Obaman Socialism

Barack Hussein Obama has proven himself to be the Socialist that we all knew he was, and John McCain is finally saying so -- hopefully not too late.

Obama talks of spreading the wealth and making things more fair. If that isn't Socialism, then I don't know what is. Why anyone can defend him on this, and actually think that this is a good idea, is beyond explanation.

The real issue is that too many Americans are scared, nervous or concerned, and they can only look to the government to solve their problems or to at least make them feel better about their problems. And somehow they truly think that they government is going to make them feel better.

Hollyweird Liberal Fascist Wackos

The Emmy Awards were on TV last night -- for all 36 of you that watched it. I saw about 1 minute of it and turned it off. By all accounts, it was an awful show. And naturally, the Hollyweirdos, in an election season, showed why they are such a disgrace. All I need to do is remind them of the funeral/political rally for the Minnesota Democrat who died in the plane crash a few years ago. His funeral turned into a Bush-bashing, Republican-bashing contest, and his successor as the Dem. Senate candidate for Minnesota ended up losing the election in what had been an incumbent seat.

The same thing will happen with the Dems over their endless and tireless bashing of Palin, McCain and the Republicans. People are so sick of their crap and their so-called funny jokes. People don't think they are funny and they can see through their shallowness and phoniness. All this does is galvanize the conservatives.

Laura Linney, who went to my college, which frankly explains everything if you know anything about Brown, claims that "community organizers" founded this country -- referring to Barack Obama's self-proclaimed "experience." No one is disparaging Osama's (I mean, Obama's) work in the community -- but we can disparage it all day long as to the merits of his work as qualifying him for the Presidency of the United States. He can "community organize" all day long, and he can rightfully earn some accolades for that, but he sure as hell doesn't deserve to be President for that.

And for all these so-called Intellectual Elites, who continue to disparage Gov. Sarah Palin, I can assure you this -- it will blow up in their face, and I hope it does, big, loud and nasty. They deserve nothing less.

The disgrace that is the Democratic party

If ever there was an example of total and utter disgrace, it is the Democratic party. They have completely gone overboard in their hateful hyperbole towards conservatives, especially Gov. Sarah Palin. The other day, a congresswoman said that the only qualification Gov. Palin had was that she had not had an abortion. What a complete outrage.

The bigger issue here is that the Dems, the "Femi-Nazis," and liberals in general, are completely threatened by Gov. Palin. They have not seen the likes of her in years. Everything that they supposedly stand for is represented by Gov. Palin, but unfortunately for them, she is a Republican. Liberals talk all they can about empowering women, and breaking the glass ceiling, and women's strengths and women being able to work and raise a family, and blah, blah, blah. And one of the finally shows up, it is a Republican woman who has all of these characteristics.

The Femi-Nazis are besides themselves. They can't stand that this is happening to them. It proves that their motives are strictly self-serving, have no real basis or purpose in life, and all is simply done for show.

As much as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are race pimps or hustlers, the NOW Gang is nothing but a bunch of feminism pimps or hustlers. The more they rant and chant and rave, the more they slip into the sewer -- the gutter of complete irrelevancy. The more the liberals complain about Gov. Palin and her experience and family and other matters, the more they expose themselves for what they have become -- complete FRAUDS.

Why is it that the Dems sent 30 (THIRTY) lawyers to fan out across Alaska? One reason: to dig up all the dirt they could find or manufacture about Gov. Palin. Did the Republicans send in 30 lawyers to Chicago to sneak around looking for Obama factoids? No. Of course, since most of his dirty laundry is already out there -- and it is really very dirty (but not exposed much by the liberal media) -- there was not a whole lot of snooping needed.

I wish someone would explain to me why they think that a Fascist, Socialist, Marxist, quasi-Communist, totally inexperienced, most-liberal-in-the-Senate, "community organizer" junior Senator from Illinois should be the leader of the free world. What sense does this make? There is simply no explanation, no plausible reason, no logic at all to explain how the Dems came up with just about the worst choice they could have made, other than selecting Saul Alinsky, were he not dead.

