Why would liberals be offended by this analysis? You know they will be, after all, they went ballistic when conservative Albert Mohler considered the moral dilemma of aborting gay fetuses.

What? What do you mean that’s offensive?

I’m not talking about killing actual gays! Because the fetus is not a person, it is not born yet, it has not had its first sexual experience, but it only has the potential for being a gay. So it’s not actually murder to kill it. And besides, it’s really just a parasite. Right?

I wonder what else has genetic implications.

You know, I might actually support the notion of a single-payer health system, if only all the personality types that would drive up cost excessively could be eliminated before they were insured. That’s a great idea!

Obesity. There appears to be an obesity gene. Well, that’s one way of fixing the obesity epidemic. Let’s abort the potentially fat fetuses.

Addiction. There is a genetic factor for addiction. We can get rid of gamblers, alcoholics, and drug addicts by killing them before they are even human. GREAT! We’re on a roll.

Clumsiness. Yep, scientists even say there may be a genetic connection to accident-prone people. Let’s call it the “Butter-finger gene”. And you know these no good slip-on-bananas, freeze-their-tongues-to-the-flagpole morons inevitably drive up the cost of good health care. That's why the Canadian system is so over-crowded.

Promiscuity. Well, I can’t find evidence that there is a “ho-gene”, but there is apparently a monogamy gene. People with this gene are far more likely to be faithful. So, logically, the ones without it will be slutty, and we all know that it was that personality trait that spread AIDS and other sexually transmitted diseases around the world. So, here’s what you do: unless the worthless, parasitic fetus clearly shows that it is in possession of the monogamy gene, you abort it. Kill it now, before it spreads vaginal warts or breaks someone’s heart.

Slothfulness. Man, we’re working our way through the 7 deadly sins. Now there is a theory there is a lazy gene. And I have to agree with the liberals on this: lazy people really are like parasites. So let’s abort those no good sons of bitches right now, before they grow up to be habitual democrat voters demanding more entitlements!

Retardation. I mean, think of the money we'd save. No more short buses! No more retarded grocery sackers placing the eggs under the cans of beans. But then again, films like Radio and Forrest Gump would never be made.

Wymyn. Heck, why not? The Chinese do it. If the fetus is going to be a girl, just kill it. What the hell. What Dad wouldn’t rather have a son he can take out to shoot helpless animals? And since a lot of them grow up to be annoying Femi-Nazis and Code Pink activists, it would probably eliminate a lot of male irritation and make the world a more peaceful place.

Conclusion: SO, I wonder what would actually happen in this country if conservatives actually switched camps and began to promote the unlimited abortion of fetuses based upon tests showing that the fetus displays one of these traits?

How many potentially gay, fat, clumsy, slothful, promiscuous, druggy, wymyn fetuses have to get aborted before the Democrats change their tune?

ABC: Acceptable Broadcast Company

Fact: ABC made a multi-million dollar donation for Obama’s inauguration.
Fact: ABC was then the only news company allowed to give an inauguration-day interview with Obama.

This prompted veteran CBS newsman Bill Plante to accuse the Obama administration of “Pay to Play” politics with the press core.

Naw. That can’t be. Obama promised to be…what was the word? Different. Right? I even remember something about how he wanted to be “open” and ”transparent”.

Well, what’s becoming “transparent” is that Obama is a primadonna (surprise!) who can’t stand actually having to answer questions from an unruly news core. He’s just not used to it. After all, the Pope of Hope should not have to answer negative questions.

Don’t believe me?

So, mister nice guy—that’s "The Pope" to you—asked the press core to assemble for him suddenly Thursday, Jan 21. But doggon it, a Politico reporter actually tried to ask Obama a substantive question about how Obama could reconcile his order to keep lobbyists away from him, only to actually name a lobbyist to be Deputy Defense Secretary.

Good Question!

He responded by trying to stop the inquiry: "Ahh, see, I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here.”

But you know, some reporters just can’t take a hint. So the guy from Politico pressed him further. And we all know that good reporters aren’t supposed to actually make Obama answer a question. That’s what assholes like Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity do.

Pressed for an answer, Obama got snippy.

Alright, come on. We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys - that's all I was trying to do."

What a swell guy. He just wanted to give his adoring fans a chance to shake his hand, stroke his penis, kiss his ass, whatever they might want.

