Heil Hitler! Heil Obama! What the Heil is Happening Here??

OK Liberal Democrats. I've really been resisting the urge to compare the modern democratic national socialist agenda with what happened in Germany in the 1930's, but every time I turn around I'm running into liberal propaganda equating George Bush, John McCain or conservative republicans in general with Adolph Hitler and the Nazi regime. There's an old adage which says that "people in glass houses shouldn't throw stones," but as you persist in throwing rocks in your glass house, I'm just going to illustrate the many ways in which modern liberal democrats are much more in line with Adolph Hitler's Nazi movement than any conservative republican idea could ever be.
To be fair to liberal democrats, I'm not suggesting that liberal democrats want to commit genocide, conquer the world, or commit any of the other horrors typically associated with Nazi Germany. What I'm comparing is the method by which these comparable political ideologies acquired their power and the social, political, and economic environments that made these movement thrive and flourish.
The biggest single element that both German Nazis and American Liberal Socialists have in common is their spokesperson. In Germany, that person was Adolf Hitler. In modern socialist America, it's Barack Obama. What do Barack Obama and Adolf Hitler have in common? The answers might just surprise you. Again, I'm not suggesting that they are one and the same, far from it. But when you look at the two men side by side, and without the emotional disgust and revulsion that one normally associates with the name Adolf Hitler, you can see some similarities between the two men.
Let's start with Adolf Hitler, since the history has largely been written on him. Hitler came from modest means. Hist entire youth and early adulthood were marred by poverty and social ostracism. His father died when he as young, and he was frustrated in his attempts to achieve recognition and success as an artist. He blamed this failure not on his own lack of talent, evident to anyone who has ever seen any of his artwork, but rather on a conspiracy of Jewish professors at the Vienna Art Institute. This belief that he was cheated by this ethnic minority formed the nucleus of his lifelong passionate anti-semitism. Obama was the bi-racial child of a divorced, single mother but even though he did not grow up in poverty, I am relatively certain he suffered some social ostracism as a child.
Hitler migrated to Germany around the time of the outbreak of World War I, so Hitler joined the German Army. He needed a job, and he wanted to ingratiate himself with his adopted country. As a soldier in the German Army, Hitler distinguished himself in combat and rose to the rank of corporal, quite an achievement for a non-German, and was even awarded the Iron Cross, Second Class. It was because of this distinction that Hitler was permitted to remain in the German Army after the mandatory downsizing of the Treaty of Versailles. This treaty restricted the German Army to less than 100,000 personnel. Obama never served in the military or saw combat, but he did engage in public civil service as a community organizer.
As part of his duties following the end of the war, corporal Hitler was assigned by his commanding officer, Captain Ernst Roehm (that's right, the same Ernst Roehm who would later head the Sturmabteilung, the SA brownshirted stormtroopers), to attend political meetings to determine if any of the activities or topics of conversation could be considered subversive or illegal under the new Weimar Republican Constitution. Once such group was the German Worker's Party. Hitler attended a meeting of the German Worker's Party in a beer hall in Munich and what he heard there was a message that extolled the virtues of German ideals, the supremacy of German might, the and the ability of Germany to rise again and take its' place once more among the leaders of the world.
To a fervent nationalist like corporal Adolf Hitler, these words resonated and enthralled the young Hitler so much so that he not only failed to report the group, he actually joined it. When questioned by Captain Roehm about his experiences, he told Roehm that he did not see anything subversive or illegal about the group in that meeting, but that he should attend future meetings to make sure that there was nothing for the government to be concerned about. The next time Hitler attended a meeting of the German Worker's Party, he requested permission to address the meeting. As he was the group's newest member, they were only too happy to have him speak. When he spoke, his spellbinding oratory moved the group to such an extent that membership increased immediately, and Hitler was made the spokesman for the group from that time forward. Obama and the liberal socialists of the democratic party are also strong in the labor movement and enjoy union support. Is it a coincidence that the Nazi party started life as a labor union?
Ironically, Hitler knew that if this group were to become a political force that could achieve any significant political power, there would have to be some changes made. He started with the name of the group, because he understood instinctively that if the party were to achieve any success, it was going to have to appeal to Germans from all social and economic classes and a worker's party implied that the members were blue-collar laborers who carried lunch boxes was pumpernickel sandwiches and warm beer in the thermos. This image was not likely to appeal to the aristocracy, the illuminati, the glitterati, or the professionals he would need to attract to the party.
Germany, unlike France, Russia, and other countries that had experienced revolutions, did not disposess or murder its aristocrats when it became a republic. Even though Germany had been a feudal monarchy prior to World War I, and the ruling Kaiser and his family and court fled the country at the war's end, the German citizenry still had respect and admiration for its' nobility. Many of the heroes of the war were from noble families and Hitler knew he would need the support of men with Von in their names if he were to achieve political power. He also knew he would need to associate himself with academic, political, military, and celebrity personalities to increase his popular appeal. Sound familiar? It wasn't John McCain that was supported by the likes of Oprah Winfrey and Steven Spielberg. Then factor in Colin Powell, Bruce Springstein, Kanye West, P-Diddy Combs, etc. and you have a modern comparison.
Regardless of his entourage, Hitler could not achieve any significant political successes until the advent of the Great Depression. It is only in a climate of economic misery and unbridled fear that the message of national socialism sounds even remotely attractive. Hitler used the Depression, the runaway inflation that made it necessary to take a wheelbarrow full of German currency to the bakery to buy a loaf of bread, and the rampant economic unrest to push his message of national pride, hope, and a return to past glories. Sound familiar?
With lines like "Germany forever," and "The German people are the rightful masters of the world," Hitler seduced the German citizens to support him, but even with all of these things going for him, he still couldn't win the power he sought. His newly named National Socialist, or "Nazi" party was gaining seats in the Reichstag, or Germany's congress, but it couldn't claim a majority against the communists, labor unionists, and worse, the democratic republicans who still believed in the viability of the Weimar Republic. Obama ran his campaign with slogans like "Yes we can," "I believe in you," "Our best days are ahead." etc.
Also problematic to Hitler's ambitions was the advocacy of the media against him. Newspapers and radio newscasters were trying to sound the alarm about Hitler and the true intentions of the Nazis. Unfortunately, Hitler had such reserves of cash and celebrity power that he was able to counter and ulitimately stifle and silence his critics. If you examine the ways this was done, you really begin to see some frightening similarities between Hitler's Nazis and modern liberal democratic politics.
First, the Nazis used their popular appeal and celebrity endorsers to boycott and punish by economic means, any newspaper or radio program that spoke negatively about Hitler or the Nazis. Economic assault proved to be very effective, but sometimes even that wasn't enough. When the economic muscle failed, Hitler brought in the stormtroopers, the brown shirted thugs of the SA, to help the misguided writers, editors, or broadcasters see the light. Sometimes this was done by trashing the newspaper offices, destroying the presses, or burning down the building. If that didn't do it, the stormtroopers would kick in the door of a journalist or editor whose writing they didn't like and maybe kick in his teeth, break his arms or some other such violence. If the target were too popular for such brutality, then the Nazis would engage in the politics of personal destruction to silence their critics. This could be accomplished a number of ways, but the most common was to photograph the person talking to a little girl or gay man, and release the photo charging all manner of inappropriate conduct, labeling the man as either a pedophile or a homosexual, effectively marginalizing him and alienating his public followers. He could then be shipped off to a prison or concentration camp with little or no public outcry. The politics or personal destruction. Sound familiar? Just ask Joe Werzelbacher or "Joe the Plumber" as he's more appropriately known. Ask Sarah Palin, if you need another example.
Silencing one's political critics is essential when you're trying to promote an agenda that if it were ever objectively examined would be denounced and defeated. The Nazis systematically removed any and all independent media outlets by passing laws that made it a criminal offense to publish or broadcast anything not approved by the Nazi Party. Sound familiar? The liberal socialists are idealogically aligned with nearly all of the mainstream media, so there are no worries about unfavorable press there. The same is true with most broadcast and cable television channels. The only media the liberal socialists do not control is talk radio and the internet. Talk radio is almost exclusively dominated by popular and therefore powerful conservative spokesmen and the liberal socialists want to silence these critics. Since they have failed to compete in the arena of ideas, they are turning to the same kind of government intervention that the Nazis relied upon, only now it's hypocritically referred to as the "fairness" doctrine. As for the internet, there have been rumblings about laws to require the registration of political websites. While this would seem to fairly apply to all such sites, it effectively draws a bulls eye on the backs of conservative political writers. After all, if we register, then they know where to send the stormtroopers, don't they?
Now, again to be fair, I'm not saying that Obama and the liberal socialist democrats are the Nazis. I'm not suggesting they are even remotely as malevolent, megalomaniacal, or genocidal as the Nazis proved to be. What I AM suggesting, is that there are remarkable and frightening similarities about how they achieved their power, and how they are attempting to keep it. If this last election cycle proved anything, it was that Nazi political tactics are alive and well and currently being used.
For the unbelievers that doubt that today's liberal socialists don't have their stormtroopers, their gestapo, their SS, etc. you would be very wrong. Ever heard of ACORN or SEIU? Those are the modern equivalent of stormtroopers, complete with kooky orange or purple hats and either orange or purple uniform shirts. They are the thugs that strong arm the opposition by breaking into foreclosed homes, registering dead and fraudulent voters, and engaging in other quasi criminal enterprises they dismiss as "civil disobedience" when confronted with their acts. Not surprisingly, there was a federal investigation into the activities of this group before the recent election, but I'm pretty willing to bet that this investigation will either become a whitewash, or will be swept under the rug altogether given the political sympathies of the group and its long history with our own Supreme Community Organizer in Chief. Of course, in true Hitlerian fashion, if his stormtroopers prove to be too big a political embarrassment, there might be another virtual "Night of Long Knives" in which Obama, like Hitler before him, determines it's more politically expedient to throw his stormtroopers under the bus and allow the justice department to prosecute them fully. Hitler used his SS, to arrest and murder the leadership of the Stormtroopers, including his old friend and Commanding Officer Ernest Roehm, when he needed the support of the German Army.
Who then are the modern liberal socialist's version of the SS?  Well, that is a little more subtle a comparison. There are no uniformed, jackbooted, mass murderers in the liberal socialist party that I'm aware of. However, if you visit sites like "the Daily Kos," "The Huffington Post," "Move on.org" or others of this ilk, you begin to see some similarities to the ideological purity espoused by Heinrich Himmler. Though not a racial issue today like it was with the Nazis of history, ideology has replaced race in the modern liberal socialist dogma. Today it is not Jews that are the target of liberal socialist ire, it is the "rich." Ironic when you consider that most of the liberal socialist poster boys and girls are themselves "rich." Still, it is the "rich" that are demonized and attacked by the liberal socialists. But the issue of Race is also alive and well, as the liberal socialists have proved more than once. They are perfectly willing to play the race card and any opportunity and brand anyone that disagrees with them as "racist."
Could today's "rich" end up in concentration camps? Well, read the editorials and blogs that call for the removal from office, and criminal prosecution of the Wall Street Banking and Trading executives that the liberal socialist propagandists blame for today's economic woes. Noticeably absent from the calls for incarceration, are the liberal socialists whose social engineering hubris is equally to blame. I'm not defending the Wall Streeters here. If they violated laws, they should be held accountable. I don't think anyone doubts that Bernie Madoff deserved his fate. There is, however, something fundamentally wrong with the notion that executives who ran a business and achieved economic success for their efforts should be punished for doing the things that have made them successful in the past merely because they were forced to take government money. Still, these executives may well be made scapegoats for the ills of today's society much in the same way the Jews were scapegoated by the Nazis. It is equally disingenuous behavior on the part of the socialist regimes whether in Germany in the 30's or here today.
Now, maybe next time you see an ACORN worker or SEIU Union member on the street in their conspicuous bright orange or purple shirts and hats, give 'em a "Heil." They might just "heil" you back. And now that I've sufficiently degressed myself, I'm getting the "heil" out of here to go do some serious drinking.  On second though, since HITLER first attempted to seize power in a beer hall, I might have to rethink that idea. 'Til we "meet" again.

