Last night from the Oval Office, President Obama made what was to be his “leadership” speech about how he has always been in control of the BP oil disaster in the Gulf of Mexico.  Yet 57 days into the worst environmental catastrophe that the United States has ever faced, in which an uncontrolled oil leak is literally gushing millions of barrels of crude into the waters of the gulf, this president decided instead to further pursue his radical agenda of forcing socialism and huge tax increases down the collective throat of all Americans.

The speech, 18 minutes long, was about one-third rant against BP and finger-pointing at the oil industry. Obama, ever the politician, opened the speech by a pathetic attempt to tie the courageous service of our military in the Afghan war to the “aggressive” war against the “oil offensive” on the gulf coast shorelines. “Abroad, our brave men and women in uniform are taking the fight to al Qaeda wherever it exists. And tonight, I’ve returned from a trip to the Gulf Coast to speak with you about the battle we’re waging against an oil spill that is assaulting our shores and our citizens.”  This opening line, in itself, is so clearly designed to focus attention on Obama “the Commander-in-Chief,” as being the innocent general in a war against the “evil” oil companies.

Now “General” Obama quickly explained what has happened, how it happened and how he had “leapt into immediate action” right when the news of the explosion first happened way back on April 20;

 That’s why just after the rig sank, I assembled a team of our nation’s best scientists and engineers to tackle this challenge -- a team led by Dr. Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and our nation’s Secretary of Energy. Scientists at our national labs and experts from academia and other oil companies have also provided ideas and advice.

As a result of these efforts, we’ve directed BP to mobilize additional equipment and technology. And in the coming weeks and days, these efforts should capture up to 90 percent of the oil leaking out of the well. This is until the company finishes drilling a relief well later in the summer that’s expected to stop the leak completely.

Of course, this is utter nonsense. For weeks, there have been several attempts to apply solutions to the situation, however, they required federal, and presidential approval. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal has put countless requests to the President for his approval to allow the beleaguered gulf shore state to start building artificial sand barrier islands 10 miles out from the coastline to start absorbing the oil and thus, preventing it from reaching the shoreline. Obama’s response has been absolute silence, resulting in weeks of lost time that has allowed the oil to advance to the beaches.  

Some are suggesting that Obama literally turned a deaf ear to Jindal’s request, because the governor is a Republican and conservative. We cannot get inside his brain or read his thoughts, however, as Obama is the classic politician, who is always in “campaign mode,” this suggestion seems to carry a lot of weight.

There have been offers of help from other nations to help cap the well. Within days, the Netherlands offered the U.S. skimmers to assist in keeping the oil from reaching the shores. However, the Obama administration turned them down. The reason appears to be that since the ships are Dutch and therefore, the crews would not be American union workers!

Once the president had established his credentials as a self-centered narcissist, he focused more on who was at fault and how evil they (BP and Oil Companies) are;

But make no mistake: We will fight this spill with everything we’ve got for as long as it takes. We will make BP pay for the damage their company has caused. And we will do whatever’s necessary to help the Gulf Coast and its people recover from this tragedy.

In making such a statement, Obama had three objectives;

First was attempting to deflect criticism from his total mismanagement of the crisis. He was telling us that this situation was totally the fault of BP, and that the federal government had absolutely no roll in this disaster.

The second objective is to paint BP as being lax in its attempt to cap the well. Obama tried to explain that BP has not been doing anything to get “the damned hole plugged” and the reason is that BP does not care about the environment; rather it is trying to avoid the expenses of “getting the job done.” This is because BP is a private-sector “evil” corporation, and as such, has to watch its expenses against revenue. Of course, the feds do not have such a problem, as they simply spend more into debt while printing dollars off the presses like toilet paper.

The final objective was for Obama to set up BP, and all oil companies, as being the “problem,” and government regulation and control as being “the solution.” By attacking the oil companies by making them out as an out-of-control mob intentionally out to destroy the environment to “steal resources” to make “windfall profits,” Obama was telling the audience that the only solution is for the government to take over “big oil” and regulate all oil exploration and drilling.

After laying all this out, Obama went on for the remaining two-third of his speech about how this crisis means we must put cap and trade legislation into place as quickly as possible. He used the pretext of the oil spill as a vehicle to tell Americans that we must get off our dependence on fossil fuels by moving away from oil and getting into “clean green” energy sources.  

Obama then admitted that his determined pursuit of cutting oil use, nationalizing oil companies and forcing cap and tax will require long term “sacrifices” of all Americans, meaning huge taxes on our energy sources and huge cost increases on our energy prices. The goal is to force Americans into being unable to pay for everyday necessities as gas for their cars, heat for their homes and power for their TVs and computers.

Obama admitted he did not know how we would get there, but said it would be possible with all American sharing the costs. Knowing that his audience has no taste or desire for such radical change in a time of the Great Recession, Obama tried to invoke inspiration from the shared sacrifices and “achieving the impossible” from past generations, citing the Greatest Generation’s efforts in World War II and the achievement of the American space program from a dream to landing on the moon just nine years later.

Of course, not one of these long rants about pursuing and ramming yet another agenda that Americans do not want had absolutely any meaning on how Obama is going to manage the actual, real crisis that currently exists in the gulf.

Obama is a hypocrite. If he is claiming that he has been in charge since day 1 of the disaster, then he must share all the blame equally BP and the oil companies that he so passionately hates. Otherwise, he is completely lying, yet again; to the American people about his role in helping contain this disaster.

Finally, Obama’s true intentions came bursting out in last night’s speech.  In using the oil leak crisis as a means to pursuing his goal of continuing to force socialism on all of us, the President is simply living by Rahm Emanuel’s mantra; “never let a serious crisis go to waste.”

Robert Ditmar is the founder and Editor of The Conservative Camp (www.conservativecamp.com), a news and commentary site with commentary and opinion that focus on political and cultural issues. A freelance editorial columnist who writes about historical and current political and foreign policy issues, Robert’s articles have appeared in various conservative and occasionally liberal political and foreign policy websites and e-zines, including American Daily.com, Anti-Subversion, Inc., Conservative Forum, Enter Stage Right, The Freedom Institute, Free Britannia, G.O.P. Central, The Intellectual Conservative, The Junto Society, The Starr Journal, Red County, Examiner, Free Republic and PoliticalPundit.com. His most recent publication is a contribution to the book, American Values, Opposing Viewpoints, in which Robert authored the third chapter, “Capitalism Promotes Freedom & Opportunity.”

 

 

In a little more than 18 months, President Obama has managed to destroy America’s reputation around the world by damaging relationships with our traditional allies and making America appear as a weak and appeasing beggar to some of the most totalitarian and evil regimes in the world.  

Meanwhile, his destructive obsession with restructuring the U.S. economy to mirror the socialist systems of Europe and several Third World nations are doing such long-term damage to our future prosperity that today’s college-age generation, (Gen Y or the Millennial Generation-born between the early 1980s-late 1990s), will have a less prosperous lifestyle and far fewer opportunities for growth than the previous generation had.

No longer are today’s older generations, including Generation X (born between 1965 -1980) making sacrifices in the hope that their offspring will be able to have a better life than the current one we inherited from our parents and grandparents. For the first time in American history, an older generation will not be leaving an even more prosperous America to its successor.

During the great “Obama Apology for America” tour, the president’s continual criticism of the nation he “leads” and his actions of cutting America down to size as just “another standard player” on the world stage were a bold statement to the international community about the contempt he holds for the United States. He has gone to the capitals of foreign nations, many of them hostile to the U.S., to grovel and bow before tyrant kings and dictators. Within weeks of assuming the Oval Office, Obama went to great pains in explaining how America is nothing exceptional, but simply an equal to all other nations, including the likes of countries such as Bangladesh, Yemen and Lebanon.

Starting with his first “official” televised interview, granted to the Islamic television network Al Jazeera, Obama has taken great pains to explain to Muslim audiences that America is “not a Christian nation,” and that Americans have so many Muslims that we are actually more of an “Islamic nation.” He has told audiences, from Cairo to Istanbul, that America has only become the powerhouse it is because Americans built this nation based upon the “tradition and culture” of the past “great Islamic” civilization. In churning out this amazing ditty to his Muslim audiences, he forgot to mention that America had actually built its representative republican form of government based on the principles as founded in the Roman Republic, which was a) European, b) eventually Christian, and c) at least 500 years or more before Mohammad (Islam’s founder) was even conceived in the Arabian peninsula.