EXPERIENCE vs. experience

Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is an outstanding choice for the Republican VP Nominee: my prediction is that she'll be President in four years. She is a spectacular candidate and she just clinched the election for McCain.

Of course, the know-nothing Democrats slammed her "lack of experience" and claimed that the issue of "experience" is now off the table. Allow me to squash their lunacy:

1. By simply suggesting that the "experience" issue is off the table, the Dems are admitting that Osama (I mean Obama) is not qualified. By proposing that experience is no longer vital, then they obviously know that Obama has no experience. They would not want it off the table if it was a positive factor for him.

2. Sarah Palin is not running for President, but Vice President, whereas Obama is running for President. Obama's lack of experience is far more relevant than her alleged lack of experience by virtue of the position each is running for. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison.

3. Even if you did compare Obama's and Palin's experience, she has far more than he does, anyway. One month of being Governor is far more relevant than one year of being a Senator. Governors make executive decisions each day. Senators make no executive decisions each day. They campaign, rather than lead, and they focus on a few specific issues rather than a broad spectrum of issues for that particular state.

4. In fact, Palin is so far more experienced compared to Obama, that Palin herself is far more qualified to be President than Obama.

5. Dems ripped her lack of foreign policy experience; yes, she does not have any foreign policy experience, but neither does Obama. And no, his speeches in Europe or elsewhere are not relevant. Those were foreign campaign speeches, not foreign policy speeches. He has claimed that his living in Indonesia and his undergraduate degree in international relations qualify him for foreign policy matters! Are you kidding me? That is not worthy of foreign policy experience.

6. I suggest that Sarah Palin has the right kind of experience by virtue of her conservative approach and values, her corruption-bashing experience, and her overall "balls," to confront every lunatic dictator far more than Obama does, again by virtue of her dealing with other matters in Alaska, which is far more than Obama can say.

Mercedes Marxists

The Democrats are all about the working man; sympathizing with their plight, and wallowing in the common sorrows of the "little man." Right? Meanwhile, the mean, old rich Republicans care nothing for the "working class" and therefore the Dems have to watch out for their interests. Yet at the Dem Convention, the "VIP" Democrats (that's a contradiction in terms, by the way) are being treated to the most lavish parties, with the greatest of culinary delights. They are renting out the luxury suites in the Pepsi Center and having gala events. The best chefs in the city are catering all sorts of fancy dinners, cocktail hours, etc. So much for their sympathizing with the little guys. Hypocrisy with a capital "H."

Meanwhile, Michelle Obama, the Annointed One's spouse (Mrs. Messiah), speaks last night at the Convention and promptly invokes Communist rhetoric. She quotes Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" in her speech, describing the "world as it is" and the "world as it should be." (Chapter 2 of the book.) If people aren't starting to get the idea that Obama is a closet fascist, Marxist, Communist, then I don't know what it is going to take. Try this: Obama worked under Jerry Kellman in Chicago's south side doing his "community activism." Kellman was a protege of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky and Kellman believed in radical socialism, redistribution of wealth, cradle-to-grave government control, and so on. When is it going to hit people in the head that we are thisclose to electing a Marxist/Communist to the presidency? I can't possibly believe that the U.S. is where it is at with the most liberal senator in Congress, and a running mate who is the third-most liberal senator in Congress.

Random updates

So Barack Obama has selected Joe Biden to be his running mate; Biden was the most critical of Obama during the early stages of the campaign, saying that he did not have anywhere near enough experience to be president. Now suddenly he does?

Columnist Ann Coulter made a brilliant observation about Obama, who recently declared that we should not define marriage with a Constitutional amendment since historically marriage has never been defined in the Constitution. That's interesting, she said, because the Constitution never defined slavery or involuntary servitude either until the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 banning slavery. By Obama's logic, she concluded, we should never have passed the 13th amendment because historically slavery had never been defined in the Constitution either. Obama is quite the scholar, isn't he!