His-PANIC!

When Barak Obama was elected, I PRAYED that his term would pass without any of the nine Supreme Court Justices retiring or passing on.  I only asked for a four year moritorium because I believed then, as I believe even more NOW, that he will be a one-term President.  I also believed that he would, at some time, overreach his authority as President and perform some act that he was not constitutially empowered to do and, in this area, he did NOT disappoint me.  Thanks to his unprecendent seizures of banks and auto companies and, his forcing salary caps and bonus restrictions on private companies, as well as his firing of General Motors' CEO Rick Wagner; and, his strong-arming of a bankruptcy court judge to deprive Chrysler and General Motors' bondholders and shareholders of their rights under federal laws, he has opened himself and his administration up to legal and political drama.

 Clearly, there are numerous grounds for legal challanges against this administration.  In our entire history there has only been one attempt to nationalize a private enterprise and that occurred when Harry Truman attempted to nationalize the steel industry during the Korean war.  Now granted, this was about settling a strike that was hurting our war effort, but notwithstanding this, the courts struck this down as unconstitutional and that case is controlling to date.  A legal challenge against these actions is the only recourse we have to protect our private property rights.  As voters, we can do nothing against this administration before November, 2012. However, the bondholders and shareholders can take the administration to court to seek injunctive relief.  Due to the unprecendented nature of events, any such challenge would likely reach the Court of Appeals, or even the Supreme Court.

Into this muddled morass of facts and circumstances comes the Hon. Sonya Sotomayor, the nominee for the position of Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court being vacated by the current Justice, the Hon. David Souter.  Justice Souter was appointed to the bench by President George H.W. Bush, and was believed to be a conservative leaning Judge at the time of his appointment.  Contrary to this belief, Justice Souter has ruled with the liberal justices more the sixty-five percent of his time on the bench.  Clearly, replacing him with an equally liberal justice does nothing to change the balance on the court at this time.  Still, every prospective justice should receive proper vetting by the United Sates Senate prior to his or her confirmation, and this is where we find outselves.

Sadly, there is more to this story because the liberal Democrats of the Senate, as well as the White House Press Secretary are playing traditional identity politics with this nomination.  They are doing the typical quota-filling tokenism with this nomination, and they are daring those on the right to "proceed at their peril" when it comes to the vetting process required by law.  They are betting that any challenge to this nominee will cost the Republican party any propect of support from the Hispanic community in upcoming elections.   Where was this concern for THEIR support from the Hispanic community when THEY were ripping into Alberto Gonzales? The simple answer is that is was nowhere to be found.  This is probably because it is all a load of BULL.

What the press may not want you to remember is that the senate democrats demonstrated the very bigotry then now warn the republicans not to display when it came to the nomination of the  Honorable Miguel Estrada, to the Court of Appeals.  Miguel Estrada is a judge with an American story every bit as impressive as Judge Sotomayor's is.  Why then, you may ask, is there not an Appellate Court Judge named Miguel Estrada?  The answer is a bit more complicated.  Liberal democrats have this "token" mentatlity when it comes to minorities.  They like to be the first to put a "first" in a position of authority or responsibility.  That would not have been a bar here as there were already Hispanic judges at the Appellate Court level, namely Judge Sonya Sotomayor.  And what was their excuse for the treatment shown to Alberto Gonzales when he was nominated for Attorney General.  He, too had a very compelling American story, but that didn't seem to matter to the senate democrats, including the self-righteous Senator from New York, Charles Schumer, and the junior Sentaor from New York, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

The actual reason there is no Justice Estrada on the Court of Appeals has nothing to do with his being an Hispanic, and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that he believes the role of a Judge is to take the laws written and enacted by the legistlature (i.e. the Constitution), and apply it, as written, to the fact pattern of the case at bar.  This is the mark of a CONSERVATIVE judge.  Now in contrast to this, the liberal democratis believe that it is the role of the judge to write new legistlation from the bench if the laws on the books do not comply with said judge's political ideology.  This is the mark of a LIBERAL judge, or judicial activist as they are sometimes called.  This is the contrast between what liberal democrats want in a Supreme Court Justice and what conservative republicans want in a Supreme Court Justice.  Clearlly there are maked differences between the two, and it is those differences that need to be fully exposed during the confirmation hearings. 

Barak Obama is a liberal democrat, and notwithstanding the fact that his is himself a constitutional scholar, clearly favors the liberal activist judge model.  He would not have nominated Judge Sotomayor if he did not belive she shares his belief that it is the role of the judge to make law from the bench, a function NOT intended for judges by our founding fathers when they penned the Constitution.   The founding fathers built in a system of checks and balances to keep any one branch of the government from becoming more powerful than any other.  The founding fathers intended for elected legistlators ALONE to write laws, and for the President alone to be able to approve or veto them.  This is because these officials are the only ones accountable to the voting public. 