Appeasing his friends in the Islamic world to the fullest extent, Obama has openly declared his outright hostility and anti-Semitism to the State of Israel. Making continual overtures to all the Muslim terrorist nations and organizations, many who carry an “official” policy of Israel’s destruction in their charters, Obama has simultaneously treated the Jewish state as a pariah nation. His undiplomatic and hostile treatment of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu during a recent visit to the White House clearly demonstrated where this president’s loyalties lie. 

Obama has even supported, for the first time, a UN resolution singling out Israeli ambiguity about its nuclear weapon reserves. This has been an issue that no other previous president has touched, as it has always been understood that Israel, being small and surrounded by enemies on all sides, needs to keep this strategic policy of nuclear ambiguity in place as deterrence to its neighbors. However, Obama has decided it is time to strip Israel of a defense upon which its very survival as a nation rests. The world knows Israel would never use nuclear weapons except defensively, and they know the UN is a hotbed of Islamic bloc nations with hostile intentions for Israel. Yet Obama has put the United States on the side of aggressor, terrorist nations by allowing this historic condemnation to go through.

In further evidence of his anti-Israel policies, Obama has openly chastised the Jewish state for its “crime” of defending itself via a legal blockade of Gaza, the Hamas-run terrorist hotbed south of Israel’s border. Gaza was part of the Democrat’s cherished “land-for-peace” deals in the Bill Clinton 1990s in which Israel surrendered defensive buffer zones against hostile neighbors to create a “Palestinian” state, in exchange for “Palestine” to drop its “destruction of Israel” policies and live in peace next door to the Jewish state.

Israel’s reward for this good-faith gesture has been a rabid Islamist population that immediately elected Hamas as the head of its government. Gaza is now administered by a terrorist organization with a charter to destroy Israel.

Additionally, Israel has reaped the benefits of “land-for-peace” in the form of Israeli citizens being kidnapped at the border, suicide bombers blowing Israeli civilians to bits as they peacefully go about their daily lives, and thousands of explosive rockets, launched from Gaza territory, raining down on the homes of Israeli civilians residing in Israel-proper.

When Islamist “humanitarian” groups continue to try and bring weapons and military supplies under the guise of “humanitarian aid” directly to Gaza, in defiance of Israel’s request that all ships go to Israel for unloading of all humanitarian aid that Israel will deliver to Gaza itself, the Jewish state has no choice but to blockade Gaza to prevent further terrorist attacks. Despite the fact that these “humanitarian groups” are openly declaring their main purpose is to provoke Israel and interfere in running the blockade, rather than in delivering true “humanitarian aid” to Gaza, Israel has had to resort to boarding ships and stopping weapons trafficking. 

Each time Israel has tried to aggressively defend itself against Hamas, whether by militarily entering Gaza to weed out the terrorists or by closing the border, the UN and “world community” has organized protests and condemnations against Israel. The United States has remained the only nation to defend Israel, recognizing that the Jewish state is a democratic, peaceful nation, friend and ally in the region.

All past U.S. presidents have stood by Israel, even Carter and Clinton.  The exception is President Barak Hussein Obama, who has openly chastised Israel for defending itself and has withheld U.S. support of Israel in her ongoing dispute with the “Palestinians.”  There is no doubt that Israel has been completely abandoned by Obama’s America, as this president is much more sympathetic to the likes of Hamas’ terrorists rather than a democratic Israel. He almost seems intent on pulling the rug out from under the Jewish state and giving Israel a rope with which to hang itself.

However, Obama has not only thrown Israel to the wolves, he has also completely disregarded our other major allies, such as Britain, by never missing an opportunity to snub or insult the Brits.

While Obama is destroying American influence and goodwill with its friends and allies, he is courting “dialogue” with the likes of the Islamic terrorists and Communist cults-of-personalities. Obama’s open, disgusting and submissive overtures to the likes of Iran for a “face-to-face talk” about how Iran should quit trying to join the nuclear club have fallen on deaf ears. Each time Obama has tried to get a meeting with Iranian “President” Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Tehran has reciprocated with more insults and more statements of destroying Israel.

Likewise for North Korea and its sinister dictator, Kim Jong Il, who have realized that this president is nothing but a weak paper tiger, totally dependent on high rhetoric and low on an actual spine to stand up to aggression. Hence North Koreas bold act of war earlier last month, when a North Korean sub torpedoed and sunk a South Korean naval vessel in South Korean waters. Kim Jong Il, like all dictators and totalitarians the world over, know that Obama will do nothing to stop them beyond using a few teleprompter words to “condemn” their actions.

While having created a power vacuum in a dangerous world by his total lack of spine and uninspiring “leadership,” Obama has presided over the highest deficit spending in the nation’s history. In just 18 months, this administration has outspent all previous presidents combined! While the nation has gone from 8% unemployment at the time of former President Bush’s departure to 10% or more while under Obama’s watch, this administration has simply ignored the economy in its blind-eyed approach to ramming an unwanted, nationalized and socialized health care law into being.

While the U.S. states bordering Mexico have pleaded for Obama to clamp down on illegal immigration, his regime has instead ignored the cries for help to work on more “important issues” such as making sure that gays and lesbians can openly serve in the military. When those states were ignored by Obama, they took matters into their own hands, only to be demonized by their “president” as “racists and bigots” who are propagating an illegal activity against “undocumented workers.” Just to make sure the border states understood where Obama’s loyalties lie, he invited Mexican President Calderon to the White House for a state dinner, giving the Mexican president an opportunity to dictate that Americans must quit defending the border and that it is the Americans, and especially Arizonans, who are the real criminals here.

In light of the British Petroleum (BP) oil rig disaster in the Gulf of Mexico, Obama has been clueless. He ignored the problem for almost 44 days, and then only addressed the issue after members of his own political party pressured him to at least act like he was concerned about the people of the Gulf coast. Over the course of the past two weeks, in what is arguably the worst disaster ever to hit the United States, this president has simply resorted to bullying BP with ultimatums and threats as the company works around the clock to literally stop the well. While BP actually attempts to work on stopping the disaster, Obama stands at a podium pointing an accusing finger at the company, while doing nothing to assist in aiding the beleaguered states whose economies and industries are threatened by the coming onslaught of oil contamination on the shores. 

Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindall, who time and again has begged the Obama administration to allow the state to dredge and build artificial sand barriers out in the Gulf to absorb the coming oil and thus save the coastline from disaster. All of these requests by Jindall, a Republican, were simply ignored and dismissed by Team Obama. Yet this president demands that it is the federal government who is in charge of “getting that damned hole plugged.” After all the accusations Obama made against Bush’s handling of Katrina on the campaign trail, he should be ashamed of himself. His absolute mishandling of the crisis is light years beyond the mismanagement that Bush was accused of, making Obama a far more incompetent crisis manager.

Obama has managed to do the impossible. He has managed to make even Jimmy Carter look like a good president. His total lack of competence, diplomatic skills and understanding of the realities of the world, coupled with his total lack of loyalty to the country he “serves” and his disdain for all things American while supporting everything from terrorist dictatorships to illegal aliens, makes this radical in the White House not only the most incompetent president in the nation’s history, but also one of the most dangerous.

Robert Ditmar is the founder and Editor of The Conservative Camp (ConservativeCamp.com), a news and commentary site with commentary and opinion that focus on political and cultural issues. He is also a conservative columnist for Examiner.com, a national, online news and resources publication.

 

When you invite your next-door neighbor over for a friendly visit and barbecue, it is expected that the visiting neighbor is respectful of your house and your property. Under social norms, you would expect the visitor to come over to discuss any mutual topics in polite conversation while you, as the gracious host, do everything possible to offer your guest the full benefits of your hospitality.

As you dine over whatever grilled masterpiece you have conjured up, the conversation might cover anything from how your families are doing to issues such as repairing a shared property line fence, etc. However, that is where the conversation would end, as neither party, out of respect for the other, would inquire about how much money the other actually has in their banks, what there rules of discipline might be for their children, or how they are each managing the internal affairs of their respective households.

If each party had children at the barbecue, it would be expected that the visiting next-door neighbor would extend to his host the courtesy of making sure his children are respectful of your home, property and household rules. At the same time, you, as host, are expected to make sure your own children extend good behavior to your neighbor by being respectful of their guests and offering hospitality to their children, within the rules of your own household.