So, I’ve got a suggestion for ABC: change your name from the AMERICAN Broadcast Company, and let’s just be more honest. It should be the ACCEPTABLE Broadcast Company, because you AGREE to PAY Obama in order to provide him with warm, fuzzy and agreeable photo ops, thus making yourselves ACCEPTABLE.

So I guess ABC has decided to become the official PROPAGANDA OUTLET of the Obama regime.

Yet another example of how the liberals are happily converting the United States of America into yet another banana republic.

Obama borrows from the Chavez book of plays

As the founder and former President of Free Venezuela, Inc, a non-profit organization dedicated to researching and analyzing the policies and activities of the Venezuelan socialist regime led by Hugo Chavez, my duties required me to stay abreast of the news there, to form intelligence networks that provided information that was not making it into the mainstream news, assess its quality, and then reports to members of Congress.

Our work was used by Florida Senators and Congressmen sitting on International Relations committees, to call for hearings and to form policy. It also was of good enough quality that we were contacted by officers within SOCOM (Southern Command) and the FBI. I presented information on news programs, debated socialist professors from local universities, and was invited to speak at the University of Miami. I also was invited to serve as an independent elections observer for the Presidential Recall Referendum.

I provide this brief snippet of my bio in order to explain that I have a fairly deep and unique view of the Venezuelan government’s socialist policies. That understanding also provides me with a unique perspective into what we see coming from the Obama administration. That knowledge and experience led me, during the 2008 election, to warn that Obama’s stated intentions were alarmingly similar to the failed socialist policies of Hugo Chavez, and were indicative that Obama truly was the redistributionist socialist ideologue about which many pundits were warning.

New information has come to light that will send shivers down the spines of citizens enlightened enough to understand the implications.

In particular, I feel compelled to analyze comments made by Robert Reich, Economic Advisor President Obama, spoken in an Economic Recovery Plan meeting on 01/07/2009. These comments were recorded and broadcast on C-Span2, so no one can claim that this is false, or “taken out of context”.

Robert Reich: “It seems to me that infrastructure spending is a very good and important way to stimulate the economy quickly. To find projects that can be done that have a high social return, that can also be done with the greatest speed possible. I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers…I have nothing against white, male construction workers, I’m just saying that there are a lot of other people who have needs as well, and therefore in my remarks, I have suggested to you… ways that criteria can be set so that the money goes to others: the long-term unemployed, minorities, women, people who are not necessarily construction workers or high-skilled professionals.”

To start with, please note that Reich qualified his statement as providing advice about infrastructure spending. This has been the mantra lately by the Obama administration: that the Bush administration neglected investment in the physical infrastructure and, following FDR’s model of revitalization of the economy by putting people to work building infrastructure, Obama has highlighted this as a priority.

Obama said, in his inaugural speech:

"The state of the economy calls for action, bold and swift, and we will act - not only to create new jobs, but to lay a new foundation for growth. We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together. We will restore science to its rightful place, and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality and lower its cost. We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. "

When under the intense view of the national spotlight, Obama described infrastructure spending that actually is infrastructure: highways, bridges, power networks.

But under less intense scrutiny, his advisors, and the Democrat congressmen present who agreed with him, applied the term to something entirely different. And they also clearly added an anti-white pre-requisite to the formula. To find projects with a “high social return” is a phrase almost directly out of the Chavez book of socialist agenda, referring to redirecting money along the lines of economic justice rather than economic stimulus.

To limit recipients to non-white, low-skilled “minorities” and “women” suggests an inherently discriminatory and even racist policy, which again is highly reminiscent of the policies that were intended to destroy the “Oligarchy” (what the Chavistas call the predominantly white middle and upper classes).

If this passage is indicative of the Democrat strategy, then we can infer that they will borrow trillions of dollars that will then be funneled to “minorities”, under the guise of “infrastructure investment”, even though by their own definition, they want to give money to the “long-term unemployed” (a key word for welfare recipients), which is not infrastructure. In short, this is a deception.

This looks suspiciously like reparations in disguise.

It is highway robbery of the middle class and industries who will have to repay the debt. And those long-term unemployed low-skilled workers are not the source of economic stimulus. This type of policy, providing free or cheap money to the poor so they can spend it, is precisely the kind of thinking that created the economic collapse to start with.