 The role of the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary is to safeguard the Constiution and ensure that neither legislators nor Presidents would enact laws that were contrary to the tenets of the Constitution.   They did this to ensure that neither political expedience or popular prejudices would upset the balance of power and emperil the rights of American citizens.  The founding fathers intended the rule of law to be sacrosanct and for the government to honor contracts and respect private property rights and individual freedoms of all citizens, except under such circumstances as conviction of a crime or enforcement of a civil judgment.  The conduct of this administration flys in the face of these protections and clearly warrants a judicial review.

In the hearing for Judge Sotomayor, you will not hear a peep from the democratic senators about the role of the judge, judicial activism, or anything else that could be perceived as a negative against this Judge.  Just like President Obama, the liberal democrats in the Senate believe this nominee is EXACTLY what they want, an activist judge who legislates from the bench, and they will do NOTHING to expose this and emperil their nominee.  It is left to the republicans in the senate to actually do their jobs and show the American people what kind of judge this nominee actually is, and to further illustrate to the American public the contrast between what democrats want in judges and what republicans want in judges so that the people can decide for themselves who best represents their interests in these and and other matters.

It is these distinctions between republicans and democrats that have been sorely lacking in the past eight years.  Ive often posed the question: "Are congressional republicans transvestite or transsexuals?"  Now before the gay rights types go nuts on me, it should be clearly understood that the vast majority of transvestites are HETEROSEXUALS, so there is no homophobic intent here.  I merely pose the metaphor because I can't decide if congressional republicans are merely dressing and acting like democrats, e.g. transvestite, or if they've had full gender reassignment surgery to become democrats, e.g. transsexuals.  In the case of Senator Arlen Specter, this is no longer a question.  He's CLEARLY a post-op democrat.  The jury's still out on Senators Susan Collins, and Olympia Snow.  I'm reasonably secure in declaring John McCain a transvestite in this metaphor.

While the republicans clearly must distinguish themselves from their democratic counterparts and actually DO their jobs vetting this candidate, they must also beware and avoid falling into the trap set for them by those very democrats.  To do this, they need to avoid the Rush Limbaugh example of comparing Judge Sotomayor to David Duke.  To be fair, Rush never actually did this, but the facts are irrelevant to the liberal media and he's been widely reported as having done this.  While Rush can defend himself, quite ably, the example is very real.  Republican Senators and political pundits alike must avoid the race issue altogether.  In the first place, it's irrelevant.  Nobody, including Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter, thinks that Judge Sonya Sotomayor is anything like David Duke.  The comparison is ludicrous at best and to make it puts the republican party at real risk of coming off to the Hispanic voters as being either racist or xenophobic.   

The way to avoid this trap is simple.  Treat Judge Sotomayor first and foremost as a qualified judge with an inspirational American story and an equally impressive ciriculum vitae, as well as a seventeen year history that reveals how she interprets and applies existing laws to the fact patterns of her various cases.  Use the facts and judgments in these cases to show clearly how she interprets the role of a judge in constitutional questions and bring out facts that support her comment that it is actually the appellate court judge that makes law and sets policy.  Also, bring out the fact that she has been reversed three out of her six times on appeal to higher courts, including the Supreme Court to which she now apires to sit.  Lastly, show her the deference and respect you would show any woman in her position.  Do that and you will not antagonize or alienate the Hispanic community,  Most importantly, you must give people a choice if you wish them to make one so the differences between senate republicans and democrats must be clearly illustrated.

The worst thing republican senators can do is try to play to the media.  This is a losing proposition from the very start.  For a republican, you will be about as successful in appeasing the press as Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain was in trying to appease Adolf Hitler.  It's NOT gonna happen, because neither Hitler, nor the press, come to the table with honest intent.  No matter what republicans do, they're gonna be shredded in the press.  If they go soft on Judge Sotomayor, theyre going to be portrayed as weak and innefectual, a judgment that will be SHARED by their voting constituents.  If they do their jobs and bring out the truth about the judge, they will be portrayed as racist, sexist, and mean spirited for sure, but this is irrelevant because regardless of any spin applied by reporters or pundits, the viewing public will also see the tape of the hearings themselves and no one will doubt the evidence of their own eyes, especially if the press reports to the contrary.  No one trusts the media anymore, so don't worry about that audience.

As for the Hispanic community, if you don't disrespect the judge personally or make any derrogatory statements about her race or anything personal to her as a woman, you won't have a problem there, either.  Trust that our fellow Americans are not blind to liberal hypocrisy, which is about the only thing that is transparent about them.  In this, they are as transparent as Saran Wrap.  Contrary to the liberals world view, Hispanics are a proud and diverse group.  They do not see themselves as "victims" and will not forgive the liberals for their condescension and hypocrisy when it comes to their treatment of minorites.  It is pure hubris on the part of the liberal democrats to think that any minority group "needs" their largesse in this day and age.  No one, least of all Hispanic Americans, wants to dine on government cheese.   We tried that for the three decades between the 1960s and the 1990s.  It was called welfare and it was a liberal democrat named Bill Clinton that ended it.  

In summation, the gauntlet has been thrown down by the evil Sir Charles of Schumer. Republican senators must now do what medievil knights have always done in this situation.  They must pick up the gauntlet, slap the said Sir Charles of Schumer across the face, forcefully (figuratively speaking, of course), draw their swords, and engage the challanger in combat.  Retreat is not an option, because then as now, if you retreat, you will lose your honor, integrity, and in all likelihood, your jobs.  Accordingly, I say this to the senate republicans: "DO your jobs and vet this judicial nominee thoroughly and respectfully if you want to KEEP your jobs in the next elections; and, most of all, do not PANIC,

The Devil-lution of the Modern Liberal!

My conservative friends are fond of tossing around the statement that "the only GOOD liberal is a DEAD liberal." When I hear this phrase, I'm often heard retorting that they should "bite their tounge" because without political liberalism, there would be no United States of America today. The truth of the matter is that our founding fathers were ALL political liberals. But as another old saying goes, "the devil is in the details."

The concept of "innocent" political liberalism can best be exemplified in a quote by Robert F. Kennedy which said something to the effect of "Some men see the way things are and ask Why? I see things as they never were and ask Why Not?" The "innocent" liberal honestly wants to do the most good for the most people and is not about his own self-aggrondisement. Likewise, he or she wants to make a better world, but unlike the not-so-innocent idealogues, does not come from a place of hate, especially when it comes to America. The "innocent" liberal is aware that we have less than pleasant chapters in our long and diverse history, but can also appreciate all the good that this country has done in and for the other nations of our world. Then there are the not-so-innocent politicians like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, etc. who are all about their own wealth and power. Then, last but not least, are the committed idealogues like Rosie O'Donnell and Janeane Garafalo who genuinely HATE this country and all it stands for but probably have no rational foundation for this hatred or any conscious knowledge of WHY they have such rage and hatred in them.

Thus the modern liberals can be broken into 3 types. The first of these is the "innocent" liberal. This type of liberal can be summed up in the Three Musketeers motto, "all for one and one for all." Personalities that represent this type would be George Cloobey, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Oprah Winfrey, Leonardo DiCaprio, Darryl Hannah, Matthew Modine, etc. These are people that put their money where their mouths are and actually WALK the walk, not just talk the talk. While I may disagree with them politically, I respect them personally and they do a lot of good in the world.

The second type is the "not-so-innocent" type. This would include the career politicians such as Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank, etc. These can be summed up by altering the Three Musketeers motto as follows: "all for one and that ONE is ME." Celebrities can also fall into this type as well. These are the ones that put their names and faces out front of any political or social cause they get involved in, but that involvement is more about self-promotion than doing anything for anyone else. I'm not going to name any specific celebrities here, but you know who they are. These are the types that run around the globe taking smiling photos with some of the world's worst dictators and happily take starring roles in movies that are going to bomb at the box office to bolster their political bona fides. Also included in this category would be hypocrites like Al Gore and John Edwards. Al Gore espouses environmental causes like Global Warming but puts down one of the biggest carbon footprints attributable to any single human being on the planet. Likewise, John Edwards runs for President espousing family values and concerns for the poor when he is unfaithful to his wife, and lives like a Roman Emperor.

