The full extent of federal government meddling remains to be seen. Given the recent demonstrations of our irresponsible government’s lust for control of the private sector coupled with the poor decisions made by 52% of the nation’s voters, it is hard to imagine that there will be any upper (or is it lower?) limit to the metastasis of the tumor otherwise known as the federal government. Perhaps there will one day be no Charmin to squeeze pursuant to federal regulations that limit toilet paper thickness and quality to please the environmentalist left. It won’t matter if fingers get soiled due to sub-par TP as long as the luxurious decadence of soft and absorbent TP is not enjoyed by tree-hating citizens… and as long as the unfortunate wiper doesn’t use too much water or any polluting soap in cleaning those fingers.

I wonder how many people ever stop to consider the consequences of this unchecked growth? Certainly there would be some, a portion of the feckless fifty two (FFT) percent, who would not mind any government intrusion as long is it meant a lessened personal responsibility. I would bet these people will still desire individual rights even without individual responsibility. Imagine the emotional state of the portion of the FFT that slowly come to realize that their thoughtless casting of votes and contributions in the direction of undefined “hope” and fuzzy “change” have led to unintended consequences in the form of government controls in their own lives. The power players in the FFT will likely feel no ill effects as they will not have to suffer under the programs they support for “the good of the people.” It is tragic, but not surprising that the most culpable of the FFT will avoid the misery they impose.

The seemingly endless supply of magical government cash that is being approved to “save” our struggling economy flows from a secret money spring on Fantasy Island and there are no strings attached to the generosity of the flitting fairies that control the flow with a pinch of Pixie Dust. At least I hope this is the case, otherwise there might be, what’s the word? Oh yes, consequences! Let us set aside the abundant bail outs for a moment and turn our attention to something equally frightening, the agenda set forth by:

Grand Chancellor Elect Barack Obama has grand plans to increase government dependence with a dash of nationalization of industry to combat the problems of energy consumption and unemployment. Of course we, the bitter masses are not to concern ourselves with the origins of the revenue required for “Big Brother” Barry’s plans (perhaps it will be the previously mentioned stream) as it is part of the “change” for which we are expected to “hope.” Any means to “Big Brother” Barry’s ends will be justified as long as he can impose upon the electorate in such a way that he is able to realize his goals.

The Obama-Biden comprehensive New Energy for America plan will:

• Help create five million new jobs by strategically investing $150 billion over the next ten years to catalyze private efforts to build a clean energy future.
• Within 10 years save more oil than we currently import from the Middle East and Venezuela combined.
• Put 1 million Plug-In Hybrid cars — cars that can get up to 150 miles per gallon — on the road by 2015, cars that we will work to make sure are built here in America.
• Ensure 10 percent of our electricity comes from renewable sources by 2012, and 25 percent by 2025.
• Implement an economy-wide cap-and-trade program to reduce greenhouse gas emissions 80 percent by 2050.

The fact that Jesse Jackson is trumpeting this subject should provide a series of red flags for the thinking observer. In a November 25 column in The Chicago Sun-Times, Jackson portrays Obama as a Michael Jordan of government dynasties.

It’s crunch time, and nobody wants the ball — except the student of basketball, President-elect Barack Obama. He realizes he can’t wait until January. So Monday, he announced his economic team and rolled out his commitment to a major recovery program, said to be $700 billion over two years or more. He chose experienced pros — Lawrence Summers, former Treasury secretary, and Tim Geithner, the current head of the New York Federal Reserve Bank — to head his economic team. He has announced that he will hit the ground running in January. Stock markets across the world responded. The star player stood up, demanded the ball, and said he’d try to make the play.

That’s half the battle, but only half. Just as in basketball, demanding the ball isn’t enough. You’ve got to make the shot, or make the assist so another can make it. The question now is whether Obama’s plans will score — whether they are big enough to meet the challenge that we face.

Consider the auto industry. Obama has called for coming to the industry’s aid, but has said that any help must come with conditions. Those conditions will surely include accelerating the move to hybrid and electric vehicles, part of a major drive to reduce our dependence on foreign oil while dealing with the threat of global warming.

But to be competitive, the automakers need more than a bridge loan. U.S. companies spend more per car on health care than on steel. Foreign competitors don’t have the burden. As a senator, Obama introduced a bill suggesting that the government take over the costs of health care for the retired in exchange for greater movement on gas mileage efficiency.

