Malignant Liberal Idiocy

In this brave new world of the so-called “post-racial” inhabitant of the newly created (and official-sounding) “Office of the President Elect”, it would appear that “post-racial” means focusing on race and artificial diversity. I suppose “up” will mean “down” in Obama-speak, but on the bright side we can expect “Big Brother” Barry to bring the nation “up.”

The politics of division have not diminished with the election of Barack Obama. It would seem that they will only be magnified and celebrated… in the name of unity (aka division.) Yesterday’s Washington Obamost had an article which highlighted the artificial diversity focus.

“Minority Advocates Watching Obama”

The president-elect has already signaled that he will make a number of historic appointments. Obama is poised to nominate the first black attorney general and one of the nation’s highest-profile women as its chief diplomat. A Hispanic governor is the leading candidate to become commerce secretary.

But as Jarrett recognized early, every appointment he makes to the 15-member Cabinet reduces by one the opportunities he has to make sure another group is represented. It is a zero-sum game that leaves presidents with little wiggle room.

“There are huge expectations on him because he’s the first black president, the first civil rights lawyer, the first president with an Arab middle name,” said Ben Jealous, president of the NAACP.

Identity politics are front and center in The Elliptical Office (the name I am giving The Office of the President Elect.) As an aside, has there ever been a more appropriate name for the president of an organization that seeks special treatment based on race than Ben Jealous?

We are expected to focus on race, ethnicity, and gender (while ignoring that there have been a couple of female Secretaries of State, including a black female) and applaud every appointment that can be shown to be based on identity politics. Given that cabinet positions are to be filled in accordance with a quota system and not necessarily based on the best qualifications, I think there are some groups that risk being unfairly overlooked. Since the forced diversity will be trumpeted, let us compare the actions of the Elliptical Office to the “NEA’s Diversity Toolkit.”

Main Issues

The absence of social justice results in social oppression. Racism, sexism, ageism, classism, ableism, and heterosexism are some forms of social oppression in society. Societies and individuals form hierarchies of oppression in which certain types of oppression are addressed and others are not. Oppression of certain groups or individuals can result in social or legal exclusion, discrimination, inequitable distribution of resources, and emotional and physical consequences.

We know that the inhabitant of the newly constructed Elliptical Office is beholden to the NEA and given his work with domestic terrorist William Ayers on “education reform”, is concerned about social justice, it would appear that he still has some work to do. There are “isms” listed above that may not have been addressed yet in Grand Chancellor Elect Obama’s appointments. We have heard the applause for his focus on racism and sexism. One can argue that his use of Clintonite retreads satisfies the ageism requirement.

Classism will likely go unanswered as Barack Obama indicated at the posh San Francisco fundraiser, that he is an elitist. He might register some members of lower class to vote and exploit their condition for political gain in loyal Alinsky-ite fashion, but no cabinet member will truly represent a lower class. Maybe he can find another elitist former “community organizer” to satisfy the PC/Diversity police.

Ableism is a sticky issue. The fact that he has the Clinton retreads might lend to the argument that he has appointed people with mental and character deficiencies, but I am not sure these will appease the portion of the PC/Diversity Police. This issue is even further complicated by the left’s apparent desire to prevent people with disabilities from being born (or maybe this is just an excuse they use to further their “an abortion in every pot” cause.)

Heterosexism should not go ignored because recent news indicates this particular issue is all the rage! The Elliptical Office will risk losing its luster if it does not make special efforts to engage in sexual preference-based pandering. Assuming there aren’t any interested cross-dressers or that the pregnant man is too busy to participate, “Big Brother” might look to the House of Representatives for the answer. Rep. Barney Frank would provide a two-fer, not only is he a homosexual, but his leadership in protecting Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac from prying eyes would make him a logical fit as Barack Obama’s HUD Secretary.

Of course I will be called extremist and hateful for my expression of distaste at this wasteful and divisive approach to personnel decisions. It is unfortunate that in modern society, the conventional wisdom forbids the judging and selection of people based on their merits.

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.

I don’t usually read David Brooks’ pieces, but I have heard quite a bit about his, ahem, “opinions” while listening to The Laura Ingraham Show. Apparently Mr. Brooks takes offense at the notion of principled conservatives leading the Republican Party. If the Republican Party is to one day rise from the ashes like the Phoenix, according to Mr. Brooks at least, they must follow “the Reformers.” (Note: By the Phoenix, I do not mean Arizona senator John McCain, although I’m certain David Brooks would include him in “the Reformers.”)

“The Reformers” sounds like a powerful group that a principled conservative could possibly support, right? Not so fast, as John McCain would say, “my friends.” “The Reformers” that are prescribed by Dr. Brooks as the cure for an ailing Republican Party are indeed nothing more than the RINOs that have played such a large role in the fall of the party. (Disclaimer: I am just a working man that graduated from Southern Illinois University so naturally I wouldn’t understand the complex thinking of those that , for example, graduated from the schools that gave us the Obamas.)