These redistributive theories are hauntingly similar to the populist strategies used by the Chavez regime to buy support in the short term, causing long-term and devastating economic results.

My hope now is that the Venezuelan community in the United States, with its first-hand knowledge of these kinds of policies and their deleterious effects on the society and economy, will speak and help to educate the American populace.

Otherwise, Americans may as well get used to the fact that we have just joined the ranks of the world’s banana republics.

The Pope of Liberal Hope

I’ve come to the conclusion that—with regard to politics—there are three types of people in the world:

1. Those who really don’t care about politics, don’t follow it, don’t like it, and have no use for discussions of it;

2. Those who find it interesting, are willing to apply reasoning to it, debate it with analysis and logic, and are able to be contradicted without responding with anger;

3. And those who worship their politicians the way they worship their saints and celebrities.

The first kind should create a mild annoyance, or a sense of disappointment. In Venezuela, where the society has been deeply polarized into two main camps (the Chavistas that support el comandante, and the Opposition), this group of disinterested individuals are called “ni-nis”, which, translated to English, means “Neither-nors”. They support neither Chavez nor the Opposition, and so they sit on the sidelines, totally involved in their own personal interests and don’t care to take a side or try to make a difference. Their indifference, and their abstinence from voting, has enabled Chavez to establish a quasi-dictatorship.

The second kind is best identified by pundits such as Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Dennis Prager, and others on the right, Bill O’Reilly and Lou Dobbs in the center, or Alan Combs, Rachel Madow, and Keith Olberman on the left. Love ‘em or hate ‘em, these personalities take politics seriously and for the most part apply logic and reasoning to their arguments, and generally remain civil during discussions, even while it may get rather passionate.

But it is the final kind that concerns me today. This group of people does not scratch past the surface of their candidates speeches, do not research, do not seek a variety of opinions, and place all of their “faith” in their candidates. These are the people who—if they are journalists—cannot seem to muster the courage to ask their candidates tough questions. They exploit every weakness in candidates they dislike (note that it’s dislike, more than “with whom they disagree” because it is a personal opposition, not a conflict of ideas). They will even lay traps to trip them up and make them look foolish, rather than explore their ideas.

These are the individuals who vociferously proclaim their political ideas in the workplace, but become absolute livid if someone disagrees with them. These people hang on every word of their beloved politician as if they were a benediction from their Priest. They do not think about the meaning behind the words, but instead repeat them as if they were a holy invocation of God.
For this reason, when they are confronted by anyone who questions the words uttered by their saintly leader, their reaction is visceral, and they feel compelled to hate their opponent as a fanatic would hate a heretic. The new religion of the left is personified by Barack Obama, who has been exalted and is now the Pope of Liberal Hope.

One inaugural attendee stated that Obama was like "any one of the Biblical leaders", such as Joshua. Denzel Washington said "he is like one of those apostles for our day."

Obama evokes tearful adoration. Women swoon, and metro-sexual journalists get thrills down their legs as they watch him.
This cannot end well. Although I may blaspheme by saying it, Obama is only human, is inexperienced, and is characterized by excessive naiveté and insufficient executive experience.

Obama is not divinely inspired, and the problems he faces are fractals of infinite complexity, completely beyond repairing by the simple evocation of heartwarming mantras such as Hope and Change. The philosophical ideals the liberals hope to promote look great on paper, and sound great when they flutter from the lips of their god’s earthly representative, but in practice they inevitably will have unexpected consequences.

Close down Guantanamo, and what becomes of those highly trained, dedicated kamikaze terrorists? Who will die because you placed your ideals above our security?
Force companies to buy “carbon credits”, and you increase the cost of the products, decreasing competitive edge, and what will happen to those companies? Will they move overseas? Will they lay off workers?

Force our coal industry to invest billions to “clean up emissions”, and what will result? Will energy prices sky rocket? What other prices will rise? Will the coal go out of business?

Promote alternative energy sources like wind and solar, and what is the environmental impact? Will hundreds of thousands of acres of viable farmland be converted instead into wind and solar farms? What impact will that have on food supplies and prices?

Promote bio fuels, and will corn that normally feeds us be diverted into fuel for our automobiles?

Will rising energy prices inspire a boom in hydroelectric projects? How many valleys will be flooded?

Promote a single-payer health care system, and what will happen to the high quality of the American medical system?