So Reverend Jackson believes that the government should dip into it’s magical money stream and chuck some cash in the direction of the UAW in order to jump-start the economy. Of course the slam dunk will involve socialized medicine (at least for retired auto-workers), strict mileage mandates (to please the enviro-marxist constituency), a mandate to produce plug-in vehicles (which will need to be powered by hope and change since nuclear and coal electricity generation are taboo in the all-knowing leftist Shangri-la.) I wonder if the health care costs are what bothers Reverend Jackson, or if he is really just upset that the car companies don’t get hit harder on steel pricing? When the inauguration is over and the after-glow has begun to dim, maybe he can shake-down the steel companies with threats of demonstrations unless they raise their prices.

A thinking person, or anti-FFT, will be curious how the American automotive industry will suddenly become profitable once they get a “bridge loan” that carries expensive conditions and are relieved of healthcare costs for retirees. We need not rack our brains to find the hidden logic. It isn’t there. Adding a debt to the government and further regulation and restrictions is a recipe for failure. The notion of taking over the healthcare of the retirees is little more than another leap toward the total implementation of socialized medicine in our great country. The automakers will be almost guaranteed to fail and there will be a large group of people added to the ranks of those dependent upon the government for healthcare. The failings of the automotive companies are likely to prompt further government involvement and who knows, maybe the next step will be socialized healthcare coverage for UAW members.

What if there is no secret money stream on “Fantasy Island?” What if the bail-outs, “green-jobs”, socialized medicine, etc. have to be paid for by the taxpayers? What if more and more of us are escorted into the web of government dependence as taxes grow beyond our capacity to pay them and still provide for ourselves? What if the incremental interferences of the government in businesses result in nationalization of several industries such as automotive, oil, or news distribution?

Fret not, the majority has spoken and they, the FFT would not mind if we one day car-pool to our government jobs in “Victory Automobiles” while listening to MSNBC radio (the official government approved news source… and only one on the air) and enjoying “Obama Cheese” sandwiches produced from milk processed in a former Exxon refinery.

The hits just keep coming. The degradation of our society and the politically correct war on common sense have indeed taken their toll. Have we fallen so far that any person that would have a chance to lead, would be required to pander to “special” groups, play identity politics, and bow at the altar of Al Gore’s anthropogenic global warming? Will all future leaders of the Republican Party choose to coddle pro-abortion groups? A visit to The Republican Leadership Council (RLC) web-site provides potentially depressing insight into the future of the party.

Former libiot Republican governor Christie Todd Whitman is one of the three creators of the RLC (along with Lt. Gov. Michael Steele and Sen. John Danforth)… so maybe her influence gives the RLC a “move away from the right” flavor that Steele would not carry to the RNC if he were to become its chairman. However, if the RLC is indeed an indication of the future of the Republican Party, I have to wonder if it will be worthy of support. If Whitman’s apparent goal of moving further to the middle is shared by the party leadership, will it retain its members? Perhaps member retention is not an issue in the modern Republican Party. Perhaps the goal is to attract new members, who as products of our education system, shun traditional values and choose politically correct causes over common sense. Of course in addition to attracting “independents” and possibly disgruntled Democrats, conservatives with values would be able to remain in the party… as long as we keep our mouths closed and support whichever indistinguishable-from-a-Democrat candidate is offered.

The RLC touts as “successful” examples, Republican politicians who one might expect to have a horn protruding from his or her nose (RINOs.) Would Michael Steele heed their caution against moving to the right?

3 Successful Republicans Caution Against a Move to the Right

by Robert F. Bukaty, Associated Press

As Congressional Republicans lick their political wounds and try to figure out how to bounce back in 2010 and beyond, they might want to consult with Susan Collins, Lamar Alexander and Peter T. King.
Senator Collins, Senator Alexander and Representative King were among Republicans who defied the odds in a terrible year for their colleagues. Their re-elections provide a possible road map for how the party can succeed in a challenging political environment. The answer, the three veteran politicians agreed, is not to become a more conservative, combative party focused on narrow partisan issues.
“What doesn’t work is drawing a harsh ideological line in the sand,” said Ms. Collins, of Maine, who early in the year was a top Democratic target for defeat but ended up winning 61 percent of the vote while Senator Barack Obama received 58 percent in the presidential race in her state.
“We make a mistake if we are going to make our entire appeal rural and outside the Northeast and outside the Rust Belt,” said Mr. King, of New York, who easily won re-election in a region shedding Republicans at a precipitous rate.
“We can stand around and talk about our principles, but we have to put them into actions that most people agree with,” said Mr. Alexander, of Tennessee, a self-described conservative who was able to attract African-American voters.

Susan Collins and Lamar Alexander are exactly what I picture when I think of conservative values… in a parallel universe maybe.