The last type is the commited idealogue. This type hates all things American, and spends all his or her time telling anyone that will listen what a horrible country this is and what awful people we Americans are. This is the category I reserve for Al Franken, Rosie O'Donnell, and Janeanne Garafalo. These people cannot love this country and knowingly say and do the things they do on a daily basis. Several leading Democratic politicians fall into this category as well, but I'll not feed their egos anymore by mentioning them here.

The ancient oriental general/philosopher Sun Tzu made two statements in his treatise "The Art of War" that were eerily prophetic to our current political situation. The first statement is paraphrased as: "The closer the enemy is, the harder he is to see." The second statement is paraphrased as: "In order to defeat an enemy you must first be able to identify him." When Howard Dean succeeded Terry McAuliffe as head of the Democratic National Committee, I remember reading and hearing statements from various political pundits that the Democratic Party had been hijacked by its' liberal wing and that it was no longer Grandpa's Democratic Party. Like most things reported in the press, some is true, and some is innacurate.

The Democratic party is no longer Grandpa's Democratic party, that's for sure. To clarify, only ONE of my grandfathers was EVER a Democrat but he would have ripped up his membership card if he could see them today. The media's deception is in the identity of the hijackers themselves and this is largely because the media has been complicit in the hijacking process. The hijackers of the Democratic party of Thomas Jefferson and dear old Grandpa are neither liberals, nor Democrats. They are the resurgents of the American Communist Movement and Party.

Now, before you go relegating me to the status of that crazy old uncle that every family has and doesn't claim, let me clarify a couple of points. I am well aware of the negative visceral reaction most Americans have to the words "communist," "marxist," and "socialist. Like most things we base on emotion, the facts tend to get lost in the feelings and more times than not, we get it wrong. When I refer Communism, I'm not talking about the former Soviet Union, North Korea, China, Cuba, Nicaragua, or Venezuela. The sad truth is that the actual practice of communism as defined by Karl Marx in his book "A Communist Manifesto" occurs in only one country that I'm aware of and that country is Israel. True communism is not the central form of government in Isreal, but it is the form of government in the agrarian kibbutz comminites. There, the maxim "from each according to his means, to each according to his needs is actually put into practice effectively.

The countries that purport to be communist countries have about as much to do with Marx's philosophy as the Islamic terrorists have to do with the Quoran. The Soviet, Cuban, and North Korean governments are totalitarian dictatorships and not communist despite their usurpation of the title. I could call myself Hercules, too, but it does not mean I can bench press half a ton. Still, so as to remain on point, the communism I will be talking about here is the philosophy as defined in the Manifesto of Karl Marx.

The book "A Communist Manifesto" was first published in Germany in 1848 as a work of philosophy, not a political writing. As such, it was embraced by the universities and colleges in Europe and The United States. It was so embraced because at the time the words had not been tainted by the bloody deeds of the Bolsheviks in the Russian Revolution. The book itself speaks of nothing resembling the totalitarian dictorships of Russia, Cuba, and North Korea, but rather of a socialist Utopia in which all are equal and no man is richer or more important than any other. It is this last concept that makes the work appealing to the liberal minds of college students to this very day. The difference is that the students who began class after the 1920s were not aware of what it was they were studying or by whom they were being indocrinated. The reason for this is that by the mid 1920s the deeds of the Bolsheviks were well known and words like "communism," "marxism," and "socialism" had taken on the more sinister connotations we have of them to this day.

As to how all of this ties today's liberal Democrats with the American Communist Party, the string that tied the bow for me came in this quote from Norman Thomas, the last man to run for President in 1948 on the American Socialist Party ticket. He said, "The American People will never knowlingly accept Socialism, but under the label of "liberalism" they will accept every fragment of the Socialist progam until one day America will be a Socialist nation without ever knowning how it happened." This idea a socialism-by-stealth fits perfectly with the program of indoctrination disguised as education adopted by the Communists that became university and college professors following the demise of the American Communist Party in the aftermath of the "red scares" of the 1920s.

The American Communist Party as a political organization came into being in 1919, even though Communism as a philosophy had been generally accepted and embraced by academia since the 1850s. American Communists, emboldened by the Russian Revolution and the establishment of a communist state, decided the time was right to bring similar change to the American way of life. Unfortunately for the founders of this party, the atrocities of the Bolsheviks in Russia came to light causing the public to react violently against all things communist. To see how dangerous it was to be a communist in America in the 1920s, watch the movie "Reds" starring Warren Beatty and Diane Keaton. Given that declaring oneself to be communist could result in anything from arrest to assault and battery, most American Communists felt that discretion was indeed the better part of valor and abandoned the party opting for safety over ideology.

Americans thought they had seen the last of the Communists in this country, but like the cockroach, communists don't go away. They hide out of sight and flourish in the shadows. Like the cockroaches who scatter when you turn on a light as a survival instinct, so the communist hid from the light of public scrutiny, but they were committed more than ever to their goals of making America a utopian state. To accomplish this, they needed to be able to get their message to people open-minded enough to receive it and what better place can this be accomplished than in colleges and universities. Students are by their very nature open to new ideas and what better way to get a message to young, eager, and captive minds than from the bully pulpit of the university classroom.

Now if you walk up to a liberal democrat and call him or her a communist, they will probably respond to you by calling you something very insulting. They may deny the allegation outright, but more often than not, they'll just attack you. The degree and nature of the attack will depend largely upon whom you attach the communist label. If you choose a minority female like Shelia Jackson-Lee or Maxine Waters, you'll be called racist, sexist, and stupid. If you choose a minority male like Jesse Jackson, Jr., you'll be called racist, and stupid. If you choose a caucasion female like Hillary Clinton, you'll be called sexist (although she'll probably use "mysogenist" because she did go to Wellesley and Yale after all). Finally, if you choose a caucasion male like John Kerry, you won't be called anything. He'll just look down his nose, his upper lip will make a snarling gesture demonstrating utter contempt for you as he opines that you don't understand what you're talking about (elitist for "stupid"). This was seen many times in his presidential campaign, especially when the press actually did its' job and asked him tough questions or questions that clearly made him uncomfortable.

The sad reality is that many of today's liberal communists don't realize that they are, in fact, the idealogical successors of the original communist movement because their indocrination was most likely done without revealing to them either that they were being indocrinated or by whom. I doubt seriously that in the wake of the red scares, a communist professor would stand in front of his class on the first day of the semester and announce that he was a communist and he was going to make communists out of them. If he didn't get beaten to death by his students, he would certainly have been out of job when one of them reported him to the dean. So it's most likely that this indocrination would have been by stealth. Likewise, I doubt any college professor in the 1920s would have whipped out a copy of "The Communist Manifesto" and lectured from it openly. More likely, the professors would have started with Plato and the importance of the State over the individual and progressed from there. Still, if today's liberals don't realize they are indocrinated communists, it's only because they don't WANT to know, or better still, they don't want YOU to know. Another juicy little secret is that the indoctrinated ones are not just on the the Democrat side because, contrary to popular belief, Republicans go to college, too.

In spite of what I just said about the Republicans, it is in the Democratic constituency that you see a veritable rogues gallery of American Communist legacy organizations. First among these is the American Civil Liberties Union, often jokingly referred to as the Amercian Communist Lawyers Union. As with most jokes, we laugh because they're funny, but they're funny in part because there's some truth in the humor. The same holds true here because even though the letter C in ACLU doesn't stand for Communist, in many ways it really IS the American Communist Lawyers Union. The initial director, Roger Baldwin, as well as initial members like Crystal Eastman, and William Z, Foster were purported to be card carrying members of the American Communist Party. This is not to say that the ACLU hasn't done some good for our citizens in its history, but in the time since the Vietnam era, the ACLU has been more about attacking our American values and way of life than anything good it may have done before. This makes sense when you consider that in order for the Communist ideas to succeed, you first have to remove morality from the American psyche and the best way to do that is to attack the foundation of that morality, our Christian values. Regrettably, they have succeeded in this endeavor all too well.

Next up in the communist cavalcade are the unions. While they will strenously object to any links between unions and communism, the fact of the matter is that the labor movement did not exist in this country until the communinsts came together. Unions will argue this point by saying that the labor union goes back to the guilds that have been around since Egypt was building pyramids. This is true, in part, but the fact remains that there was no organized labor union in this country until 1875, well AFTER Karl Marx published his Communist Manifesto. Unions also point to the Upton Sinclair novel "The Jungle" which served as an expose on the conditions for the workers in an industrial manufacturing plant and called for workers to organize to protect themselves from corporate abuses. While it's true that "The Jungle" was published in 1906, well before the American Communist party came into being in 1919, its' writer, Upton Sinclair, studied Marxism in college and was an avowed Socialist, which was the same as a Communist, especially after the "red scare" of the 1920s. That the letter "U" stands for Union in the ACLU is NOT a coincidence. Unions owe their existence to the efforts of the American Communist Party, whether they want to admit it, or not.