A few weeks ago, Obama was asked by a 7-year-old girl in Elkhart, IN, why he is running for President. Instead of an upbeat, positive image, especially to a young girl, he said that America is not what it once was, and that he did not want this kind of America for his kids. What on Earth is he saying? How could he be so ungrateful for all the opportunity that has been given to him and the wealth that he has earned, and for the great opportunities for his kids? That could be the most despicable response he has ever made -- and there are lots to choose from.

Obama's "Plan" for Energy

Obama has decided that the best thing to do is to tax the so-called "windfall profits" of "Big Oil." That's a really brilliant idea. What about during the '80s, when oil & gas companies were losing their shirts, and laid off thousands of people, and lost billions of dollars? What about a "windfall subsidy" for them then? Obama wants to give $1,000 from the oil companies to every American. His opinion is "How dare those mean old oil companies charge so much for gas, when most Americans are trying to get to the movies to watch Hollywood films."

Who does Obama think gets hurt when you tax the profits, windfall or not, from oil companies? The CEOs? Nope. Many, if not most of the oil companies' employees own stock in their own companies, and most people own oil stocks in their mutual funds or stock portfolios. These same employees, roughly half of whom are Democratic, get paid bonuses from those profits. And then where's the money to reinvest in better ways to extract oil and gas, and to develop alternative energies? If the liberals care so much about this, why don't they turn their car keys in and use a bicycle to get everywhere?

Speaking of windfall profits, why not tax the Hollywood entertainers for their windfall profits? The new movie The Dark Knight is likely going to earn up to $500 million in domestic ticket sales, and the profits on that movie should be considered windfall, and rebated to the consumers from the producer's pocketbook. How dare they charge $10 per ticket, and expect Americans to be able to afford going to the movies anymore. I want $2 back for every ticket I bought this year so that I can pay for my bill for movie tickets, plus I want $1 back for the popcorn and drinks that I bought, that also created windfall profits for the move theater chains. How dare they charge $8 for popcorn, when hard-working Americans can't afford to put food on their table, or have to choose between medicine or their house payment.

If Obama had any common sense (he doesn't) he'd really think this through. Instead, he's just mouthing off things that sound good in the liberal media, and numskull dopes in the country who buy all this phony-baloney talk lock, stock and barrel.

Democrat Hypocrisy at their National Convention

Let's see; the Pepsi Center in Denver is the host of this year's DNC convention. It is one of the very best sports venues in the U.S., home to the Nuggets and Avalanche. The DNC has decided that while they chose the building and city for the convention, it is not good enough for them as it is. They are going to rip out most of the luxury boxes' interiors, bring in their own lighting, wiring, and other utilities, and when the convention is all over, take it all out and remodel the boxes back to their original design.

So for the so-called "green" party and those proclaiming global warming and energy conservation, they are making a mockery of that by engaging in this lunacy. Think of all the energy required to make this happen, all the wasted resources, all the extra manpower and transportation of the materials for this lark. I guess they can buy their carbon offsets to make it all "OK." And after all this, they are going to have the final night at Denver's Invesco Field, outdoors. What a total sham.

What's even more hypocritical is that the Pepsi Center is owned by an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune, Stan Kronke. So for the party that constantly bashes Wal-Mart for everything they can think of, it sure is interesting that they are paying to use his facility. Shouldn't the convention be held at down at the wharf in Long Beach or something?

Speaking of Denver, what a total disgrace the black singer Rene Marie was at the mayor's State of the City address last week. Instead of singing the National Anthem like she was supposed to, she sang the so-called "Black National Anthem" instead. Of all the self-centered, egotistical things I have seen, that is one of the worst. She directly violated the specific agreement she had so that she could flaunt her own agenda. She should be barred forever from appearing in Colorado for any reason.

But what is almost as bad is that no one in the mayor's staff on the stage did anything to stop it. They are also disgraceful in their own right.