From the “About Us” section of the RLC site:

RLC-PAC members consider themselves True Conservative Republicans. Republicans who believe that our elected officials have a responsibility to their constituents to spend their money wisely. We believe that government should have a limited role in Americans’ personal lives. And we believe in a strong national defense.

The Republican Leadership Council PAC or RLC-PAC is a political action committee dedicated to supporting fiscally conservative, socially inclusive Republican candidates at all levels of government. Governor Whitman also created a 527 to advance the issues that help define Real Conservative members of the Republican Party.

RLC-PAC is NOT defined by one issue. We believe, as you can see through our diverse National Board, that people who believe in the core Republican values can find common ground on social issues.

There are some inconsistencies and problems there (in addition to Governor Whitman, I mean.) The problem is that by stating “We believe that government should have a limited role in Americans’ personal lives” they, in my opinion, are being contradictory. I agree that government should have an extremely limited role in American’s personal lives, but I don’t believe that is what is meant in the statement. I get the impression that this is directed toward the so-called “social issues.” Whitman is pro-choice and Michael Steele believes Roe v. Wade should remain in place. This one bad decision by the Supreme Court plays a huge role in Americans’ personal lives! Oh well, I suppose I am just a cave man for doubting that a woman has a right to have her baby put to death and that this right must be protected from any interference by the voters of any individual state. After all, doesn’t the Constitution specifically give the Supreme Court the power to overturn the will of the citizens of any particular state on an activist whim?

Would Michael Steele’s RNC strive to be “socially inclusive?” The RLC’s list of strategic partners gives cause for concern. Examples:

Log Cabin Republicans
The mission of the Log Cabin Republicans is to work within the Republican Party to advocate equal rights for all Americans, including gays and lesbians. Log Cabin’s mission derives from our firm belief in the principles of limited government, individual liberty, individual responsibility, free markets and a strong national defense. We emphasize that these principles and the moral values on which they stand are consistent with the pursuit of equal treatment under the law for gay and lesbian Americans.

All Americans already have equal rights. The existence of this group is based on a desire for attention and special treatment based on sexual preference. Is the idea that homosexuals will all vote Democrat unless the Republican Party gives them special acknowledgment? Should we all make a special effort to respect their private lives by making special public proclamations in support of their private lives? (Confusing, isn’t it?)

Of course the pro-infanticide population is well represented with four organizations among the RLC’s strategic partners, including:

Republican Majority for Choice
The Republican Majority for Choice is an organization of Republican men and women throughout the United States, who believe in our party’s traditional principles of individual liberty, strong national security and sound economic reason. They endorse the ‘big tent’ philosophy of inclusion and tolerance on social issues, and support the protection of Roe v. Wade and want to ensure that the right to choose is personal and NOT political.

Silly me, I thought Roe v. Wade’s assault on the rights of individual states ensured that this issue remain political as well as personal. I am also confused about how something so basic as protecting innocent life can be dismissed as a minor “social issue.”

The bottom line is the RLC’s focus seems trained on being a more moderate Republican Party and placing special groups on pedestals based on identity politics. It could very well be that Michael Steele will become the RNC chairman and provide wonderful conservative leadership. However, if the RLC, its strategic partners, and the columns it displays on its site are any indication of Michael Steele’s leadership, I don’t think conservatives with values will be able to stomach it.

I believe it is necessary to reiterate my position on Roe v. Wade for those of you who would seize on it like a dog to a bone. Seeking the overturn of this bad Supreme Court decision is not equal to seeking government interference in private lives! It is seeking to get the federal government out of the way of the states and the rights of the states!

I would usually be all for the ouster of a waste of taxpayer money, congressional committee chair like John Dingell (berry) (D-MI)… but this is not one of those usual situations. While John Dingell (berry) might join his Democrat colleagues in a desire to further harm Michigan’s and the rest of the nation’s manufacturing companies, apparently he is being challenged by Henry Waxman (D-CA), who might even be more ferocious in his desire to cripple American manufacturing. In other words, Waxman’s dangerous views may be more closely aligned with those of Grand Chancellor Elect Barack Obama.

From The Hill:

Dingell team: Ouster would slow climate bill

Supporters of Energy and Commerce Chairman John Dingell (D-Mich.) say that giving the gavel to Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) could lead to a delay in climate change legislation when Congress returns next year.

Waxman, who launched his challenge to Dingell the day after the election, is seen as more aggressive on climate change regulation, but Dingell supporters argued a global warming bill would be slowed by a transition.

So neither option is good for this nation or the citizens that work in industries that manufacture items, transport manufactured items, store manufactured items, sell manufactured items, or collect taxes on the sale of manufactured items. I suppose we can ignore the effect on the thin sliver of the electorate that buys manufactured items, since the government no longer exists to serve the citizens as much as it exists to feed the personal power lust of the elected officials.