Maybe you have a swimming pool, or a trampoline, that your next-door neighbor does not have, and his children are coveting the amusements that your children take for granted. At the same time you have a nice Jacuzzi and fireplace on a beautiful patio that your neighbors seem very fond of, in an almost jealous way.

It seems that you have been fortunate in your career, having worked hard to gain higher positions, while at the same time you have managed your bank account in a responsible manner. And while your neighbor is gainfully employed and is paid reasonably well, he has simply not been able to match what you have achieved. Perhaps he cannot get a break from life, or maybe he has been a bit irresponsible with his own money and his spending.

Regardless of circumstances, he does not have all the amenities that you have in his own backyard. Yet his backyard is still a pleasant-looking place, with nice landscape and green lawn. By most standards, his household is still better than average in context of the neighborhood, although it is not nearly as nice as your own home is.

After the barbecue is over and the next-door neighbor family returns home, your expectation would be to maintain mutually respectful and friendly relations by keeping your household in order, while your neighbor does the same.

You would expect your neighbor to keep his side of the fence in a presentable way as you do to yours, and you would expect his children to respect the fence and not try to jump over and run roughshod all over your yard to swim in the pool or jump on the trampoline without your permission. You would expect your neighbor to have taught his children to respect property belonging to others, as your next-door neighbor is known for his own rule of immediately prosecuting any child caught trespassing on his own property, no questions asked. Even your own kids can expect this treatment from the neighbor.  

Despite your own expectation that no neighborhood children may trespass and use the equipment in your yard without your own exclusive permission, your next door neighbor’s children have managed to continually jump the fence and use your yard as their own personal playground. They have not asked your permission, and they know that they are doing something they are not supposed to, but it seems not to matter to them. They do not seem to think it is wrong to trespass in your yard, even though it would be bad for your children to trespass in their yard.

Although the neighbor’s children are very good at making themselves “disappear” every time you happen to show your face, they leave things either damaged or in a complete mess. They have no respect for your property as they are only there to satisfy their need for fun.

As luck would have it, every now and then, you just happen to “catch” one of your neighbor’s children in the act of trespassing without permission. You return the child to his parents, who scold the offending child in front of you. Then he informs you that his child is in a lot of trouble and will be disciplined for breaching your property, after which he apologizes for the incident. He promises no more transgressions. No hard feelings between either of you. This is what you would expect of your neighbor in such circumstances.

What you do not know, however, is that your neighbor closed the door behind you, and then laughed out loud with his family at how gullible you are! That scolding was for show only, and the only punishment that the children are going to get is from you when they are again caught running rampant in your yard without your permission.

Regardless of the fact you have made clear that continual transgression by the neighbor’s children will eventually result in their being prosecuted if they keep violating your property, you have somehow become a bit lax on actually following through with your threat of punishing the neighbor’s children when they are caught in your yard again.

You understand that these transgressions and damage to your own property will only stop after you finally act on your threat. However, your spouse has opposed taking such action against the next-door neighbors, on account of the children being less fortunate than ours and only wanting to experience the fun that your own children take for granted. Every time you catch one of the neighbor’s kids in the act and start to call the police, your spouse takes the phone away from you and then screams at you with threats of tearing the family apart and cleaning your bank account out if you follow-through.  So, in order to keep peace in your own home, you sigh, take the kid by the arm, and drag them back to your neighbor’s house, where the head of that household will feign anger and “apologize” to you again.

So the cycle continues unabated.

One day, your children become upset with you for not doing anything about the intrusive neighbor kids always coming into their yard and taking over their pool and trampoline. They beg you to call the cops, and while you are sympathetic to them, you keep quiet and actually do nothing, because your spouse has told you she does not want you to do this. After all, having the kids sneak into your yard is not doing much harm, and it is helping them build their own self esteem by equalizing the use of your yard between your kids (the haves) and the neighbor’s kids (the have-nots).

When the kids realize nothing is ever going to be done by your spouse and you to enforce your own household rules...Read Full Article Here

When 70% of Arizona voters passed the new state law to curb illegal, undocumented immigrants, a firestorm was launched by the usual suspects from radical American liberals across the “progressive” political spectrum and in the liberal mainstream media (MSM). 

Since the SB1070 immigration bill was signed into law by Gov. Jan Brewer, shrill accusations of Arizona becoming a Nazi police state have run rampant in all the left-wing circles, who have gone so far as to orchestrate a national and international boycott against all things Arizonan. And this time, they have enlisted “armies” of Hispanic special interest groups and illegal aliens to assist them in threatening Arizona citizens with promises of economic chaos and further violence unless the law is repealed and unconditional amnesty is granted. It is the equivalent of blackmailing to get money for nothing.

Outraged that this law will actually crack down on those who are literally breaking the law, the liberal minority, with their MSM allies, have managed to take control of the national conversation on this issue. They shout-down those who are trying to explain the out-of-control crime wave being committed by illegal aliens in the state and the extremely dangerous drug war raging just over the border fence. They accuse anyone who voted in favor of the bill or voice support for the bill as “racists” and hurl vitriolic insults to defame anyone who openly disagree with their agenda. When it comes to tar and feathering opponents, “progressives” (liberals) are experts.

The MSM have made sure that little-to-no mention is made of the fact that Phoenix now carries the dubious “honor” of being the #1 kidnapping capital of the nation, complete with beheadings and limb amputations. This problem for Arizona and Phoenix is a direct result from its geographical location as a major gateway hub for the Mexican cartels drug smuggling into the U.S. market.  Yet it is downplayed in traditional media circles.

The MSM, acting in lockstep with their liberal friends in the White House and Congress make very little mention of how American ranchers, several of whom live in isolated stretches of land adjacent to the border,  are often targeted by undocumented aliens for harassment, vandalism of property, robbed, and threatened. Even the recent murder of an American rancher by an illegal alien that...(read full article here)

 

 And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.

 Whether Ghandi knowingly cited the Klein address or said the statement exactly as it is often quoted is not really all that important. What is important, however, is the absolute truth that this famous quote holds. With our vantage point on history, we can see how this statement seems to have correlated to those events in which Ghandi led a non-violent resistance to the British, passing through each of these phases to India’s eventual victory in securing its ultimate goal as an independent, sovereign nation. 

So, how does a quote, coined almost 100 years ago by a garment trade union and associated with a national independence movement against the British Empire apply to the state of affairs in Obama’s America today? 

The answer is very simple; the Obama regime and his liberal allies, acting against the will of the American people in a reckless power grab, coupled with destructive legislation that guarantees financial enslavement to our posterity, is proving to be the most arrogant, corrupt administration in our history. Their ignorance of what the overwhelming majority of Americans actually want, and their willingness to simply ignore the electorate to ram a new socialist world order down our collective throats  is giving rise to a scale of distrust in the federal government not seen since at least the early 1990s, and more likely, the early 1860s. 

Despite this, there is a silver lining for conservatives, independents and the vast majority of Americans who are center-right in their politics. By their very actions, the leftists now running this country have taken off their masks, showing their true colors to the world. The voters now see Obama’s obvious desire of turning America into a socialist, second-class nation and that his regime has a preference of using totalitarian methods to attain their goals. The ends justify the means, after all. 

Every action Obama takes, from forcing an unwanted, extremely unpopular and economically destructive socialized health-care bill through a Democrat-controlled, rubber stamp Congress, to his aggressive, Chicago-style thug tactics of taking over private sector businesses such as General Motors, Wall Street banks, to his decision of simply doing an “end-around” the Senate to avoid the legislative process by ordering the E.P.A. to dictate a command-and-control seizure of the private sector to force devastating reductions on carbon emissions,  are all indicative of the “progressive”-liberal Democrats’ total contempt for the American people. 

No different than any other totalitarian, banana republic dictatorship, the Obama regime forces upon an unwilling population its “change you can believe in” socialist policies through a campaign of misinformation, deceit and non-transparent , backroom deals. Like totalitarians everywhere, they tell the citizens one thing, then do the exact opposite of what they promised, and then tell the people to believe what he is telling them, not what they are actually seeing, even if it defies their common sense. To quote Michigan Democrat Congressman John Dingell, this is the way the left can “control the people.” (read the full article here)

There is now an organized effort by the radical, George Soros-funded left wing "progressive movement" to literally infiltrate and destroy the Tea Party movement.

One site, called Crash the Tea Party, says the following on their so-called home page;

Who We Are: A nationwide network of Democrats, Republicans and Independents who are sick and tired of all that loose affiliation of racists, homophobes and morons; who constitute the fake grass-roots movement which calls itself "The Tea Party."