Will “investing in the future” by way of multiple trillion dollar deficits bankrupt the country?
Some of these projects may turn out well, but without a doubt, not all of them will. There will be unexpected and negative consequences. There will be failures, there will be scandals, and the Pope of Hope will not be able to deliver everything he promised.

But, not to worry: I’m sure the Pope will find some new devil to blame.

ADDITIONAL INFO:

While reading the Venezuelan news at El Universal, I found this Rayma cartoon that just seems to demonstrate what I had thought. People are just going NUTS over this NUT. It shows Obama's photo tucked in between a number of Catholic Saints.

Is it just coincidence that he is located next to Judas?

Obama’s absurdities and contradictions

I watched Obama’s inauguration, surrounded by liberal coworkers who, at the conclusion of his speech, remarked on his eloquence and applauded his brilliance. But to be honest, I left the speech wondering: what in the hell did he actually say? What was the core message in his long-winded diatribe? Could I detect a guiding principal or clearly see the course our government will take with Obama as captain?

I had to go back and re-read the speech and try to absorb it to get any meaning out of it. And as I studied its content, I was impressed—not with its brilliance—but with its sense of gloom, naiveté and inherent contradictions.

An estimated 2 million Americans had braved freezing temperatures in order to be witness to an historic event: the inauguration of America’s first black president. While the vast majority of Americans expected the event to be jubilant, and exaltation of the nation’s success, Obama’s tone instead was hesitant, and somewhat low spirited. Within seconds of starting the speech, he points out that inauguration speeches “have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.”

Clearly, Obama is referring to our current economic recession, and the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, we are aware that this is true, but wouldn’t you agree that this is a gloomy way to start a speech when your success heralds a new, triumphant time for African-Americans?

Imagine for a moment that Martin Luther King had actually managed to reach that mountaintop he mentioned in his “I have a dream” speech, but instead of celebrating the successful summiting of the mount, instead he chooses to point out; “It’s damn cold up here, ya’ll!” Isn’t that kind of what Obama has just done?

Apparently Obama sensed the negativity with which he began his speech and attempted to counter it with this little jewel: “America has carried on … because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Contrast this with a statement he makes later:

“As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and
our ideals.”

Here, he is referring to the Patriot Act. So, which is it? Did we remain faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, or not? Apparently not, and Obama plans on setting it right. So we should clearly expect him to eliminate the Patriot Act and go back to pre-9/11 business as
usual attitudes.

Immediately after his “uplifting” introduction, he goes into details of the “crisis”: “Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred.”

Is that to mean “terrorists”? Why can’t he say that? He later states:

“To the Muslim world, we seek a new way forward, based on mutual interest and mutual respect.”

I guess, taking the two quotes together, that Obama—being the son of a Muslim and partly educated in a Muslim school in Indonesia—is finally revealing that he thinks we will be safe from the Islamists if we just stop calling them names. What “mutual interest” do we have with Persian Islamo-Nazis who believe that they can provoke the return of the missing Imam by liquidating Israel?

Obama’s speech is littered with fascinating abstractions: “Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.”

What is this mystical “new age”? Could it be a new era, marked by the arrival of “The Chosen One”? Will we need develop a new calendar? B.O. (Before Obama) and A.O. (After Obama)

Now, isn’t it widely understood that our economy is weakened primarily because of liberal social engineering attempts to provide “affordable housing” to anyone—even if they couldn’t afford it? The hard choices that need to be made involve personal responsibility, and admitting that the government can’t give away housing to everyone. To me, the crux of the idiocy in the speech centers on the next sentences:

“Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land - a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights.”

Obama needs to learn that “confidence” is sapped because of the stupidity of members of his own party.

When the Democrats vote to give war authorization, but then immediately turn around and predict that we will lose, that we cannot win, and then slander our men and women in uniform, calling them storm troopers and baby killers, confidence is sapped. When socialist economic policies cause a collapse in the markets and the folks who want to be leaders run around screaming about Great Depressions, confidence is sapped. When the President-Elect continuously reminds Americans that our economy is struggling, but then says that he plans on running up multi-trillion dollar deficits for years, our confidence is sapped.