The piece goes on to give reasons to keep Dingell (berry), although they are presented as reasons to support Waxman.

Waxman supporters said the more liberal Californian will write a better bill and can still do it fast.

“Given that many people feel that Chairman Dingell has stood in the way of modern energy and environmental policy for many years, a switch would speed up, not delay, forward movement on energy and climate change legislation,” said a senior Democratic aide.

Dingell was slow to warm to the need for restrictions to curb global warming, and two years ago House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) tried an end-run around him by creating a new committee to look at the issue.

What will happen if the trend toward a natural cooling cycle continues and a majority of the numb-skulls that bowed to pray before the altar of Al Gore realize they followed a false prophet? What will be the reaction of those that religiously followed crooning climatologist Sheryl Crow’s thoughtful “one-square” rule?

The bottom line is that whichever power-hungry, government grower will be least likely to champion Obama’s destructive agenda, will be the better chairman. Of course this opinion depends on perspective. Reasonable citizens would likely share this opinion and 52% of those who voted last Tuesday would likely disagree.

Whether it be the droning from Sunday morning panels in the background or a perusal of internet “news” sources, the relentless spin is enough to make a thoughtful person nauseous. This dizzying assault on reason also had another effect. It helped to crystallize why our country’s electorate just did the unthinkable.

The first abdominal rumble occurred when I turned on Fox News Sunday and long time McCain pusher Bill Kristol was yapping. As a matter of principle I tune out when I see anyone I view as being integral in sticking us with McAmnesty as the sacrificial lamb to the left. This is also why I wouldn’t watch Huckabee’s show if you paid me. I don’t know if there was nauseating spin on Fox News Sunday, but Kristol’s appearance was sickening enough for me.

I must admit that I am something of a glutton for punishment so when I came back into the room after doing some of my domestic duties, I turned on “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.” “Big Brother” Barack Obama’s new Chief Enforcer Rahm “The Fish” Emanuel was the featured guest. I didn’t stop to listen to what he had to say. Instead I tuned in again later when the panel was gleefully celebrating the election results. Cynthia Tucker from Atlanta’s rag made sure to inject identity politics into the discussion. The subject of “Big Brother” Barack’s cabinet brought about the inevitable focus on the divisive liberal tactic of race and ethnicity based politics. Tucker proposed that Bill Richardson should be given some prominent post because so many hispanics voted for Obama! These people demand that qualifications should play second fiddle behind skin pigmentation! Thank you, Ms. Tucker for reaffirming exactly which party engages in race baiting!

I look at the panelists that populate these Sunday morning shows and the guests they feature and it hits. This is where a lot of the voters who somewhat pay attention to the political landscape get their information! Traditional news outlets are still informing the opinions of many people that pay SOME attention to politics. I say “some” for two reasons. First, those that get their information from these sources tend to get information that has been filtered through tight mesh Obama-strainer, which is what I am calling the filter the Obama media uses to decide what to publish and more importantly, what to suppress. Second, many people don’t seem to care enough to even want information. Apparently what they catch on a commercial or perhaps over hear at work is good enough for them. I am usually amazed when I talk to people and find that there is so much about The Grand Chancellor Elect that they had never even heard.

Then of course there are those that are informed and they either are hardcore socialists that will let nothing stand in the way of their agenda or they have succumbed to the Obama Kool Aid and believe wealth must be redistributed in order to harmonize the planet.

Back to the spin cycle. Breitbart has a funny article, “Internet revolution that elected Obama could save Earth: Gore!” The bulbous former internet creator is apparently squealing for relevance. No, he is not saying, “Ah created the internet and by proxy, single handedly made St. Barack Grand Chancellor of the Americas!” That may be what he is thinking, but apparently the man with a huge carbon butt-print thinks the internet elected Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama and now he wants it used to put himself back in the spotlight.

“The young people who have been inspired by Barack Obama’s campaign and the movement that powered Barack Obama’s campaign want a purpose,” Gore said.

“One of the reasons we were all thrilled Tuesday night is it was pretty obvious this was a collectively intelligent decision.”

The Internet’s critical role in Democrat Obama’s victory in the presidential race against Republican John McCain was a “great blow for victory” in addressing a “democracy crisis” stifling action against climate change, Gore said.

I think The Goreacle is saying that he would love to serve as puppet master to the foolish and properly indoctrinated “young people who have been inspired by Barack Obama’s campaign.” Its a perfect fit, young people use the internet, he created the internet, young people are apt to buy the global warming manure, he profits from peddling said manure. Ah yes, a match made in American manufacturing destroying heaven!