What We Want: To dismantle and demolish the Tea Party by any non-violent means necessary.

How We Will Succeed: By infiltrating the Tea Party itself! In an effort to propagate their pre-existing propensity for paranoia and suspicion...we have already sat quietly in their meetings, and observed their rallies.

Whenever possible, we will act on behalf of the Tea Party in ways which exaggerate their least appealing qualities (misspelled protest signs, wild claims in TV interviews, etc.) to further distance them from mainstream America and damage the public opinion of them. We will also use the inside information that we have gained in order to disrupt and derail their plans.

Sound like fun? It is!! If you'd like to join us, just click the word "crash" below...

This sounds just like the totalitarian tactics of radicals such as Saul Alinsky. It just proves the lying, liberal leftist hypocrites cannot tolerate any intelligent challenges to their ridiculous dreams of a socialist, Utopian left-wing communist paradise-on-Earth society.

However, this is not just one lone group, as the so-called Coffee Party USA , another left-wing...(read full article here)

On CBS’s The Early Show, an interview between Obama fan and morning anchor Harry Smith focused on the issue of how polarized the country has become as a result of Obama’s push for a government power-grab. Shortly after the interview was aired this morning, it was posted on their website under the title, Obama: Extreme Right-Wing Shows "Troublesome.”  The title demonstrates the “obvious and objective” balance of the story by the CBS news division. [Sarcasm ON] 

Reading through the article, the president seemed to be implying that it is “all sides” that are hurling “vitriol” to “demonize” the other side. This is a blatant attempt to fake a balance between the left and right, because Obama only cites Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh as the leading “agitators” who are creating an environment of “violence” toward the left. If it is a two-sided issue, the president strangely omitted any mention of the poisoned rhetoric from the left-wing “progressive” shows, such as Ed Schulz, or the vitriolic hate-filled rant against Scott Brown’s supporters as spewed by  leftist Atlanta radio host Michael Malloy as he calls all of them “sons-of-bitches” right on the air. 

In the Schultz-Hannity case, the reference is to a remark that Sean Hannity made during his book tour visit to the Ronald Reagan Library this past Monday. During the course of the conversation in front of a live audience while doing his show, Hannity made a tongue-in-cheek reference to the Tea Partiers and conservatives as a bunch of “Tim McVeigh wannabes.”  

We all know that Tim McVeigh was behind the atrocity of the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing that left 60 innocent people dead. Among the victims were several children who were in the building’s daycare center when the bomb exploded. We also know that Tim McVeigh was an extreme, far, far right-wing terrorist who thought that the U.S. government was not a legal entity and must be destroyed. In his own warped mind, McVeigh saw himself as a “soldier of freedom” when he committed this terrible crime. He was found guilty and later put to death for the murder of 60 innocents. 

Hannity’s remark, taken out of context by the radical left in an attempt to portray the conservative pundit of “agreeing” with the mainstream media that he and his “followers” in the Tea Party look to Tim McVeigh as some sort of “inspiration” and “martyr” for their movement can appear as “truth” to the casual voter who really does not pay attention. And the liberals of the mainstream media are masters of these types of deceptions and slander against all those who disagree with them.  But if you are a sensible, logical person who has been remotely near the planet over the past 12 months, you know that Hannity was making his remark in jest of how the liberal “progressives” in the media and the leftist blogosphere have been doing everything in their power to demonize the Tea Party movement as an extremist, terrorist, evil group of right-wing radicals hell-bent on the destruction of the Obama administration. Hannity was trying to laugh in the face of those who are attacking the millions of normal Americans who are incensed at the blatant, unconstitutional power grab by the left and are speaking out peacefully in protest, many for the first time in their lives. 

During his show, Schultz attacked Hannity as a McVeigh-worshiping extremist by taking the full substance of the remark out of context for his leftist audience. He invited callers to feign outrage at Hannity as a promoter of the “right-wing racist violence” that the Tea Party is “advocating.” He also seemed to be inviting his audience; all three of them, to call into the RNC headquarters to demand that they get their “extremists” under control. Schultz even seemed to speculate that it seemed hard to believe that Fox News would allow Hannity to remain on the air…  read full article here 

In the mid-1990s, I was living in Traverse City, Michigan, a beautiful resort town on the northwest side of the Lower Peninsula (the Mitten). It was during this time that I first heard of Rep. Bart Stupak, a Democrat who was running for re-election of our district in 1994. He won, but returned as a member of the minority Democrat party.

For the first time in decades, Republicans had won majorities in both the House and Senate. Suddenly, a stunned Democratic Party was not calling the shots, and Democratic President Bill Clinton had lost his “rubber-stamp” Congress. He now had to deal with a Republican majority.

The massive 1994 Republican victory of Congress was in part a backlash against the proposed socialized national health care package that then First Lady Hillary Clinton was trying to push through legislation. The Clinton White House and the Democrats at that time wanted to nationalize health care and create a single payer system, meaning the government would run everything. However, the electorate did not agree with the Clinton plan and were overwhelmingly against a move toward socialism. So their response in 1994 was to put Clinton into a position of having to deal with a now conservative Congress, which soon enacted The Contract with America and put an end to the entire health care fiasco.

It is ironic that it was during this time when I found myself represented by Stupak, a former Escanaba policeman, Michigan State trooper and attorney from Menominee, MI. Because northern Michigan’s population is sparse, Stupak’s district was huge, spanning the entire Upper Peninsula and the northern 1/3rd of the Lower Peninsula. In other words, Stupak’s home was geographically closer to Green Bay, Wisconsin at about 100 miles than he was to Traverse City at almost 250 miles.

Because of this distance, I did not ever see our Congressman during my time there. It did not bother me, since I am a Grand Rapids native and a Republican who voted for Stupak’s opponent anyway. But from my limited vantage point, Stupak liked to portray himself as a “centrist” Democrat who espoused family values and conservative fiscal principles. In other words, he was a “true moderate” Democrat. Since he was a Democrat, I considered Stupak to be your typical tax-and-spend liberal. Of course, this was still in the days when there was still a liberal Democratic Party and not the socialist/Marxist radical party of today, Democratic in name only. After two years, I moved back to Grand Rapids and pretty much forgot all about Rep. Bart Stupak and would not give him another thought for the next 14 years.

Then, in 2009, America did something extraordinary; it elected its first radical, extremist, Marxist President, Barak Hussein Obama. Additionally, both houses of Congress were once again ruled by the Democrats, this time with a supermajority. However, the Democratic Party had shifted radically leftward to the point where what was considered a liberal platform in 1994 now almost seemed moderately conservative by comparison.

Led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, both extreme leftists, the “rubber stamp” Congress was standing by, ready to introduce and pass their dreamed utopian socialist vision for America. They had waited nearly 50 years for their chance to take America into socialism and finally had all the stars lined up.

This turn of events was the direct result of voter dissatisfaction with the eight year presidency of George W. Bush. Liberals saw Bush as a “Nazi,” “warmonger,” “war criminal,” “dumb cowboy,” and initiator of a new “police state” with the Patriot Act. Conservatives were frustrated with Bush, seeing his expansion of the government as a slap in the face against the conservative principles of Ronald Reagan. Conservatives felt that Bush had abandoned his true conservative roots in order to court the leftists in Congress, who were never going to support Bush’s initiatives in the first place. Despite Bush’s success in keeping America safe from terrorism since the 9/11 attacks, he was ruthlessly attacked by the mainstream media. For better or worse, he had become the national villain.

It was into this environment that Obama stepped onto the stage. Offering lofty rhetoric promising “Hope” and “Change,” a majority of the American electorate believed they were seeing a man who would govern from the center and “restore” the nation to economic prosperity and a respected international standing. His election as the nation’s first bi-racial president was viewed by liberals that the country had tilted radically to the left. Pelosi, Reid, most Democrats in Congress, and Obama interpreted the election results as a mandate to proceed with his intended radical agenda to “change” America by turning it socialist. And topping that list was the liberal dream of pushing…read full article here

As the Democratic leadership continues to twist the arms of congressional Democratic holdouts in their quest to ram their unwanted, economic-ruining healthcare bill into law, there can be no doubt that we have crossed a threshold in which the highest elected “public servants”  of the nation are flirting with treason.
 