Feelings vs. Common Sense

Neal Boortz, the Atlanta-based conservative radio host, recently gave the commencement address at Texas A&M University. His speech probably took many by surprise, as he proceeded to make dramatic comparisons between the phoniness of liberalism vs. the "factualness" of conservatism. He also bashed the liberal faculty, and all of their hypocrisy, including their group mentality, rather than their individualism.

His most important points to the graduates had to with the basic differences between liberalism (fascism, socialism, Marxism) and conservatism. First, liberalism is based on feelings vs. conservatism is based on thinking. Liberalism is about emotions and intentions whereas conservatism is about facts and common sense.

Furthermore, liberalism is about group identities, such as Rich, Poor, Blacks, Less Fortunate, etc., while conservatism is about individual identities, period. In college, the students learned about group behavior, but in the real world, it will be all about individual behavior.

He added that if the students have not changed to conservatism by age 30, then they should apply to be a teacher at a college, where they will fit right in with the liberal-fascist professors.

This goes right back to an earlier post about how impossible it is for the Democrats to unite the country; it is fundamentally against their philosophy to unite since they are all about groups. Meanwhile, Republicans talk about individualism, which is far more able to unite people, as they are all for the common goal of getting the government out of the way and letting people have the freedom to do what they want.

Current News Hypocrisy

I read the other day where San Francisco wants to name a sewage treatment plant in "honor" of President Bush. Well, since the plant is in San Francisco, and they want to put Bush's name on it, I think it would actually be appropriate because all of San Francisco is such a sewage dump, then for Bush to actually be able to clean it up (treat it), then that would be perfectly fine. Since the U.S. has enjoyed seven years of a strong economy, which has certainly benefited San Francisco, despite its best efforts to deter it with its liberal mandates on businesses, then it makes sense for Bush to be honored for cleaning up S.F.

In all seriousness, the treatment plant should be named the Willie Brown & Gavin Newsome Memorial Liberal Phoniness Sewage and Garbage Dump for the years of ever-growing insane liberal policies that they have thrown down the throats of the residents. Somebody stop me next time they find me heading to San Francisco.

Also, regarding the Second Amendment ruling on Thursday, what's the first thing the liberal, fascist mayor of D.C. had to say? "This will lead to an increase in handgun violence." Funny thing is, though, when the ban was enacted in 1976, the rate of handgun violence went UP, not down, as all of the so-called intelligent liberals thought would happen. So, as usual, it was just more of the same liberal nonsense talking points that people can't be trusted to protect themselves, and the nanny-state government must do it for them. I submit that the handgun violence rate will fall once the citizens start to arm themselves again.

Race Pimp Hypocrisy

The black so-called "leaders" are nothing more than race pimps, using every "racial" situation to further their agenda. If they were so concerned about civil rights, then shouldn't they be so regardless of the race of the victim? But instead, only when blacks are aggrieved do the race pimps show up.

Furthermore, the liberal hypocrites are always pointing out this or that about race, yet conservatives say comparatively far less about race, and they are labeled the racists. I remember studying racism in social studies classes, and the definition of racism was when you do something special or different simply because of someone's race. That something could be good or bad. If a white man makes an extra effort to hold the door for a black woman, or a white man makes an extra compliment to a black woman, then he is, by definition, committing an act of racism. Even though he was showing kindness, he made a special effort because of the person's race, and therefore that fits the definition.

But the liberals love to point out everyone's differences, put people into groups, classify them, and then advocate for their perceived grievances. Conservatives try to avoid putting people into groups and classifications, and instead advocate for all people, regardless of who they are. Why then are conservatives the racists? The real racists are the liberals, because again, by definition, they are doing something special or different because of someone's race.

Liberalism and Fascism

There is an excellent new book by National Review Online journalist Jonah Goldberg called Liberal Fascism: The Secret History of the American Left from Mussolini to the Politics of Meaning: See the Liberal Fascism Blog. As much as it is an excellent political book, it is frankly an even better history book. Buy Liberal Fascism.