Gore screams for attention as time is running out for him to close the sale. Once the next cooling cycle is in full swing it will be hard to convince even most Obamorons as to the faux threat of anthropogenic global warming! Not to mention he only has one yacht.

The Web has the potential to “revolutionize almost every aspect” of running for US president, according to Gore. He believes that social activism made possible by people connecting and sharing information online is in its infancy.

“What happened in the election opens a full new range of possibilities and now is the time to really move swiftly to exploit these new possibilities,” Gore said of turning the power of the Internet to cooling global warming.

Gore said Obama should announce a national goal of getting all US electric power from renewable and non-carbon energy within the next decade and spend the billions necessary to build an “electrinet” smart power grid.

“Web 2.0 has to have a purpose” Gore said.

“The purpose I would urge is to bring about a higher level of consciousness about our relationship to this planet and the imminent danger we face. We have everything we need to save it.”

Memo to the bloated Goreacle, come to Southern Illinois, step outside, and try to sell your global warming snake-oil with a straight face. Bring a coat, though, because it is chilly here.

The AP via Yahoo News gives cause for alarm with their spin in the article, “Obama reviews Bush orders on stem cells, drilling.”

“I think across the board, on stem cell research, on a number of areas, you see the Bush administration even today moving aggressively to do things that I think are probably not in the interest of the country,” Podesta said in a broadcast interview.

“There’s a lot that the president can do using his executive authority without waiting for congressional action, and I think we’ll see the president do that,” Podesta said.

President Bush has limited federal spending on stem cell research, a position championed by opponents of abortion rights. Obama has supported the research in an effort to find cures for diseases such as Alzheimer’s.

Also, the federal Bureau of Land Management is opening about 360,000 acres of public land in Utah to oil and gas drilling, leading to protests from environmentalists.

“They want to have oil and gas drilling in some of the most sensitive, fragile lands in Utah,” Podesta said. “I think that’s a mistake.”

John Podesta, Clinton hack and president of The Center For American Progress is yet another example of  Obama’s “change” or to the casual observer, bringing back all surviving Clintonians. He spins sweetly about St. Barack’s desire to see that Alzheimer’s gets cured through stem cell research and apparently President Bush has always had it in for Alzheimer’s patients. What the vile bastard fails to mention is the key to the issue of funding, embryonic stem cell research. President Bush had the moral courage to oppose the destruction of human embryos for the sake of “science.” Given that there have been promising breakthroughs from adult and umbilical cord stem cell research and none from embryonic stem cell research, one can surmise that the push for federal funding is mainly an effort to further the pro-abortion agenda. Imagine the horror if the babies that would be destroyed as the subject of theses science experiments were recognized as such. That might harm the image of abortion. Planned Parenthood, NARAL, and NOW can’t have that!

Let’s not forget the second part where Podesta ominously warns that “Big Brother” Barry intends to placate his bark humping supporters at the expense of the citizens of this nation. Of course, if Barry gets enough former Clinton blow-hards to come back, maybe there will be a short term gain in wind power.

If we want to know what Barack Obama will do to our country if even half of his rhetoric was serious we only need to look to his campaign appearances for a recurring subtle clue:

I wish I could support Barack Obama in this election season. The reason for this wish is relatively simple, convenience.

Imagine how much easier life would be if you possessed the loose grasp on reality that would allow you to support Barack Obama. Imagine how simple your daily life would be if you cared only for yourself and viewed the rest of the world in terms of what it could give you. Imagine the liberating sense of being moral-free, as one might need to be in order to support Barack Obama. Imagine what a relief it would be to not care about the march toward an Orwellian vision of society as would be expedited by Barack Obama.

I’ve long thought that to be a liberal, one must be evil, stupid, or a combination of the two. The Obama candidacy and terrifying level of mindless support he enjoys serves to reinforce my original beliefs. Some poor souls actually believe that Obammunism would be a good thing for the common citizens of this nation. Some hope to enjoy power and control over the common citizens under Obammunism. Others don’t care enough to be informed.

Think about the mental state of the Obamoron that cheers when he “y’ohs” (his contraction of “you know”) about the tax breaks to the wealthy and the redistribution of “windfall profits” to “American families.” It must be nice to have such a narrow view of the horizon that one could support such a notion. A thinking person would realize that penalizing producers and employers will reduce production and employment. An Obamoron sees only that “evil” businesses are getting punished for success and gives no thought to anything more. A related source of relief would be to be so unencumbered by thought that one doesn’t see the ridiculous hypocrisy of bemoaning the profits of productive business and celebrating the profits of useless “entertainment” ventures (music, movies, and television.)