The current health care bill, which was introduced in, and barely passed the Senate late last year, is not palatable to most Americans. A Rasmussen poll taken this past Monday reflects this gap, with 43% favoring the current Health Care Plan while 53% of the electorate opposing Obamacare. These numbers leave no doubt as to where the vast majority of Americans stand on the issue. They understand this package is an unprecedented power grab for the government to take over one-sixth of the United States economy. The voters know a socialist rat when they see it, and they are telling their elected representatives to back off on this bill.
 

Yet as their constituents scream to be heard about their opinion on this issue, their elected Democratic “representatives” in Congress have completely turned a deaf ear on the voters.  With the exception of a few principled Democrats, such as Bart Stupak (D-MI), who will not vote to pass the current bill with its allowance of federally-funded abortions, almost every other Democrat member of the House are either going to vote for the current package or can be bribed or coerced into doing so. Still, as of this writing, they are about 11votes short of the 216 total votes they will need to send the bill to Obama’s desk for a signature.  


To their credit, the Republicans have listened to their constituents and are not going to cede a single vote in favor of the package. Since Republicans are in a minority position in both houses, there is not much they can do to stop the Democrats bill with exception of a filibuster when a revamped House bill is returned to be ratified in the Senate.


Under the requirements as stated in Article 1, Section 7 of the U.S. Constitution, this means the House and the Senate must both vote on, and pass a bill before it is sent to the President to be signed into law.  If the Democrats were to try the constitutional, and legal means of getting their bill passed, the House would be required to accept the bill from the Senate “as-is,” or they must rework the language of the Senate bill to adjust various pieces of language by adding or subtracting items that they dislike, then have an up-or-down vote to pass it in the House. Once passed, it would have to be returned to the Senate for ratification before going on to on to the President for a signature into law.  


Had this all happened in the year when the Democrats held their super majority in both houses of Congress, this would have been pretty simple to do. They would still have had to endure the contempt of the American people since they were enacting a law that is extremely unpopular with the electorate. From a purely constitutional, legal and procedural standpoint, however, they would have been within their bounds of passing the bill without a single Republican vote.


With the election of Scott Brown (R-MA) to fill the Senate seat vacated by the passing of Ted Kennedy, the Democrats lost their 60 seat super majority, or “filibuster-proof” position in the Senate. This has completely changed the situation on the ground because the Republicans can now stage a filibuster to indefinitely stall the bill from being brought to a vote on the floor of the Senate. And they have made clear that they will do so.


This leaves the Democrats with few options. They now have a bill from the Senate, which the House would have to vote to accept in its entirety before sending to President Obama for passage into law. This means no changes can be made to the current Senate bill. Either it passes or it does not, as-is.  If the bill does not pass, this would require the Democrats to scrap the current bill and force them to start over from scratch on a completely new healthcare bill.


The problem with the current bill is there are items in it of which neither side approves. Liberals are furious that the bill is not a full-scale, single-payer universal health care system, meaning one system, government-run, for all Americans, regardless of whether or not they...(read full article here)..
 

Casino Jack, a movie starring Kevin Spacey which takes pot shots at Jack Abramoff, is slated to hit the theaters, just months before the Republican superlobbyist's projected release from prison. Sadly, this movie is the latest in a vicious PR assault against Abramoff, who has been personally defamed for forestalling the march toward world government, effectively checking the disastrous policies of liberals, and empowering genuine Natives on Indian reservations at the expense of whites whom liberals have placed in tribes to manage tribal governments and casinos, which plow billions of dollars into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party.

Susan Schmidt, who originally broke the Abramoff scandal in the Washington Post, won a Pulitzer Prize for her coverage. However, how much of the work involved original reporting? A lobbyist, Tom Rodgers of Carlyle Consulting, has already taken credit for coordinating the tribal lobbyists (Abramoff's professional rivals) and Native-Americans (who perjured themselves in McCain's hearings without consequence) for her coverage and said that he essentially fed her the entire story. (read full article here)

ndian tribes were originally designed to be profit generators from which their creators could raise money for political candidates, trade victimization for votes, and generate revenue for their affiliated businesses.

At the turn of the 20^th century, when liberals looked upon Indians, they did not see a unique people whose indigenous societies should be protected. Instead, they saw dollar signs.

Nothing makes liberals as giddy as school girls than identifying a class of victims and then rushing in to save them. Luckily, these paternalistic do gooders have, for generations, enjoyed extensive political influence within the Department of Interior, which had jurisdiction over Indian tribes.

The nation's monopolists, particularly those working in the oil and automobile industries, had consolidated immense wealth and power through this federal agency which had granted their businesses land and mineral rights upon which they built the nation's most profitable enterprises, catapulting many of them into billionaire status.

Desperate for more capital, in the 1920's, the industrialists began to invest in Native rights organizations, which were not so much interested in tribal empowerment as they were in profiting off the backs of Indians. An avalanche of tax payer revenue was to be had by casting Native-Americas as victims, keeping them weak, and filing various grievances through the courts, which would allow attorneys to appeal for money on their behalf.

Indian tribes were then established to allow them to collect compensation for past grievances and develop businesses on sovereign Indian nations, which were squirreled away from the eyes of the federal government and exempt from state taxes. Within decades, instant wealth would descend upon reservations through litigation.

The biggest payday would come from land the federal government had stripped from the descendants of individuals recognized by the Department of Interior as genuine Indians.

Arguments would have to be cleverly worded since land ownership was not part of traditional tribal culture nor did the federal government have a material interest in compensating a vanquished people for their losses, despite legitimate moral arguments which would inform them otherwise. Determined to get their hands on federal dollars, a phalanx of liberal-backed attorneys and lobbyists were unleashed to make the case and pursue damages.

Their efforts culminated in an Indian Claims Commission, which established a judicial panel for Indians to appeal for redress for territory the federal government had wrestled from Indians. Over the span of 32 years, the ICC would award nearly $1.3 billion in judgments, providing the seed capital for casinos which would follow later.

Just as tribes were on the cusp of receiving their money from the ICC, President Lyndon B. Johnson waged a War on Poverty to improve the lives of individuals from lower socioeconomic classes. The federally funded legal services helped place a number of these individuals, many from industrial towns, into Indian tribes.

These newly minted Indians then made a beeline for Tribal Councils, which would eventually control the lucrative Native gaming businesses and began developing vast empires of wealth.

Once in power, the fictitious Indians signed on their relatives, friends, and other dispossessed people whom liberals were trying to save. By adding fictitious Indians onto the tribal membership rolls, the interlopers were often able to take over tribes, prevail in tribal elections, and govern in perpetuity.

Indians residing on federally recognized tribes were then faced with a new class of rich white masters who oppressed and robbed them while the liberals cheered on the results their good intentions have brought to Indian Country.

Sadly, Native-Americans are living lives of quiet desperation on their reservations while whites and other dispossessed poor non-Indians, who have lost industrial jobs to corporate restructuring brought on by global competition, brazenly help themselves to tribal dollars and engage in various criminal actions with impunity. In contrast, Indians who dare question or challenge the corruption on their reservations, can expect to find themselves harassed, disenrolled, and in extreme cases, incarcerated.

Adding insult to injury, the pseudo-Indians tan themselves red, don traditional Indian clothing, sometimes with head dresses, and whoop around tribal fires as if they were in a Disney theme park. Vacillating between amusement and outrage, genuine Natives, who actually trace to those historic tribes, shake their heads in disbelief and wonder if this is what liberals meant by progress?

In the meantime, waves of non-Indians, who have miraculously discovered their long lost tribal ancestry, are petitioning the federal government to help them acquire a casino too. Their liberal advocates are predictably making the same old, tired arguments of how these poor, distressed non-Indians should be compensated for historic wrongs with a billion dollar business and free federal entitlements, and that anyone who disagrees is a racist.

Before the federal government caters to moral blackmail at the hands of tribal victimologists, it should carefully evaluate the genealogies of the petitioners...(read full article here)

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” – Bill of Rights, Article 3, the Constitution of the United States of America (1791)

If you believe in the U.S. Constitution is at all valid, you would be adamantly opposed to the liberal monstrosity known as government-run health care, otherwise known as Obamacare, in all its current form. You would oppose it for any number of reasons that could potentially be cited as unconstitutional, such as the Tenth Amendment, which states “owers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” In other words, powers not delegated to the Federal government by the States shall remain with the States.