To overcome the odds and drag the once-great party back to the pinnacle of American politics, “the Reformers” must vanquish the enemy of progress. You may be thinking, “I thought liberal Democrats referred to themselves as progressive.” You would be correct, but there is not a lot of difference between liberal Democrats and the valiant “Reformers.” Just who the enemy is, David Brooks describes in today’s NY Times column, “Darkness at Dusk.”

In one camp, there are the Traditionalists, the people who believe that conservatives have lost elections because they have strayed from the true creed. George W. Bush was a big-government type who betrayed conservatism. John McCain was a Republican moderate, and his defeat discredits the moderate wing.

To regain power, the Traditionalists argue, the G.O.P. should return to its core ideas: Cut government, cut taxes, restrict immigration. Rally behind Sarah Palin.

The enemy has been identified, “the Traditionalists” with their antiquated principles and rustic attachment to conservatism. This menace must be eradicated if the Republican Party is to ascend to the heights envisioned by Brooks and RINO snobs everywhere! The party can only hope to survive if it makes itself completely indistinguishable from the Democrat Party. Make sense? Not to me, but then again I put more stock in common sense and values than I do an ability to identify wine.

Who knows why Brooks writes the things he does? Perhaps he is a Republican because his parents were Republican (much like the Democrats whose parents told them, Republicans are for big business and Democrats are for the little guy.) Perhaps the New York Times needed a Republican columnist and he is pretending for the sake of a paycheck. It could be that the bully who beat him up as a child grew up to become a principled conservative. Maybe it is as simple as elitist snobbery and the refreshing rise of Governor Sarah Palin pushed Mr. Brooks and fellow snobs over the edge.

Brooks describes the philosophy and attributes of the brave “Reformer”:

The other camp, the Reformers, argue that the old G.O.P. priorities were fine for the 1970s but need to be modernized for new conditions. The reformers tend to believe that American voters will not support a party whose main idea is slashing government. The Reformers propose new policies to address inequality and middle-class economic anxiety. They tend to take global warming seriously. They tend to be intrigued by the way David Cameron has modernized the British Conservative Party.

Moreover, the Reformers say, conservatives need to pay attention to the way the country has changed. Conservatives have to appeal more to Hispanics, independents and younger voters. They cannot continue to insult the sensibilities of the educated class and the entire East and West Coasts.

While I can agree with the benefit of appealing to younger voters, I disagree that the party should sell its collective soul in order to accomplish this! If liberal policies are what a voter of any age, or demographic seeks, why wouldn’t he, she, or it (transgendered?) simply align with the real Democrat Party? Why would said voter choose the cheap substitute that once was the Republican Party? Doesn’t the Democrat Party already cover the bases with the global warming scam and the manufacturing killing plans to combat the false crisis? I believe open borders advocates as well as those seeking to capitalize on perceived “inequalities” can meet there needs with the real Democrat Party.

Here is a suggestion for David Brooks and the rest of “the Reformers.” Please take your educated sensibilities to the party that already fits the description of your ideal and leave the Republican Party to be rescued by principled conservatives. Also, don’t let the door hit you on your way back to the more educated and sensibility enjoying coast!

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:

Is there an Office of the President Elect? Mike Church was talking about Change.gov and The Chosen One’s apparent office creation this morning on his wonderful radio show on Sirius Patriot 144. If there is an Office of the President Elect, is it possible that he could just stay there and spare our nation four to eight years of Hell? A quick note about Change.gov, it is a good idea to visit it if you ingest poison and need to induce vomiting. It looks like the Obamoron web people spritzed up Barack Obama’s campaign web-site and tried to give it an official-sounding name.

Today “Big Brother” stood behind a podium adorned with a sign that actually read, “The Office of the President Elect!”

The arrogance of this man is only exceeded by the rabid adoration of his mentally ill supporters (or is that redundant?) Will he wait until his second inauguration to change the name of his office to something more catchy like “Grand Chancellor of the U.S.S.A.” out of fear that there are still enough sane voters that even his private media outlets couldn’t get him re-elected if he changed the name too soon? Certainly “President of the U.S.A.” is too common for the man who exceeds all that has ever been… at least in his own estimation.

Now to examine some positive effects of this tragic election. At least two Senate seats currently held by libiots will be vacated. While it is true that the governors of Delaware and my own unfortunate state, Illinois will replace the Grand Chancellor Elect and Vice Grand Poobah Elect with two more libiots, at least our two states will have each have one less libiot hanging around and ruining things on a local level for the next two years. (In case you haven’t noticed, optimism is my specialty.)