Think about the freedom enjoyed by the people that could be so clueless that they believe that only by increasing the size and scope of government can we be saved from today’s biggest problems, while ignoring the fact that the biggest of our problems are caused by overreaching government involvement. It must be comforting to look to the government to meet an increasing number of an individuals needs without regard for the snowballing effect of growing government control. Medicine would be best distributed by a benevolent government. Education would be better delivered by a “progressive” government. Wages would best be dictated by an all-knowing government. The weather would best be controlled by an all-powerful government.

I personally believe it would be fabulous to have a mind so dull that I could ignore Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Saul Alinsky, and ACORN. I would be relieved to have such a shallow conscience that I could disregard Barack Obama’s active role in blocking the “Born Alive Infant Protection Act” in The Illinois Senate.

I wish I could support Barack Obama… but I can’t. I am not capable of turning off my mind, ejecting my morals, and dulling my desire for liberty!

Obama supporters are being directed to get “in the faces” of independents and Republicans to make the case for their candidate and the case for you being a racist jerk if you don’t dream of Obammunism.

Michelle Malkin’s column at Townhall.com, “Obama Releases His “In-Your_Face” Hounds“, provides some insight into the Obamorons’ “face-to-face” strategy:

When Republicans get aggressive, it’s “dirty.” When Obama gets aggressive, it’s “feisty.” Exorteth the One: “I need you to go out and talk to your friends and talk to your neighbors. I want you to talk to them whether they are independent or whether they are Republican. I want you to argue with them and get in their face.”

Team Obama is so committed to this “face-to-face” shock troop campaign that it is now busing activists from state to state (”Drive for Change!”) to target undecided voters — and offering subsidies to volunteers. In advance of Obama’s rally in Nevada, California field director Mary Jane Stevenson organized a pilgrimage to boost the crowd numbers with housing incentives:

“Face-to-face contact with undecided voters is the single most effective way to grow this movement. No experience is required, and we’ll help you make the trip as easily as possible with either housing in Nevada or discounted group rates at an area hotel.”

Yep, a bunch of angry Obama cultists and left-wing ACORN drifters are coming to your neighborhoods to accuse you of racism, call you unpatriotic for not bowing down and forking over more taxes to keep the Mother Ship afloat, and check your tire pressure and thermostats while they’re at it. Feel the power of positive change.

I contend that there are several very good reasons to avoid an “in-your-face” moment with an Obamoron. Most of these reasons depend on the type of Obama supporter with which you are dealing, but there is the basic ignorance that all Obamorons share. Who wants to listen to the ignorant spewings of a raving lunatic, especially at close range? I bet they spit when they espouse the virtues of total government control.

The supporter type-dependent reasons you likely want to avoid these “in-your-face” confrontations areas follows:

Race-based supporters might:

• accuse you of being a white supremacist because you believe in individual responsibility and liberty.
• tell you that any argument you provide as to why you don’t support Obama is laced with “code words” that mean “black.”
• compare your reluctance to support Barack Obama to being a member of the KKK (like Sen. Robert Byrd.)

Environmentalist supporters might:

• smell really bad since bathing wastes valuable water, and who is man to steal water from Mother Earth?
• have their talking points scribbled on the one square of toilet paper they intend to use during their next restroom visit.
• profess the benefits of using only wind and solar power to generate electricity, while your sense of smell is violated by the wind carrying the odor from the activist that has spent too much time in the sun without bathing into your nostrils.
• stand there in leather shoes and yell at you about the affects of oil drilling on animals.
• knock you over, having noticed in mid-diatribe, an extremely attractive tree some distance behind you.

Change-inspired supporters might:

• tell you that Barack is for “change” and if you aren’t, you are a racist.
• opine that “change” is a good thing but get confused when you point out that if he stops breathing, that would be “change.”
• tell you that this is cosmic fate because if you put your hand over part of the big “O” in Obama, you can make a big “C” like in “Change!”

Abortion-inspired supporters (NOW, NARAL, Planned Parenthood, Emily’s List) might:

• scream at you for wanting to kill scared young girls with rusty coat-hangers in dark alleys.
• try to convince you that you would make all women victims of an antiquated patriarchal society if you think killing children is in some way wrong.
• try to convince you that it is a violation of privacy… to have child molesters reported to authorities.
• drool about “reproductive justice” (which apparently involves a death sentence for the one party involved that played no part in the “choice” to have sex.)
• assert that you “can’t legislate morality” … unless of course the immoral act is murder, rape, or robbery committed by anyone other than the IRS.
• tell you that “it” isn’t a child… even if “it” has been born and is breathing following a botched abortion.
• insist that there is a constitutional right to abortion, but not to keep and bear arms.