Yet in contradiction to the Tenth Amendment, Barack Obama is trying to dictate to the States and American citizens what they must accept from the Federal government rather than the other way around. Essentially, the president is turning the Tenth Amendment on its head by declaring that powers not delegated to the States by the Federal Government shall remain with the Federal Government.
While I am not a lawyer, nor consider myself an expert on U.S. Constitutional law, I am educated in politics, history and law. I have read, the U.S. Constitution, and I can think critically.  And my own critical thinking tells me that a constitutional jurist could shoot all kinds of holes into Obamacare, based just on Tenth Amendment alone, since the liberals in Congress are trying to force legislation upon the several States that will essentially take over one-sixth of the U.S. economy.

Because Obamacare will force you, under penalty of law, to be required to purchase health care, failure to do so could land you in prison.  Can you find anywhere in the Constitution where citizens are ordered to purchase insurance? Of course not, because there is no such law.

Since there is nothing in the entire document that makes it a law to force citizens to have to purchase anything from anyone, there is a high probability that the health care reform bill is in violation of the entire Constitution.

However, Obama, Pelosi and Reid don’t care, because liberals believe the Constitution is a “living document” to simply be molded to fit whatever issue or program is currently the fad of the liberal agenda.  It is a simple way to ignore that annoying Article Five, which provides the legal, constitutional instructions to Congress on what protocol and procedures must be followed to make subsequent amendments to the law of the land. By claiming the Constitution as a “living document,” liberals simply bypass the law, and the voters, to get what they want.

At least Obama, Pelosi and Reid, like all good-intentioned liberals, will stand by your constitutional rights as defined under the Bill of Rights. In fact, the political left has an entire legal and lobbying machine in the American Civil Liberties Union (A.C.L.U.), which, according to their website, “is our nation's guardian of liberty, working daily in courts, legislatures and communities to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties that the Constitution and laws of the United States guarantee everyone in this country.”  They will stand by anyone!

Well, almost anyone…(read full article here)

When Sarah Palin delivered the keynote speech at the T.E.A. Party’s first national convention in Nashville last Saturday, she touched on many of the Obama administration’s policies which were delivered on the empty rhetoric of the “Hope and Change” campaign he ran last year. As she addressed the enthusiastic crowd of delegates by citing all of the President’s promises for “change” in how Washington politics would become the most transparent in the history of the republic, while eliminating all partisanship that had “gridlocked” the Beltway for so long, Palin reminded the American people that Obama’s administration, coupled with Congressional Democrats holding a “super majority” in the House and Senate, had proved to be the most divisive, most partisan and least transparent governing political party in American history.

Touching on Obama’s other campaign mantra of “Hope” for all Americans seeking relief from “eight years of Bush,” along with all the promises of health care reform, no more tax increases for the “middle-class and working poor,” and “repairing America’s international reputation” with the “international community” by using sanctions and negotiations rather than military force to defeat terrorism, Palin highlighted how Obama’s so-called “stimulus-packages” and his governmental power grab of banks and auto companies had created the largest unchecked spending deficits for our nation since World War II. She pointed out the many failures of his foreign policy, such as the arrogant Obama belief that his own sheer presence and soaring oratory skills would bring all of America’s adversaries into a new world order of cooperation and peace for all. Palin pointed out that for all the unconditional negotiations that Obama asked for with dictators in Iran, North Korea, the Middle East and everywhere else, America has been rewarded with an Iran thumbing its nose at the U.S. and Israel while on the verge of becoming a full-fledged nuclear power. She listed the growing rhetoric against Obama and the United States by tin-pot dictators who are making demands of American submission on all levels. She cited Obama’s complete and utter failure in the war against terror by his administration’s refusal to treat the Islamist threat as a war instead of a police and lawyer action to appease weak European and militant Islamist desires by highlighting the major terrorist attacks and near misses on the American homeland since Obama’s ascendency to the presidency. She highlighted the fact that our adversaries view Obama as a weak president who can be manipulated, endangering our national security.

After reminding the delegates of all these empty promises and real failures, Palin made clear that the Obama Administration arrogantly hold middle America in total and utter contempt, disregarding the average American as not being “enlightened enough” to know what is best for themselves.

Having fixated her audience on this litany of issues, Sarah Palin asked all those American’s who bought into the Obama myth and drank his Kool-Aid, “How's that hopey-changey stuff working out for you?”

The message from Palin was clear that Americans are growing suspicious of the largest government growth in generations while they fear leaving their children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren with an insurmountable debt from which they may never recover. Americans want the government to quit spending money they don’t have, quit printing money by the trillions to finance the progressive’s never-ending appetite for a totalitarian nanny state, and to prioritize on the most urgent items, such as national defense.

The recent Democrat losses in Virginia and New Jersey, coupled with the election of Republican Scott Brown to the Senate seat in Massachusetts, recently vacated by Ted Kennedy’s death, clearly demonstrate the American people’s wariness of the government trying to socialize our free market system. There is no doubt that Brown’s campaign promise to be the “41st vote” against the Democrat’s government-run health care agenda was a resounding “NO” to the progressive dream of socialist utopia in America. Palin was firing a shot across the Democrat’s bow, warning them not to ignore the current contentious mood of the country.
Rather than heeding the warning, the progressive-liberals and their lefty friends of most of the mainstream media reacted to Palin’s speech, Brown’s win and the T.E.A. Party convention in the only way they know how; they went into their attack, slander and libel mode using their infamous playbook, Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals. Their favorite rule, “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” is the weapon they immediately gun for to attack members of the opposition that they truly fear.

When it comes to bitter, condescending liberals, attacks on those with whom they disagree are never simple criticisms about policy or issues. Bitter, condescending liberals start to attack their opponents to wholly destroy that individual. Ignoring the message sent to them by the voters, and despite their own failures to do what they promised, the progressives and bitter, condescending liberal elitists intend to continue focusing the blame on George W. Bush and conservatives in general, while they work to totally and personally destroy Sarah Palin and Scott Brown.

In Palin’s case, the extreme, bitter and angry progressive-liberals have been on the warpath since the day she was selected as McCain’s vice-presidential candidate. During the campaign, the self-proclaimed “enlightened intellectuals” of the media attempted to portray Palin as not being intellectual enough for the VP role. East coast media elitists such as Katie Couric tried to make Palin out to be an “unread” individual and “simpleton redneck mayor” from a “small town in Alaska, not even worth mentioning.” The liberal elites of the Hollywood set, with their allies in the mainstream press were relentless in their lowball tactics of trying to find dirt of any kind they could throw in the face of Palin. When they could not, they would turn up the heat in their attacks of her own family values, beliefs and opinions. They resorted to attacking her family, including her children in their attempt to ruin the Alaskan governor.

Since the T.E.A. Party convention, Sarah Palin was immediately the target of further attacks. As she gestured with her arms during her speech, the camera picked up a few lines of notes she had inked onto the palm of her left hand. The note simply said, "energy", "budget cuts", "tax" and "lift Americans' spirits", while the word "budget" had been crossed out.

The rabid left went after her use of “crib notes” as an indication of her “ignorance” and her “lack of intellectual enlightenment.” For example, The New York Times printed a monologue from Jimmy Kimmel, who mocks Palin for having a few notes written on her hand when she makes remarks about Obama’s over dependency on his teleprompter. But his “fun” doesn’t stop at poking a little fun about Palin’s inked hand. He continues with a personal attack, saying, “Maybe Sarah Palin would be smarter if she had bigger hands.” Then he went on to explain that it was a “calculated move” on her part, in order to promote a non-existent book about killing and cooking moose.

While Kimmel’s attack is a comedic monologue, the personal attack is relatively mild and not totally unexpected by a late night television comedian. However, when the attacks continue all the way to the President’s team itself, a line has been crossed. In this case, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs tried to make fun of Palin in an immature fashion by inking a fake “grocery list” on his left palm during a regular press conference to take a direct shot at Palin. Rather than hurting Palin, Gibbs childish attempt at humor sent a message that even the White House itself is not above the fray of participating in personal shots at the former Alaskan governor.

These two examples, while petty and personal at the same time, paled in comparison to the continued verbal assault against Palin by a slew of extremist, bitter liberals. On a recent airing of The Joy Behar Show, bitter, condescending feminist liberal Eve Ensler, an American playwright, performer and activist who is best known for her play The Vagina Monologues was responding to the host’s question of what she thought of Sarah Palin, especially what Ensler thought of Palin’s world view, beliefs and the prospects of Palin’s political future:

BEHAR: Back with me is a woman who has done more for the vagina than the Brazilian wax - the talented Eve Ensler," Behar said. "You know, I must talk about Sarah Palin quickly with you because you do mention her in one monologue in the book. And you say a woman running for U.S. vice president believes in creationism but not global warming. What were you driving at there? May I ask?