Starting in the early 1900s, he details the parallelism of Progressivism & Liberalism with the rise of Fascism in Europe. And while "fascist" has been a label thrown about regarding conservatives, its roots and growth clearly show that Liberalism is a "friendly" version of Fascism. Descriptions of conservatives as fascist, or in the case of President Bush as Hitler, are unmistakeably incorrect, inaccurate and disingenuous.

For example, it is hard to believe how fascist our government was during World War I under Woodrow Wilson. The extent to which people were prosecuted (persecuted) during the War for free speech is unfathomable, and certainly bears no relation to the accusations that liberals to try to lay at the feet of President Bush today during the current war effort.

From the early 1900s through World War II and to today's extreme liberals such as the Bill & Hillary, Goldberg does a masterful job of laying historic facts at the doorstep of liberal hypocrisy. The only tricky part of the book is keeping up with all the "isms" that he uses to describe the various movements, groups, etc. I highly recommend this fascinating, thoroughly researched book.

So while liberals continue to talk about feelings, intentions, beliefs and hope, conservatives deal with facts, truths, and common sense. Liberal Fascism spells out the facts clearly, and dispels almost all of the commonly held assertions that liberals love to make in the absence of any truth.

Liberal nonsense

Barack Hussein Obama declared the other day that new drilling won't lower the price of gas today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. So his alternative is to find new sources of energy, tax the oil & gas companies, etc. None of those will lower the price of gas today, tomorrow, next week, next year or even in five years. Should we wait five more years, and then start drilling? Then that new oil won't come on line for another five years according to him, which puts us ten years out; does that make any sense?

Why does he (and most liberals) think that taxing oil & gas companies will immediately lower gas prices? Please someone explain how that works. The oil & gas companies will simply pass the tax hike through to the consumer, which means higher gas prices. 76% of oil & gas companies' profits are spent on research & development. Why do we want to curtail that? We should be encouraging them (read: lower taxes) to do more research on current energy sources and other sources. Taxing them even more simply makes that impossible.

Liberals are opposed to offshore drilling; why? Is it simply the environmental concern? They talk about "no offshore drilling," but have absolutely no solution for anything to be accomplished in the near term -- except taxing. Why not drill offshore, huh?

While we're talking about it, liberals love to bash and demonize "Big Oil"; did they ever think that first, roughly half of the employees who work for these companies are Democrats, most likely, and second, that millions of employees have mutual funds with oil & gas stocks as part of their portfolio, and that roughly half of those employees are Democrats? So liberals are bashing the companies that many of their constituents either work at or are invested with, which simply hurts those very same people. What common sense does this make? I submit that it makes no common sense.

Changing gears: Liberals, especially Obama, talk about how they are unifiers. They are going to unite the country. How can liberals promote unification, when in fact they do the exact opposite? Liberals are the kings of class warfare, victimization groups, segregating people into groups (blacks, Hispanics, GLBT, poor, working class, rich, children, etc., etc.) and pitting them against one another. Meanwhile, conservatives talk about individualism, people's individual liberties, etc. Liberals talk about collectivism, classes of people, group power, and so on. Who are all these people who are being duped by the liberals into thinking that liberals will unite the country? There is physically no way for that to happen with liberals.

Liberal hypocrisy

Liberal hypocrisy; how much more of it will we tolerate?

Why don't people realize that liberalism in the U.S. is nothing more than a prettied-up version of Fascism, Marxism and Socialism?

So Obama's campaign won't allow two Muslim women to sit in a prominent spot at his speech, because of politically sensitive matters; who's the racist? Who's the hypocrite?

Do blacks realize that Martin Luther King Jr. was a registered Republican?

Do blacks realize that the North, during the Civil War, was primarily Republican and that the Republican North liberated the black slaves? The South was mostly Democratic and that Democrats were responsible for the majority of slavery? The Dems sought to maintain slavery while the Reps sought to end slavery -- and succeeded. This never seems to get pointed out.

Why doesn't this make the national "drive-by" media? Because it does not fit their agenda, that's why.