Economy-inspired supporters might:

• Decry the wealth of “big business” (of course ignoring who it is that employs them if they indeed have jobs.)
• Screech that oil companies are making profits while we are paying too much at the gas pump (but of course Hollywood types deserve their “windfall profits” from their oh-so-important movies and television shows.)
• try to explain the value of further government controls and ignore your questions about the naturally subsequent job losses.

The thought of “Big Brother” Barack Obama becoming President Of The United States is so frightening and depressing that some conservatives (like myself) are supporting John McCain! This alone should be enough to make one wonder just what exactly is wrong with Obama supporters, particularly those that believe enough to try and convert normal people?

As the cable news channels show gripping footage of Democrat vice presidential pick Joe Biden’s Delaware home, the Obammunists know they have found the perfect running mate. Michelle’s husband wants to be complimented as well as complemented by his future third in command. I think this pick was determined in February of 2007 when Joe Biden offered his evaluation of “The One.” From cnn.com:

“I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy,” Biden said. “I mean, that’s a storybook, man.”

That is four compliments in one sentence, which is obviously a compliment to sentence ratio that “Big Brother” Barry appreciates.

The Obammunists must also appreciate Senator Joe “7-11″ Biden’s willingness to sacrifice and accept a position he doesn’t want, disciple to Michelle’s Messiah. On “Meet The Press” June 22, 2008 , Biden expressed his desire to NOT be asked to be the running mate:

SEN. BIDEN:  Unlike most other people, I’m being straight with you.  If asked, I will do it.  I’ve made it clear I do not want to be asked.

MR. WILLIAMS:  Do not want to be asked.  But if asked, the answer, of course, would be yes.

SEN. BIDEN:  Of course it would, because the–if the president–if the presidential nominee thought I could help him win, am I going to say to the first African-American candidate about to make history in the world that, “No, I will not help you out like you want me to”?  Of course, I’m–I’ll say yes.

The Obama campaign could not pass up someone that would so selflessly accept the position of third banana, even though he didn’t want to be asked. The Delaware senator further sealed the deal on “Meet The Press” that day by again injecting race into the race, which The libiots fully intend to make about race.

There could be some rough patches ahead for “Team Articulate And Bright And Clean” as evidenced by the musings of some libiot pro-baby killing advocates at  Democratic Underground, who see Biden’s view that life begins at conception as potentially troublesome. These champions of infanticide, who had the perfect candidate in Barack “Born Alive, Let Them Die” Obama, are worried about a potential tie-breaking vote in The Senate falling to someone that doesn’t like the idea of partially delivering a viable baby, puncturing the base of his or her skull, and vacuuming out his or her gray matter.

Is it possible that “Big Brother” Barry isn’t aware of Senator Biden’s view that a “bay-buh” might not be a punishment? Could it be that Barry doesn’t know that Biden actually has grandchildren that weren’t aborted?

At the very least, Michelle’s husband and Joe “7-11″ Biden can agree that our economy must be further damaged for the sake of The Prophet Gore’s anthropogenic global warming scam. This point is important because the more jobs the libiots can eliminate through tax and regulation means, the more victims there will be to depend on a benevolent government.  Obammunism needs these dependents in order to prosper and grow.

Team Articulate And Bright And Clean must not lose sight of the ultimate goal, which is base in the work of Marx and illustrated in the work of Orwell. “Big Brother” Barry will be watching.

The Washington Post might be the odds-on favorite for the D.C. base of “Big Brother” Barry’s “Ministry Of Truth,” but The L.A. Times is a leading contender for “The Left Coast Satellite Ministry.” Op-Ed writer Neal Gabler takes offense to the characterization of “The One” as a rock star. Apparently movie stars and Kennedies are deeper than rock stars and the emotional connections with their adoring fans are much stronger. Gabler’s five-star review of “Obamunism, Episode ” seeks to explain why feelings over thought should carry the vote for an Obamanation. This thinly veiled campaign ad is titled:

His ‘celebrity’ comes from an emotional identity with voters, not from ‘rock star’ hysteria.