ENSLER: Well, I just think the idea that she doesn't believe in global warming is bizarre.

BEHAR: Every scientist at every note believes in it but Sarah Palin doesn't believe in it.

ENSLER: And I think we just kind of have to walk around the world at this point and look at what is happening to nature and earthquakes and tsunamis.

BEHAR: Right.

ENSLER: And weather changes to just feel it. But I think that idea that she doesn't believe in global warming and she could actually run for vice president, and we have a country where that is possible, it seems insane.

BEHAR: It's unbelievable. It does seem insane and the fact that she has not negated the possibility of running in 2012.

ENSLER: But we have. We have negated the possibility of her winning.

While these two bitter, condescending liberal feminists continued demonstrating their sheer stupidity of what causes earthquakes while tossing insults at Palin, the circus of extremely bitter, liberal pundits at last-place cable network MSNBC were in full swing with their daily dose of vitriolic, defamatory and immature insults against Sarah Palin. Last Monday, on his low-rated show, Hardball, Chris Matthews went on a rant against Palin, suggesting that she is a brainless “palm reader” who only appeals to “mindless TEA Party robots.” Said Matthews:

Can a palm reader be president? What do we think of kids in school who write stuff on their hands to get through a test? What do we think of a would-be political leader who does it to look like she`s speaking without notes? What do we think of Sarah Palin this weekend answering pre-screened questions from a like-minded audience in Nashville, a tea party convention, and still having to put a cheat sheet on her palm to answer what she calls the basics of her beliefs? How can someone presume to be auditioning for president when they can`t even answer questions they know are coming?

Not to be outdone, Keith Olbermann, another completely insane, bitter, angry, condescending and utterly clueless colleague of Matthews who also hosts another low-rated MSNBC rant disguised as a political opinion program threw his vitriolic remarks into the fray by declaring that conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin are trying to kill us all by misinforming the public about the dangers of global warming.

While the Countdown host and his guest discussed how the record snowfalls along the East Coast have given conservatives ammunition to shoot all kinds of holes into so-called “man-made global warming,” Olbermann decided to show just how uninformed and hopelessly stupid he really is when he said, "[L]ife on earth is going to be threatened because the people who recognized and warned about climate change did not just go with that phrase, climate change, and instead chose global warming, opening this opportunity up for Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin to kill us all." He also referred to Glenn Beck and Wall Street by accusing them, along with Palin, Limbaugh and the whole conservative movement, of using their vast wealth to “trick” their listeners into voting for people that do not support the global warming crowd. In this, Keith Olbermann was making reference to how absolutely mindless anyone who is not in lockstep with his leftist, radical, angry belief system is an idiot who cannot think for themselves and therefore can be controlled via conservative talk radio. Unsurprisingly, Olbermann never once refers to the evidence of man-made climate change being exposed as the scam it truly is in the recent ClimateGate scandal as being a possible reason why the majority of Americans do not buy into the fraud of “man-made global warming.” When you’re a bitter, condescending, angry liberal elitist who knows what’s best for everyone else, why would you let something simple like the facts get in the way?

While Palin is a favorite target of the extreme leftist progressives in the mainstream media and the political world, there are others who are in the crosshairs of the liberal slander and libel machine. For example, Republican Senator Scott Brown, who overwhelmingly won the Senate seat in Massachusetts for the Republicans, has been chastised by certain members of the left-wing media who were absolutely convinced that Democrat Martha Coakley would simply be “coronated” into the “Kennedy Family seat.” However, Brown’s victory of the “People’s seat” in extremely liberal Massachusetts have left members of the bitter, condescending liberal elites extremely angry with the voters.

Democrat carpetbagger Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island, son of the late Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, recently lashed out at Brown’s victory, saying that Scott Brown’s win in Massachusetts has been “way overblown.” Trying to downplay the win by disputed the assertion that voters in Massachusetts’ are very liberal, Kennedy continued with the put down.

“This whole notion that it’s a liberal state -- how many Republicans do I have to mention who got elected up there?” Kennedy said, citing Republican governors such as Mitt Romney, Paul Cellucci and William Weld. “This is way overblown. Bottom line is, it just served a lot of people’s political interests to spin this story the way they wanted it.”

While Mr. Kennedy demonstrated what a spoiled bunch of losers the Kennedy Democrats are while mourning the decline and fall of the “Kennedy Political Dynasty,” Keith Olbermann was again spitting out vitriolic and slanderous insults at Scott Brown. During his Quick Comment segment on the night of the Massachusetts special election, the Countdown host, who ranks last in ratings during his time slot, went into a foaming, rabid tirade:

We stay with the Massachusetts special Senate election for tonight’s first "Quick Comment." Here’s the real take away from the election of Scott Brown: If the far right disagrees with it, it’s a lie. The latest is from an assistant editorial page editor at the Dallas Morning News named Michael Landauer who writes that I, quote, "smeared Brown all night sort of correcting the record in one rant, dismissing the responses to lies he had told earlier, and coming back with more name-calling." Mr. Landauer is writing on the Internet, and, thus, in theory, has an infinite amount of space and time to fill. That was it – no refutations, no specifics, just the word "lies," as if designating them were Mr. Landauer’s exclusive right.

I said Mr. Brown was irresponsible. Specifically, he swore at a hall full of high school students in 2007. Last night, he paraded his daughters out and told the nation they were, quote, "available."

I said Mr. Brown was homophobic. Specifically, in 2001, he said that two women having a baby together was, quote, "not normal," and, in 2007, he voted for a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage.

I said Mr. Brown was racist. Specifically, in September 2008, a fellow guest in a TV interview noted Barack Obama’s mother was married when he was born. Mr. Brown returned to the oldest racial stereotype of them all when he said, quote, "Well, I don’t know about that, huh, huh."

I said Mr. Brown was reactionary. Specifically, that is defined as "extreme conservatism, opposing political or social change."

I said Mr. Brown was an ex-nude model – specifically, in the June 1982 issue of Cosmopolitan magazine.

I said Mr. Brown was sexist. Specifically, nine years ago, he said a woman Massachusetts state senator had, quote, "alleged family responsibilities."

I said Mr. Brown was tea bagging. Specifically, as recently as the 2nd of this month, Mr. Brown was the star of a fund-raiser with the Greater Boston Tea Party Group at Westborough Mass.

Then I said Mr. Brown was a supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees. Specifically, this past Sunday, when a man at a Brown rally shouted they should, quote, "shove a curling iron up Martha Coakley’s butt," Brown responded by answering, "We can do this." Or, if that remark was unconnected to the shout, he never refuted, condemned, nor disassociated himself from the call to violence and even sexual assault. Scott Brown is an "irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, sexist, ex-nude model, tea bagging, supporter of violence against women and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

And all the rabid right-wing howling about that only helps prove it. The response to lies is to offer the truth. The response to truths you don’t like is to simply call them "lies."

There are just way too many instances of the bitter, condescending liberal personal attacks against all those with whom they disagree to mention in this article. It would take an entire book to detail the full, complete arrogance and utter contempt that the progressive left hold against the vast majority of the American people. It is a book I am seriously considering writing.

It would be nice to see the radicals of the political left try to engage in political debates and disagreements in a civilized manner instead of trying to destroy the lives of those with whom they disagree. However, with every vitriolic slam the bitter, condescending liberal progressives make against the likes of Sarah Palin and Scott Brown, the stronger and more appealing the latter become to the vast majority of the American electorate.

Condescending, bitter liberal progressives would do well to heed the real message being sent in the recent elections of those opposing their agenda. They would be wise to start listening to the people who elected them to public office and to whom they are supposed to serve, rather than hold in contempt.

Should they stay the course, it is going to be a very bad election cycle for the progressives, culminating in a really bad hangover the first Wednesday in November.