Last, but certainly not least, is the group, ACORN. This body of community organizations owes its' existence and sustenance to Saul Alinski, author of "Rules for Radicals" and a hero to the likes of Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. Alinski was himself a community organizer dedicated to the proposition that communities should organize and use their organization to bring down both the goverment and business structures of the United States. His "rules" combined with the lessons of Nicolo Machiavelli provide the blueprint by which the Democrats, led by Bill Clinton, our first Communist President, ushered in the "politics of total destruction," a practice honed, perfected, and used with deadly precision by the modern communists of the Democratic party and their supporters to date; and, "political correctness," an insidious form of censorship and thought control and prevents us from speaking our minds in most situations.

Ironically, all these organizations, the ACLU, labor unions, community organizers, and communism itself all come from the latin word "unum" meaning "one." The word is featured in our own national motto "E Pluirbus Unum," meaning "from the many - ONE. Our founding fathers interpreted this to mean from the many, i.e. the 13 colonies, come the ONE, the United States of America. Our current liberal communist democrats interpret this to mean: "from the many, our private wealth and property, to the ONE, the Federal Government. Like a swarm of termites, these liberal communists have infected and infested both the super structure and infrastructure of the great House that is the United States of America. Like a large Victorian mansion so infected, that house is today buckling under its own weight and in serious danger of a total collapse. Now that we have, in fact, become the Socialist country we have so long feared, somewhere in the vast reaches of the infinite universe, Norman Thomas is smiling.

THIS 70's Show

When I think of the 70's a myriad of images comes to my mind.  On the one hand there's the fashions, like the leisure suit, platform shoes, spread-collared shirts unbuttoned to the waist with layers of gold chains handing down onto hairy chests, the smell of Aqua Velva, Brut, Hai Karate, and other best selling fragrances, etc.   There's also the images of John Travolta in his white polyester suit and black shirt disco dancing across the screen or bopping down the streets of Brooklyn in his leather jacket and long hair, movie s like Jaws, Star Wars, and more.  And who could forget Charlie's Angels and that poster of Farrah Fawcett in the swimsuit?  But, not all the images I recall from the 70's were as good.  I also recall the long lines at gas pumps, double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, and events like Watergate, The Iranian Revolution and Hostage Crisis, etc.

I can't decide which images disgust or frighten me more.  There is the image of my parents decked out in the fashions of the day practicing their disco moves in our basement with their friends, or the ones that showed up on the television night after night on ABC's "The Iran Crisis: America Held Hostage" which propelled Ted Koppel to stardom and served to create the long running "Nightline" series on ABC News.  There were the conversations about the latest fashion trends, esp the ones that took place at my house when Dad put on his first leisure suit, and the ones I remember about how they were going to pay the bills this month because everything seemed to cost so much more than it had a few short weeks ago.  I remember the discussions about whether my Mom should take extra shifts at the hospital or whether Dad should get a part-time second job.  I also remember my grandparents talking about what became of their money as well, and they were what I considered "rich" at the time.

As you can see, the 70's was not as it is shown in the popular sitcom "That 70's Show."  Sure the hairstyles and clothing are somewhat accurate, but there seems to be no mention of the economic and social malaise that plagued the country from the late 60's until the early 80's.  Notwithstanding the fact the the show at issue is a sitcom, still you would think there would have been some allusion to the realities of that decade.  If I had to guess a reason for these critical omissions, I would imagine it had something to do with the fact that the writers of that show were either not alive or not old enough to really REMEMBER the 70's. 

The same must be true of the writers of textbooks used by middle and high school students today, because I find the same lack of historical accuracy present in those tomes.   But this is not by accident.  After all, if you distort history when teaching it to those too young to have experienced it first hand, eventually those young people will outlive the ones that actually lived the history, so the only recollections to survive will be the distorted ones learned through the schools effectively re-writing and thus changing history.  If those who cannot remember the past are truly condemned to repeat it, then we're in for a nightmare of epic proportions.  

In all the reasearch I've done on the history of the 70's I can find any number of references to Watergate, Nixon, the evil Republicans, the Vietnam War Protests, Kent State, etc.  What is surprisingly absent from these historical references is any mention of the double digit inflation, double digit unemployment, out of control drug and sexual behaviors, the anarchy of groups like The Black Panthers and even The Weather Underground (Bill Ayers, ring a bell?).   Also missing is any suggestion as to the CAUSE of the economic miseries endured throughout the 70's.  It is our own "lost decade" and this fact seems to have been "lost" to the liberal writers of history.

Fortunately for me, I don't have to rely in these libral historians for my recollection.  When the 70's began, I was a student in elementary school.  When they ended, I was graduating high school.  I was too young to get into the discos and lose myself in the cocaine and casual sex of the disco era.  I didn't get my first fake ID card until after I had graduated from high school and was on active duty in the US Navy so I actually REMEMBER the 70's quite well.  I also had the good fortune to take one of the only economics courses in college I was able to stay awake in  from a professor who was so hell bent on discrediting Ronald Reagan's economic policies, that he was forced to look honestly at the economic misery of the 70's and at it's root cause.  That root cause, in a nutshell, was the rampant overspending by the US Government in the 1960s.

Now let's disect that statement a bit because I realize it is a loaded one.   That said, look at what was taking place during the 1960s.  At the beginning of the 60s, Kenendy was President and in the first year of his term we had the Bay of Pigs debacle, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and the beginnings of the Vietnam Conflict.  You also had the beginning of the Civil Rights Movement, and other such societal changes.  After Kennedy's assasination in 1963,  Lyndon Johnson took over the Presidency and in relatively short order, the conflict in Vietman was escalated to a full blown war, necessitating great increases in spending, and at the same time, you had the creation of the welfare state, ironically referred to as "The Great Society."  Wars are expensive, as we've just had a recent remider of, and social engineering is, likewise, very expensive.

Ironically, it was the latter, the welfare state, that so bloated the federal budget that we were in deep deficit spending before the end of Johnson's first term of office.  The argument for the Great Society was that with the new found freedoms earned as a reasult of the civil rights movement, the US had a duty to help care for and support minorities as they were integrated into our society.  While this sounds good, as most liberal social engineering programs do, it was a LIE.  Lyndon Johnson, like Andrew Johnson (no relation) before him, was a rabid racist.  He did not want minorities integrated into society, but rather wanted to keep them segregated on their side of town without using the "S" word and offending his liberal constituents. 

The whole premise of the welfare state was to say to minority citizens that if they would agree to live where the government told them to, and vote the way the government told them to, that the government would see to it that they would have everything they needed to live comfortably, if not well, and that all they had to do was to behave and stay out of everyone else's way.  Rather than integrating minorities into our society it had just the opposite effect, as most social engineering programs do.  It created a welfare dependent class that contributed nothing but debt, illigitimate children, and drugs to our culture.  This resulted in increases in welfare recipients and the prison population all of which were spiralling out of control until the system was finally reformed by one William Jefferson Clinton.  But the evils of welfare is the subject for a whole different article altogether.

The point of the comparison was that the spending of the 60's was what caused the double digit inflation and unemployment of the 70's.  Now the difference between the spending then, and the spending now is that in 60's we were spending our own money.   We weren't borrowing it from the Chinese or anybody else.  Also, the social security trust fund was still intact and not a Ponzi scheme like it is now.  Add to that, the amount of spending then pales in comparison to the amount of spending now, even after you adjust for inflation, cost of living increases, etc.   If spending our own money caused us to lose a decade, what do you think spending borrowed money will do? 

%o put it in the form a model everyone can relate to, this would be the equivalent of attempting to save money by not paying your monthly bills with your salary, but rather by taking out a credit card for each such bill, paying the bill with the credit card, and making the minimum interst payment on each card every month.  In the beginning you would save money by making only those minimum payments instead of paying the full amount of the bill, but how long would it take for you to max out that card and have the minimum payment ballon to where it exceeded your regulary monthly bill payment?  Now imagine doing that for every bill you have each month.  Eventually the minimum payments would exceed your bills, your cards would be maxed out, and the bills would keep on coming.  No one in their right mind would do that, would they?