Like all cliches, this one has some truth and a lot more gas. The last time the media carted out this theme was 40 years ago, when Robert Kennedy, running for president, attracted the same sort of frenzied adulation and also threatened to upset the political apple cart by assembling a coalition of the young, the disenfranchised and the well-educated. But for Obama and for Bobby, the characterization is insulting and

imprecise. It is insulting because it suggests that their devotees’ effusions are just a visceral reaction — the political equivalent of puppy love. And it is imprecise because Obama is — and Bobby was — more movie star than rock star, which is an analogy with a difference. Rock stars, with some glaring exceptions, typically whip up the crowd; the thrill tends to be short-lived. Movie stars, by contrast, tend to create a long-standing emotional identification with their audience. It’s a difference that may have a bearing on the outcome of this election as voters weigh the advantages of being a movie star against its disadvantages. Movie stardom can be confused with mere celebrity, which has connotations of insubstantiality.

Obama faces that obstacle too. It is the downside of being a star. What this election may finally come down to is a choice between politics and movie stardom, between the safety of what we think we know and the expansiveness of what we dream, or, in more prosaic terms, between good old John Wayne and the less predictable but more exciting Will Smith. In any case, rock stars need not apply.

Juliet Eilperin and Steve Mufson of The Washington Post have a column today, “Climate Bill Underlines Obstacles to Capping Greenhouse Gases.” I suppose this column would be more aptly described as an unpaid ad for the Lieberman-Warner S.2191 (which should be called the Environmental Socialism Act of 2007.)

When the Senate takes up landmark climate legislation this week, its backers can be sure of just one thing: The obstacles they face show how hard it will be to enact a meaningful cap on greenhouse gases — probably under the next administration.

The next administration, not this one, because even supporters of the complex, extensively negotiated 494-page bill say that there is little chance that it will win Senate approval, less chance that the House will agree on a similar measure and perhaps no chance that President Bush will sign it if it reaches his desk.

“In some ways, this is a dress rehearsal for next year, but I still think it will be a useful thing for the Senate and Congress, because at some point we have to deal with it,” said Sen. Byron L. Dorgan (D-N.D.), who says he has yet to decide how he will vote.

So our senators are earning their pay performing dress rehearsals? I suppose it could be worse, they could actually be passing the devastating legislation! I wonder who will pay the $1.2 trillion the CBO estimates the law would bring into the federal government? Don’t worry about giving your money to the government however, because the CBO also estimates that they will do what they do best and spend most of it ($1.13 trillion.) Of course actual spending would probably be considerably more as this is our inept, bloated, bureaucratic nightmare government we are discussing.

It is not difficult to see that this plan’s affect on American manufacturing is potentially devastating. I assume that people who support this bill, like the libiots at The Washington Post, believe that American manufacturing is too strong and needs to be put in its place. Maybe someone should investigate whether or not the Chinese government contributed to the election funds of these libiot senators. This bill obviously would benefit Chinese manufacturers at the expense of American companies. Hey union members, keep supporting the Demonrats as they push you out of a job by pandering to the Environmental Socialists and for good measure, flood the labor pool with illegal aliens!

Perhaps the supporters are looking out for the common man, you know (as Barry Obama says at the beginning of almost every sentence) the people whose livelihoods might depend on producing, selling, or servicing manufactured products. That would make sense in a sick and twisted (in other word, libiot) way. If the goal is to have a socialist society, a certain amount of dependence on the government is required. Perhaps we have already stepped off the cliff as related to government dependence, since there seems to be so little public outrage any time the government, federal or state, snatches another chunk of our liberty. Do people actually desire the life of standing in line for food rations, gas rations, or Vodka rations? Oh, I forgot to include Carbon rations!

The three libiot presidential candidates support this treacherous intrusion upon our independence and barring a miracle (McCain saying “just kidding” and stepping aside at the convention) it is too late to hope that there will be a president that respects this nation’s independence or its Constitution. Barry Obama is possibly the most frightening of the three as his “hope” for “change” is almost overtly communist (more on that to come.) McCain’s idea of “straight talk” is to say the things he hopes the media and his liberal counterparts want to hear on issues other than spending and the war. Hillary is still included and will be until we find out if she sues the DNC for her party’s nomination.

In my humble opinion, the best way to deal with the cap and trade issue is to cap carbon dioxide emissions. I would limit the capping to those coming from government buildings and campaign events. It might also be useful to cap those emissions generated by the parrot press corps. It would be truly pleasant if the Marxist libiots would shut the hell up, thus limiting their own CO2 emissions. If that were to happen, the American people might see things as they are as opposed to as the socialists would have us believe.It would appear that most Americans are too busy to pay attention to the intrusions of government, but if the CO2 emissions of the libiots aren’t capped, many of us will be out of work and have more free time on our hands.

As for the trade portion of cap and trade, I would love to see the Marxist libiots traded to Venezuala or some other nation where they would be more comfortable for people that cherish liberty.