This reveals a very telling perspective of the liberals. They brutally criticized President Bush because he "failed to warn us" about the severity of the economic crisis. Bush repeatedly stated that there was a looming crisis in the economic sector, and as early as 2006 tried to reform Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, but the Democrats--spearheaded by that queer genius, Barney Frank--thwarted any attempt to reform those organizations. And when the economy began to unravel, Bush repeatedly made statements that we were headed for tough times, but his tone was positive.

So maybe the libs need to consider that it's not that Bush was unaware of what was happening, but he didn't want to sap confidence. Revolutionary thought, eh?

Ironically, Obama has tapped as leader for the EPA a no-growth socialist who believes that the United States’ consumption of energy is an energy injustice, and that developed nations must shrink their economies in order to right this wrong. Now, I don’t know how you can shrink an economy and still provide jobs, so it seems inevitable that—were we to follow the Obama theories of economic justice—the next generation will have to lower its sights.

Obama’s recipe for meeting our “serious” and “many” challenges is to choose “hope over fear”. Really? Hope doesn’t solve recessions: good policy does. Hope doesn’t win wars: good military strategy and logistics (and unflagging support) does. Hope does not feed the hungry: hard work and ingenuity do.

“Hope over fear” sounds like some sort of algorithm for disaster: “hope/fear=desperation”.

We don’t need plans made out of desperation, we need reasonable and logical analysis. It was not “hope” that helped Captain Sullenberger successfully ditch US Airways flight 1549 in the Hudson river: it was courage, coupled with a brilliant and educated triage of the situation.

So, enough of your platitudes and insults to our intelligence: it's time to actually come up with policies, Barry.

The next theme that begs analysis started with this phrase:

“In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of short-cuts or settling for less. It has not been the path for the faint-hearted - for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things…”

This sounds great. It appears that Obama is praising the hard working entrepreneurs who made the country powerful and wealthy. Taken with the statement that “greatness is never given…it must be earned”, it appears that Obama will promote personal responsibility, instead of a welfare state. But that hope doesn’t last long. Only a few paragraphs further, he states:

“The question we ask today is … whether [our government] works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.” So, now he suggests that the government has a responsibility to provide jobs with decent wages, healthcare, and a “dignified” retirement.

Really? Where in the constitution does it state that government must be a great Nanny?

Minutes previously, Obama had said that “We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.” Those founding documents include a constitution that limit the powers of the federal government, and which clearly states that any power not specifically mentioned in the constitution belong with the states. Whatever happened to the “ideals of our forbearers”, who stated: “that government is best which governs least”?

For an alleged legal scholar, Obama seems appallingly ignorant of the limits of government clearly stated in the constitution.

Obama made direct reference to the Declaration of Independence by mentioning the ideal that we are all created equal. As a reminder, allow me quote the statement: “…all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights…”

Later, says: “…We know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus - and non-believers.” Why is this important? Because within the modern liberal philosophy is a dogmatic attempt to separate religion from government—except when it gets a liberal candidate votes. And it was the founding father’s firm belief in God that inspired them to clearly state that our unalienable Rights are “endowed” by our “Creator”. If we separate God from government in the way that liberals want, if we consider ours to be a nation of “non-believers”, then we must accept that our rights are not “endowed by [our] Creator”, but are instead granted by our government, and thus, can be rejected by the same government. It is absurd to have included “non-believers” in this statement, and completely unnecessary.

But there you go, it’s Obama being all inclusive. Except of course, he forgot to mention Buddhists, Wiccans, and doggon it, if you’re going to remain popular with the Hollywood nuts, you damn well better pay homage to the Scientologists.

Most frightening, to me, is the naïve comment he makes in this paragraph:

“…Our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.”

This last phrase is one of the most laughably ridiculous things I’ve ever heard. Security does not emanate from a just cause. If that were true, wouldn’t Black have been “secure” from slavery? Wouldn’t the Jews have been “secure” from Nazi ovens? Wouldn’t the American Indians have been “secure” from genocidal attack? How is security connected to “the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint” Neither humility nor restraint secured our future when we faced the Germans and the Japanese! Military Force secured our future. Period.

All in all, like I said, "not bad for a socialist".

But I have to say, this speech reminded me uncomfortably of the speeches made by Hugo Chavez. A lot of rhetoric, a lot of confusion, a lot of contractions, and a whole lot of starry eyed supporters drooling on themselves and saying, "wow, isn't he charasmatic?!"

They say the Devil knows how to dance...