Well, you might think that, but in my 10 plus years working as a bankruptcy paralegal I saw exactly that same scenario over and over again.  This is exactly what our own government is doing as we speak.  If spending REAL money caused us to lose a decade, imagine what we're looking at with what's happening today? 

Every time I hear some politician or political pundit talking about today's economy being the worst since the Great Depression, I want to scream at my TV "What about the 70's you Moron?" Sometimes I even DO, because most the politicians and pundits ARE old enough to have some memories of that "lost" decade, even if they were too busy doing coke and having rampant casual sex in the local disco to remember ALL of it.    But for those of whose only reference to the 70's is the sitcom "That 70's Show," or the distortions of liberal historians, THIS 70's show is not going to be a sitcom and it's going to last a lot longer than half an hour.

Thanks in no small part to this admininistration's unrealistic attitudes towards the production of domestic energy, we're likely to see a repeat of another familiar icon from the 1969s. I remember very well the long lines at the local gas station or the sign "Sorry, Out of Gas" that appeared at the most inopportune of times.  Like it or not, gasoline is the life blood of this country and as long as alternative energy is not in our foreseeable fugure, we're going to have to provide the oil we need domestically which would help solve the unemployment problem to some extent, pr we're going to have to continue to transfer massive asmounts of our wealth to nations that do not have our best interests at heart.  We can no more stop using gasoline than we can stop using oxygen and if you think the French went wild over lack of bread, wait til you see Americans without affordable gasoline or other energy.   Exploiting the tragedy of the gulf  rig explosion  to artificially reduce the supply and increase the cost of energy to the average citizen is reprehensible at best. Likewise, closing down offshore oil rigs will only lose many more jobs, result in the rigs being dismantled and taken to a more user friendly location, and the oil that should be ours will be lost to the Chinese now drilling off the cuban coast in SHALLOW waters.  Where's the sense in any of THAT?

Unlike the REAL 70's which we got through in discos, snorting coke, and boffing our brains out with any partner that would stand still and let us, this generation is not going to have such pleasant diversions.   But, for the benefit of those that missed the original "lost decade", thanks to our failed war on drugs, the coke supply is still up to meeting the demand, and thanks to liberal social engineering in our schools, casusal sex is as plentiful today as it was then.  Finally, thanks to "Mama Mia" you can still hear ABBA on the radio, in FM stereo instead of AM mono this time. Who says you can't improve on an original?

The French Revolution: Not So Long Ago and Not So Far Away.

Lately there have been many comparisons made of current events with troubling historical events such as Ancient Roman times, the Dark Ages, the Spanish Inquisition, or any number of historical events in which a supposedly civilized society lost its conscience or sense of morality. No historical event illustrates this more than the French Revolution. While it began with the noblest of motives, it quickly degenerated into one of the bloodiest and most reprehensible events in human history. Sadly, what’s happening in our modern and enlightened society seems to bring to mind events that transpired in France in the year 1789.

Then as now, the people were taxed mercilessly by a government that was all about
rewarding the privileged few at the expense of the majority of the population. In 1789 France, this privileged few were the aristocrats that ruled France. The taxes that supported their lavish lifestyles were borne by the majority of citizens that did not enjoy these lifestyles, nor could they enjoy much of the fruits of their own labors as most of what they earned was confiscated by tax collectors. Add to that, the national economy was in shambles due to rampant overspending by the King and the ruling classes in supporting not only their lavish lifestyles, but also in supporting and funding our own revolutionary war against Great Britain.

Then, as now, reports of lavish lifestyles and wasteful spending by the privileged
aristocracy angered and enraged the population. While they starved in the streets, the Royals and aristocrats lived well, dined gluttonously, spent lavishly, and average citizens were paying for it with their taxes. Add to that frustration, a famine that devastated the country’s grain crop resulting in extremely inflated prices for the most basic staple of the common french man’s diet, bread, and you have a powder keg of pent up rage and frustration ready to blow. That’s exactly what happened on July 14, 1789 when the enraged citizens of Paris stormed the Bastille prison fortress, overpowered the few guards on the premises, slaughtered them and the governor of the prison, freed the prisoners, and demolished the structure with their bare hands.

To be fair, the French Revolution started out like ours did, with noble intentions to make life better for all French citizens, not just the privileged few in the aristocracy or clergy. When the French Assembly convened in the tennis courts of Versailles and took the now famous “tennis courts oath” resolving not to disband until France had a Constitution and Bill of Rights of its own, they could not have foreseen the carnage that was to follow in the name of the new France. Likewise, they could not know that their experiment with liberty, equality and fraternity would end in utter failure, and with a return to oppressive dictatorship under a gent named Napoleon Bonaparte. If they had, maybe the whole revolution would not have taken place, for who in their right mind would consent to such bloodshed and brutality if there were nothing to be gained on the other side of it?

How then did the noble experiment spin so wildly out of control and become the horror
show we know today as “The French Revolution?” The answer is not a simple one, but
it can be explained as follows: A select cabal of elitist ideologues seized control of a country from the elected legislature by creating a climate of crisis, fear, panic, and blind anger and used the “will of the people” excuse to justify tyrannical behavior. This same elitist cabal then used a complicit media to keep the people in a frenzied “lynch-mob state” and used that mob to enforce its will on an entire population. Sound familiar? It should because it’s happening right in front of our very eyes. Thankfully, we haven’t yet regressed to the mob violence or the class genocide, but we’re moving in that direction at a frightening pace.

In eighteenth century France, the populace driver was an underground newspaper
called ironically enough, “L’Amie de Peuple” (translation: The Friend of the People).
This paper was run by a professional malcontent by the name of Jean Paul Marat. Mr.
Marat had been living in the sewers of Paris before the revolution as he had failed at every commercial endeavor he had undertaken. To be fair, it wasn’t always possible to rise on one’s own merit in the feudalistic social order of pre-revolutionary France, but this man was nothing more than an angry, hate-filled, zealot who saw his opportunity for personal power and glory in the climate of the revolution. He was like the Rush Limbaugh or Al Franken of his day and he rose to national pre-eminence like Andy Griffith’s character in “A Face In The Crowd.”

He used his new found power to wreak havoc on the french population. His rants
resulted in multiple acts of barbarism, including murder, rape, pillage, and other crimes which would have met with severe punishment in a civilized, law abiding society. His word alone was enough to send hundreds of innocent people to the guillotine. As a direct result of one of his rants, the citizens of Paris raided a french prison where there were prisoners awaiting their so-called “trials” and executions, and basically committed wholesale rape, robbery, torture, and murder in the name of the revolution. Ironically, the barbarism was conducted in a large cell that had a mural of “The Rights of Man” as codified by the French Assembly at the beginning of the revolution. As if in homage to the term “poetic justice,” Marat was murdered by a woman who concluded that the country she loved would be better off without him. She paid for her crime gladly, and today she’s considered a hero in France. Her name is Charlotte Corday.

Contrast that to the way the modern media, both the so-called “legitimate” press, and
the less revered blogosphere has been ginning up anger and hatred against the
executives and employees of AIG. I remember just a few short years ago that AIG ran
an ad campaign touting themselves as “the biggest insurance company in the world you
never heard of.” In many ways, I wish that were still a true statement. How then do a
bunch of homeless, disheveled malcontents end up protesting on the front lawns of AIG
executives’ homes in Connecticut? Answer, the media, in conjunction with self-serving
politicians, ginned up a mob mentality that not only led to such protests in the streets, but also empowered unscrupulous congressmen to pass a law designed solely to
confiscate wealth. This law is a violation of the very Constitution they took an oath to support, but they were bolstered in this effort by the lynch mob mentality that boosts its’ approval ratings (albeit temporarily), and if the law is later struck down as unconstitutional, they can tell the voters that it’s not their fault.

This makes the very real (unfortunately) Barney Frank more like the character of
Madame DeFarge from Charles Dickens’ “A Tale of Two Cities.” He sits at the foot of
the guillotine knitting while his victims lose their heads and complains when the mob
makes too much noise causing him to drop a stitch messing up his knitting. Never mind
he is one of the causes of this misery, he’s’ only TOO happy to lead the charge against those he can point the finger of blame towards keeping it away from himself and othersof his ilk.