Sources:
1. Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1963564,00.html
2. Time Magazine: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1960726,00.html
3. New York Times: http://laughlines.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/10/a-calculated-move/
4. YouTube/AP News: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EdPS1eua_9c
5. News Busters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/jeff-poor/2010/02/09/brilliant-vagina-monologues-creator-tells-palin-look-earthquakes-and-tsun
6. News Busters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/08/matthews-attacks-sarah-palm-reader-palin-she-balloon-head
7. News Busters: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/02/11/olbermann-limbaugh-and-palin-trying-kill-us-all-global-warming-skepti
8. The American Spectator: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/02/08/the-kennedy-joke
9. Rules for Radicals: http://vcn.bc.ca/citizens-handbook/rules.html
10. The Conservative Camp: http://conservativecamp.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=36935:climate-change-fraud-exposed&catid=143:robert-ditmar&Itemid=128

At a news conference immediately following this visit, a reporter asked Quayle, "How do YOU spell potato?" Caught off guard by the reporter's question, Quayle displayed puzzlement in his face, at which all the journalists present laughed. Until that moment, the Vice President had not given a second thought to the incident at the blackboard, since all he had done was read off a flash card prepared by someone prior to his arrival. For the remainder of 1992, almost every single day until the election, the media networks and liberal press continually replayed this gaffe, omitting enough of the facts to make sure that Dan Quayle would be seen as a "dummy who cannot spell" and an "unintelligent, under-educated" man, not worthy of being only "one heartbeat away from the Oval Office." They did everything they could do to make sure that Quayle would become a "liability" to bring down the incumbent President, George H.W. Bush.

Remember when George W. Bush used the term "Grecian" instead of the proper noun, "Greek" as he was first running for President back in 2000? At that time, just about every far left elitist and practically everyone in the liberal mainstream media went into overdrive, mocking candidate Bush's gaffe by hurling invective statements about "W's" total lack of intelligence. From Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann to the "journalists" of the three major networks, the misnomer was "proof" that "W" was a "stupid idiot" who would not be able to ascend to the highest office in the land because he lacked the necessary, elitist-vetted "intellectualism" that can only be approved by liberals. Over the subsequent eight years, not to mention one year into Obama's term, the vitriolic, left-wing, "progressive" media never  ceased putting every single verbal gaffe or mispronunciation made by Bush under a high-powered microscope. They made sure everyone knew about any misstatement President Bush made and then took most gaffes out of context in order to portray him as an "air-headed bumbling idiot."

Fast forward to the Presidential campaign in 2008, when then-presidential candidate Barack Obama was at an Oregon campaign rally. During his teleprompter speech, he said, "It is wonderful to be back in Oregon. Over the last 15 months, we’ve traveled to every corner of the United States. I’ve now been in 57 states? I think one left to go. Alaska and Hawaii, I was not allowed to go to even though I really wanted to visit, but my staff would not justify it." The Los Angeles Times lead the way for the mainstream media to excuse their candidate's gaffe, by explaining; 

Two months into his new Presidency, Obama appeared on The Tonight Show and got into a discussion about how bowling is not really his greatest sport. When asked about his score in a recent game, the President mentioned that he had scored a 129.

"That's very good, Mr. President," Leno said sarcastically.

It's "like the Special Olympics or something," the president said.

The following morning, the pro-Obama mainstream media began to immediately run cover for their man, Barack Obama, essentially doing damage control for the President. On Good Morning America, Tim Shriver, Chairman of the Special Olympics, was invited to share the exchange that he had with President Obama, who had personally called to apologize for his remark the previous night.

"He expressed his disappointment and he apologized," Shriver said. "He expressed that he did not intend to humiliate this population, certainly didn't want to embarrass or give anybody any more reason for pain or just suffering I would say. He was very sincere, expressed an interest and an openness in being more engaged in the movement, and said he was a fan of the movement and I think importantly he said he was ready to have some of our athletes over to the White House to bowl or play basketball or help him improve his score." Soon after, the mainstream media either buried the story or dropped it altogether, confident that they had helped their guy in the White House dodge a public-relations disaster. Within a matter of weeks, no one at the three main networks nor their colleagues at MSNBC, CNN or The New York Times were referring to the incident at all. It was almost as though it had never happened.

One month later, when the comment to Leno had been "erased" from the public memory by the press, Obama was doing a news conference in Europe, and said, " It was also interesting to see that political interaction in Europe is not that different from the United States Senate. There’s a lot of — I don’t know what the term is in Austrian — wheeling and dealing — and, you know, people are pursuing their interests, and everybody has their own particular issues and their own particular politics." Do you remember that?

Probably not, because other than Fox News and the independent and conservative blogosphere, not one other mainstream media network or paper made any reference to this gaffe, despite the fact that is was very comparable to Bush's "Grecian" misstatement. Of course, when Bush made that gaffe, the same pro-Obama press circled the "W" like vultures and milked the "Grecian" mistake for all it was worth. Had Sarah Plain, or for that matter, even newly-elected Scott Brown made such an error, the leftist mainstream media would make sure that their gaffes were the leading story of the day, to be followed by a flurry of "round-table discussions" about their ability to lead.

Which brings us to the latest gaffe by the big guy in the Oval Office.

On Thursday, President Obama spoke at the National Prayer Breakfast 2010. While addressing the audience, he made a reference to Navy corpsmen twice. However, he did not say "corpsmen" when he spoke. While there has been a brief mention of the gaffe on the mainsteam media networks, the story was buried under several other topics. This gaffe, which the left-wingers at the main press outlets such as NBC/MSNBC, CNN, Headline News, ABC, CBS, as well as the mainstream print press like the New York Times, chose to give scant attention to, has clearly shown just how much of a pro-liberal, pro-Obama, biased, nonobjective double-standard that today's "journalists" practice. Had this gaffe been made by George W. Bush, Dan Quayle, Sarah Palin or even Sen. Scott Brown, all Republicans and, for the most part, conservatives, there is no doubt that the mainstream media would have treated the American people to a daily barrage of the gaffe, whilst setting up the conservative in question to look either ill-informed, uneducated or just plain dumb in their attempt to humiliate the center-right.

The mainstream press finds itself in a crisis for its survival, as their audiences dwindle to just a few hundred thousand viewers per cable and news network, with the exception of Fox News. Only extreme, hard core, far left socialist-liberals  really watch the or believe the vitriolic hate that spews from the talking heads at MSNBC anymore. While Fox News continues to grow their audience and increase their ratings at an exploding rate, the other three cable networks combined cannot pull together an audience to match that of Fox. That is because Fox News is showing both sides of a story, with differing political viewpoints. And they do that without using all the obscenities or personal insults during their broadcasts.

Of course, the other networks and liberals will then try to label Fox News as extreme right wing, but that is because the leftist media has gone so far left and have crossed over the ethical line of not being objective, have literally dropped all pretenses of not being biased. This extreme shift to the political left means that anything that tries to cover the news from a middle perspective are demonized by liberals as "right wing extremists." Hence the reason that MSNBC absolutely hates Fox News and its huge ratings success.

Americans are not stupid, regardless of the contempt that the likes of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow hold for them. It is middle America that sees the double-standard that the left-leaning mainstream media play in order to favor liberals and Democrats while portraying conservatives, independents and Republicans in the worst light possible. Middle America, meaning the vast majority of everyday Americans, understand that when Olbermann directs his hate-filled, mean-spirited, angry vitriol by hurling obscenities or assigning downgrading labels at all conservatives, Republicans or anyone not in agreement with his agenda, it is they who he is attacking. That is why the vast majority of Americans, who are more center or conservative in their politics, are heading to Fox News, talk radio and the Internet for their news, and why the newspapers and mainstream electronic media are rapidly dying off. They totally understand that the self-proclaimed intellectual elitists sitting in their MSNBC anchor seats to pontificate their superiority do not actually respect normal America.

While it would be nice to see the mainstream media finally accept that it is they who are so out of touch with middle America and then come back to the center to deliver the news, it is highly unlikely to happen. They will continue their self-immolation and destruction by remaining radically to the left and out of touch with the majority of us.

Which brings us to an interesting question; will the mainstream media do its job and give Obama's gaffes the same type of scrutiny that they put former President Bush under? If I were a gambling man, I would fold because this is never going to happen. So I will not hold my breath to wait for sanity to return to mainstream journalism.

I would advise all Navy "Corpse-men" everywhere to not wait around for the mainstream media to come around. Because Hell will have frozen over by the time they do.

Sources:

1. http://www.capitalcentury.com/1992.html

2. http://usconservatives.about.com/b/2009/07/20/top-10-obama-gaffes.htm

3. http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/05/barack-obama-wa.html

4. http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/03/president-ob-15.html

5. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/tom-blumer/2009/04/06/if-obama-believes-austrian-language-so-will-ap