The bloodiest carnage of the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, was the brainchild of an Avatar class of elitists led by Maximilian Robespierre, and they had the audacity to call themselves “The Committee for Public Safety.” Using the pretexts of a looming war with other European monarchies, together with the economic crisis that was threatening to topple the fragile government, these committee members effectively suspended the new constitution and took absolute power unto themselves, ostensibly just until the crises had abated. Ironically, this committee saw to it that most of its former colleagues in the full assembly were declared enemies of the new republic and sent them straight to the guillotine. In point of fact, very few of the men that took the “Tennis Court Oaths” lived to see the government they had envisioned become a reality.

I would hate to have been one of those French politicians that had to stroll the streets of downtown Paris and see all the blood soaked into the street stones from the guillotine scaffold only to realize that he was responsible for that. I would hate to have a been a French politician that had to look into the faces of children in the orphanage in Paris and realize that he was responsible for making those children orphans.

So maybe you politicians in Washington can take a lesson from what happened in
France those many years ago. When you pander to the mob, you empower and
unleash that mob, and then you bear responsibility for the consequences of that
decision and of the mob’s actions. A mob is not a sentient body. It does not think, it does not reason, it runs on pure unadulterated emotion, usually anger or fear. Once unleashed it cannot be controlled effectively and very often turns against those who unleashed it in the first place. Such was the case in the French Revolution. Every member of the Committee for Public Safety met an unnatural end, most on the
guillotine to which they had consigned so many others.

Likewise, the members of the media, both the “legitimate” press, and the blogosphere
might want to consider their responsibilities as well. It’s easy to spew venom and vitriol from the virtual safety of the internet and then disavow all responsibility for what ensues. But just as we enjoy the privilege of freedom of speech (for now, anyway), we also have a responsibility to use that speech judiciously. We cannot legally scream “Fire” in a crowded theater and escape the consequences of that action. Yet that is what many so-called journalists and bloggers do every day. What happens when the wife or child of one of these AIG executives gets hurt by a protestor? Even if the harm is not intended, how are we going to feel if it happens? I would like to think we’re all human enough to say that we would feel terrible if someone actually got hurt. If that is the case, then we need to think before we write. If that is not the case, then keep doing what you’re doing and cheer loudly when the guillotine gets erected in Times Square.

Was Our Economy Murdered? A Grand Jury Case for Indictment On a PREMEDITATED MURDER Charge!

The following article is being presented as if it were a criminal case being presented to a Grand Jury to secure and indictment against the defendants believed by the police and prosecuting attorney to have committed that crime.  When a crime is suspected or has occurred, most citizens react by calling this police. Police work and crime detection are as much about luck and hunches as they are about actual physical evidence and the proverbial “smoking gun.”  It is no wonder they sometimes get it wrong.  That said, I firmly believe that MOST police officers and honest well-intentioned public protectors, but like any other human group, you got good ones, and corrupt ones.  This is exactly why it takes more than a cop hunch to put someone in prison or to death.  That’s what jury trials are for. But before you can get to a jury trial, a charge has to be filed with the court.  That charge can be based on a prosecutor’s affidavit or an indictment by a Grand Jury which means that a panel of ordinary citizens has concluded that a crime was committed, and that the accused defendant probably committed it.  It is that proceeding that I’m going to replicate today.  I will be the prosecutor, and you Dear readers will be my Grand Jury.


My burden will be to prove that our economy was, in fact, the victim of a crime and that>the crime charged is attempted murder.  It is only attempted murder at this time because our economy is not dead, contrary to liberal media opinion.  It has been grievously injured and could possibly die, but as of now it’s very much alive if not well.  Most states define attempted murder as the commission of an act with the unlawful intent to deprive the victim of his life.  It would also be desirable for the accused to have failed in that attempt so that the does not get increased to murder in either the first or second degree.  


My subsequent burden will be to show that the person or persons against whom this indictment is sought had to motive, opportunity, and criminal intent to commit the crime charged, and to present evidence to show that they, in fact, did commit the crime charged.  In assessing culpability, the grand jury *you, the readers) are not required to find guilt or innocence, only probable cause that the crime was committed and that the accused could have committed it.  


Could the economy have been Murdered, or was the economic decline just a result ofnatural market forces?  There are compelling arguments to be made for both sides, but one of the more compelling arguments supporting foul play is the overwhelming benefit to one of the accused from the economic tsunami.  The ONLY beneficiary in all of this is the Democratic Party.  No private enterprise, private citizen, or public entity other than theDemocratic Party and its candidates benefit from this economic malaise.  But the Democrats are not the only ones accused here.                      


To understand why both Republicans and Democrats stand accused, you have to first understand how the economy was injured.  We can all agree the tsunami, for lack of a better term, occurred in mid September of 2008, but that wasn’t the first potentially fatal blow.  The first potentially fatal blow to this economy occurred shortly after the election of the Democrats to majority in the House and Senate.  They passed a law that reinstated the mark-to-market accounting rule that had been removed ironically by the Roosevelt administration to help bring about recovery from the Great Depression.  This was done in response to the Enron collapse, but it had the unintended (or intended) consequence of setting up the financial sector of are economy for fiscal Armageddon.


The longest occurring and most lingering assault on the economy has been a verbal one by Democratic politicians and their allies in the media.  Democrats or their surrogates and sympathizers have been trying to talk down the economy since before the 2006 midterm elections.  They first tried a frontal assault on the economy, telling us that the economy was not good.  This flew in the face of record high indices, free-flowing credit, and all appearances to the contrary so it failed.  Not to be discouraged, the Democrats resorted to a classic from their play book, class warfare.  They changed the premise from a bad economy to an unfair one in which only the rich were benefitting.  Even this failed and the Democrats were left with no other strategy than to lie to the voting public and promise that if they were put in power they would end the war in Iraq.


This was disingenuous at best, and an outright LIE at worst.  Any one who was taken a high school civics course knows that only the President of the United States to order our armed forces to engage in or withdraw from combat.  The Democrats knew, and hoped the voting public didn’t, that the most they could do with withdraw funding from the Defense Department which would essentially leave our troops naked in the field.  No clear thinking politician would dare attach his or her name to such a bill.  Only the most committed ideologues would even consider such a thing, and then only because they knew it wouldn’t pass.  This makes the promise they made to the voting public a false one, and true to form, they failed which infuriated the far left but not the majority of Democratic voters.


To make matters worse for the Democrats, our troops (aided by the surge of new forces) started winning in Iraq despite the best efforts of the Democrats to convince us otherwise that the war was, in fact, lost.  No matter how they proclaimed the statistics were wrong, and that General David Petraeus was a liar (i.e., the “suspension of disbelief” comment by then Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton) the facts spoke for themselves.  Casualties were down, elections were held, Iraqi troops were taking the field and taking control, and all evidence showed we were winning the war.  The Democrats knew they would not be able to win in 2008 on that issue.  They had lost credibility promising to end the war, and now that we were winning it, the war rage vote would not be enough. 


Enter once more, the economy.  It was still at record highs and the Democrats knew that unless something changed dramatically, they might not be able to take the White House or keep their control of Congress.  Shortly after January of 2007, Democratic supporters on the blogs began a “whisper” campaign about the economy.  This time instead of a frontal assault, the bloggers started reporting that the economy was not sound.  It was not “real.”  Words like “illusion,” “smoke and mirrors,” “house of cards,” etc. started appearing in the texts and it wasn’t long before these sentiments started finding their way into the mainstream media coverage of economic news.  


Not surprising, as the rumors grew and spread, the stock market traders reacted by short-selling financial stocks, driving their prices and perceived values downward.  Not long after this started, credit rating agencies like Moodys and Standard & Poores announced that they were lowering the credit rating of investment banks like Bear-Stearns, Lehman Brothers, Goldman-Sachs, and any other bank that traded in mortgage security instruments backed by sub-prime and conventional loans.  The decision of the rating agencies was made across the board and did not take into account the fact that most of the mortgage loans were paying.


Once the credit ratings were lowered, the investment banks found themselves in the unenviable position of going from having balanced books with cash reserves to being insolvent overnight.  They did the only thing they could do, which was to scramble to sell assets to raise capital.  Under the newly reenacted mark-to-market rules, however, the value of the assets had so fallen that it was impossible to raise capital in a timely manner.  For Bear-Stearns, this meant a shotgun wedding with our government holding the shotgun, but for Lehman Brothers, there was no relief and it was forced into bankruptcy.


The bankruptcy of Lehman Brothers was the second domino to fall, and set off a chain reaction that is still going on Wall Street.  Had the government known of the events to follow, it would likely have reversed its decision not to save Lehman Brothers but, as in all things, hindsight is 20-20.  The identity of the person that made the decision to allow Lehman Brothers to fail is not known, but it is certain he or she was an employee or officer in the previous administration.  As to what happened after Lehman Brothers, we have only to look at our 401K statements and the Dow Jones Industrial Average to answer that.




The final question to answer is the why of it all.  To answer that, you simply have to look for the answer to one question: who benefitted?  Who is the sole beneficiary to all of this economic chaos and misery?  The only beneficiary I can find is the Democratic Party and its political operatives and supporters such as the media.  AT the time of the economic collapse in September of 2008, John McCain was ahead in the polls, and the Republican’s “Joe the Plumber” anti-socialism message was beginning to resonate.  Add to that the resurrection of the Reverend Wright ads and controversy and Obama was flailing and losing ground.  Then, the economy collapsed and this single event followed by the serio-comic response of John McCain and the government as a whole in passing the Trouble Asset Recovery Program, put the Republicans on the mat never to return.


Had it not been for the economic meltdown, John McCain might well have won the presidency and even if he did not, it is relatively certain that the Democrats would not likely be enjoying their hold on absolute power in Congress right now.  Now, I’m not saying that the politicians in the Democratic Party intentionally visited this much misery on the country merely to win an election.   Politicians, whatever their ideology, go into public service to help people and I’m not yet jaded enough to say otherwise.  You may think me a Pollyanna for this belief, but until the evidence to the contrary is more than anecdotal, I remain a true believer. This nobility is reserved solely for elected politicians.  However, for every politician you see on stage, there’s an unseen force of a few to thousands of nameless, faceless political operatives and supporters you do not see, and these people will stop at nothing short of criminal behavior to get their candidate elected.  It seems that, given the
evidence of this last election cycle, that we can no longer exclude criminal behavior, especially on the Democratic side of the aisle.  After all, it was democratic supporters like ACORN and the preppie college students in Ohio that committed countless cases of voter registration and outright voter fraud, and it was democrats that refused to install any credit card security software on their sites resulting in numerous allegations of credit card fraud.   


The last item I wish to present is that the Democratic Party is the only party whose membership consists of a core of ideologues that believe no one is entitled to private wealth and that such wealth should be confiscated by the government and redistributed evenly to all citizens regardless of whether they had anything to do with its’ creation in the first place.  This constituency would think nothing of wiping out the wealth and retirement savings of millions of American because they do not believe anyone is entitled to private wealth in the first place and that the temporary misery is justified by the liberal utopia they hope to create.  It’s like my parents used to tell me as they were spanking me with a paddle, “its for your own good and you’ll thank me for it someday.” 


So in conclusion ladies and gentlemen of the Grand Jury, I submit that I have established more than enough evidence to conclude that our free market economy was and IS the victim of the crime of attempted murder and that said crime is ongoing to this day.  Now that Obama and the Democrats are the doctors charged with saving this economy, they continue the assault against it every time they open their mouths.  It is almost as if, rather than employing heroic measures such as CPR, defibrillation, administering medicines like epinephrine, etc, they are putting a pillow over the face of the economy to hasten demise.  Fortunately, they are just as much a failure at that as they have been about everything else thus far because our economy is not dead.




This concludes my presentation to you, the members of my grand jury, and I now charge you to return a True Bill of Indictment for the crime of attempted murder against the following defendants: The United States Governments for the years 2006 to the present, including former President George W. Bush and current President Barack Obama, the Democratic Party and its political operatives and supporters from the last election cycle, including the main stream media coalition, and last but not least, the greedy and unscrupulous wall street traders that orchestrated the demolition and devaluation of the financial stocks by short selling and other strategies designed to force stock prices down for their own personal enrichment regardless of the consequences to others.  This case is respectfully submitted for your consideration.  Thank you for your attention.

A Conservative Defends Speaker Nancy Pelosi

When the trillion dollar pork-a-pa-looza masquerading as the "National Recovery and Reinvestment Act"first came to light and I actually began READING the bill, I was outraged at the Democrats exploitation of the fear, pain, and suffering of the American people as a justification for the implementation of every knee-jerk liberal social engineering and wealth confiscation idea that had been gathering dust on their desks for as long as some of them have been in office, and others of them have been alive.  I'm astounded at all the fear mongering and sense of urgency ginned up by the Democrats in order to sell us on this package of pork.  I believe the terms used were "catastrophic," "depression," etc.  I also believe the justification for the bill was that it had to be "timely," "targeted," and "temporary.

In reading the 500 or so pages that I've actually been able to digest, I can't find anything that meets the 3-T challenge.  What I've found instead is a mass of programs that have basically doubled the amount of future discretionary spending that will be a part of the Federal budget for years to come.  The Democrats have had their absolute power for only two months now, and in that time they have managed to spend over a TRILLION of our tax dollars and double the discretionary budget .  I shudder to think what the next 22 months have in store, because it will be at least that long before we the people can do anything to change the path to political socialism and runaway inflation that we seem to on.

No one has taken more fire from us than Madame Speaker, Nancy Pelosi herself.  For the way she shut out the Repulican members of the house from the legislative process, she deserves the heat.  She and her liberal Democratic ilk now own this bill lock, stock, and two smoking barrels.  The congressional Republicans were well advised to steer clear of it, and those RINO (Republican in Name Only) senators that facilitated its' passage will likely pay a political price in the future.  

Notwithstanding this, Madame Speaker Pelosi has also been harshly criticized for her own slice of pork, the tens of millions of dollars she wants to protect the marshes that are home to a cute little mouse.  She has been called many names, including but not limited to, "Minnie Mouse," Mighty Mouse," and "the Mouse that Roared" to name a  few.  The problem is that in her own roundabout way, Nancy Pelosi's pet project may just be the best thing about this pork-laden boondogle.  It may be the only project  I've found that will actually accomplish the stated goal of creating a real job.

Now I can hear the jaws dropping out there and I can only imagine that you all might be thinking I've traded in my trademark Java for some liberal kool-aid, but you would be wrong and I encourage you to read on and hear me out.  What happens when you artificially protect the natural habitat of an animal?  Simply speaking, you enable that animal to survive and thrive.  What happens when rhodents thrive?  They BREED at the speed of light.  So, when the marshes are filled with millions of new mice then those mice are going to feel cramped and they're going to fan out all over San Francisco and the surrounding area.

Picture what is going to happen some fine morning when Nancy Pelosi or one of her liberal gal pals on Nob Hill reaches into the china cabinet to get a bone china bowl for her morning cereal and finds mouse turds in it.  She might first drop the bowl, shattering it into bits.  Then, aggrieved by the tragic loss of a piece of her favorite china, the grief will turn to rage and she'll either pick up the phone herself or direct her maid to do it for her, and call the exterminator.  This scene will be played out in houses and apartments all over the city because people universally react this way to vermin.  

One of my favorite actors of all time, James Woods, in his portraryal of powerhouse attorney Sebastian Stark uttered a line that is a pithy as it is brilliant.  He was investigating a homicide in Malibu and a lifeguard informed him that the tenant of a pricey beach house had asked him to run people off of his "private" beach.  As he heard this, Sebastian Stark said, "They're all liberals until someone blocks their ocean view."  Simply put, liberals will champion causes like the marsh mouse, until that mouse has the audacity to invade their homes.  Then, the mouse be damned, it's time to call the exterminator.  

This brings me to my point that Nancy Pelosi my be the only legislator whose pork project will actually accomplish the goal of creating new jobs, or saving old ones, in the foreseeable future because if San Francisco gets overrun with mice, the exterminators will either hire new workers or refrain from laying off any of their current ones.  This can occur within the next two years because of both the limited life span of mice, and the alarmingly rapid rate at which they reproduce, especially when their habitat is artificially protected.  

Therefore, in her own way, the Speaker is actually going to use her tens of millions (chump change compared to some of the other projects in the bill) to create new jobs.  Granted, it's an unintended consequence of the government's typical approach to problem solving, i.e. trying to lower the river instead of raising the bridge.  Still, the new hires at the exterminating companies can thank Speaker Pelosi for the good fortune.  So God Bless you, Nancy Pelosi and later we can take a moment of silence for the rhodent holocaust that will surely follow.

So, there it is.  Nancy Pelosi may be the only legislator whose fingerprints on this bureacratic nightmare can actually be linked to a new job created in the next year or two.  And if you disagree with me, then you sir, madame, or (since we ARE talking about San Francisco here), anyone inbetween, are worse than Greg Gutfeld.