I caught a few minutes of The Grand Chancellor Elect’s fan club Q & A this afternoon and FOX News had a caption that read something along the lines of, “Obama seeks a capable replacement in The Senate.” I found it quite refreshing that Barack Obama cares enough about Illinois to request an upgrade in our offerings to The Senate. From cbs2chicago.com:

“This is the governor’s descision (sic), it is not my deicsion (sic), and I think the criteria I would have for my successor would be the same criteria I would have as a voter,” Obama said, citing passion and a commitment to the working families of Illinois as among the most important qualities.

Obama has “a passion and commitment to the working families of Illinois?” That’s a relief, I thought the only reason he decided to go to Chicago to begin his political career is that he followed domestic terrorist and potential Secretary of Education, William Ayers there from Columbia University! Perhaps he has “a passion and commitment to” eliminating employment opportunities for “the working families of Illinois” in order to create the dependence required for his desired level of totalitarian control.

Since I’ve been following politics, Illinois hasn’t sent a capable person to The Senate, but hey, why not start now? Dick Durbin was just re-elected so a capable replacement for Barack Obama would give us in Illinois a grand total of one capable senator. Lets not kid ourselves, Barack Obama was never really a U.S. Senator, he used his seat strictly as a stepping stone to the Grand Chancellorship.

There is also the possibility that Grand Chancellor Elect Obama will raid Chicago’s corruption… I mean political machine for staff and cabinet appointments. He already tapped Scum Emanuel to be Chief of Staff (or mob enforcer.) We can hope, as citizens of Illinois, that he will make our state a temporarily reasonable state by moving some of our worst liabilities to Washington D.C. Of course the entire nation stands to suffer at the hands of this man and his Chicago machine cronies, but I am looking for any positive thread here. If he takes Ayers and Dorhn with him, that will be two fewer terrorists in Illinois!

If I could make a plea to Grand Chancellor Elect Obama, it would be to find some post for Governor Rod “Hair Helmet” Blagojevich. If we could be rid of this excuse for a governor, that would indeed be “change we could believe in!”

Ronald Reagan’s “Morning in America” of a quarter century ago has given way to Barack Obama’s “Evening in America.” The journey to the threshold of a potentially dark and frightening night will hopefully provide a road map for recovery. My hope is that American conservatives can look objectively back at the time since Ronald Reagan left Washington D.C. and learn from the mistakes and circumstances that culminated in this moment. I also hope that this particular moment is indeed the culmination so we will not have to slip further into darkness before we see a new dawn.

There are some positives that can be taken from this year’s disappointing election. The anxiety over who will win has now dissipated and while the result gives reason for grave concern, we now know what we face. With either result, conservatives were to face great challenges and certain conflict with the new administration. I believe opposition to misguided policies will be strengthened due to the fact that they will be crafted by the opposing political party (even thought the Republican Party has made itself largely indistinguishable from the opposing party.)

Those of us who reluctantly supported John McCain (for me personally, much less reluctantly after he named Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate) no longer have to struggle with our decision. We did what we thought had to be done. Now it is over and we can move past supporting a liberal Republican as the lesser of two evils. Perhaps enough Republicans will recall this election in 2012 such that we will not allow a liberal-lite candidate to win the party’s nomination. Those of us that feel we betrayed at least a portion of our values in attempting to protect our national well-being can break free from the bondage of settling to seek and support future candidates who share our principles.

The level of darkness and length of the night our nation faces will be determined by a number of factors, including our level of resistance. It is possible that Barack Obama believes in his own rhetoric. If that is the case, our resistance will have to be nearly constant. It is hard to imagine that the promises made to win the support of far left loons will actually become the base of a presidential agenda… but if Barack Obama believes in those promises, we will need to be vigilant. Considering the character of the people drawn to Barack Obama (i.e. domestic terrorist Bill Ayers), it is likely that he will indeed push a dangerous far left agenda as president.

An unknown and deeply troubling factor is the effect of Obama’s policies on our economy, society, security, and liberty. We can hope to avoid utter devastation at the hands of the first Marxist President of The United States of America, but that hope is little more than a glimmer. If Obama’s agenda unfolds as planned, the question will become: How much misery will be required to convince the electorate that it made a mistake? There is also the uncertainty associated with the ability of an increasingly dependant electorate to not only awaken but have the ability to rise out of the shackles of dependence. As resources are limited and more people turn to the government to have their needs met, the stronger President Obama’s stranglehold on this nation’s working class will become. Again, we can hope that this nightmare is not realized and Obama can be largely neutralized by a vigilant citizenry.

Is it possible that the two-party dominance could weaken such that citizens have actual choices in future elections? One can dream. There will come a point, perhaps in four years or assuming Barack Obama doesn’t attempt to pull a Hugo Bloomberg, in eight years, when we will be selecting the next president. Will there be viable options to Republican and Democrat? Will the nose-in-the-air Republicans such as Peggy Noonan, George Will, David Brooks, and Kathleen Parker have a party in which they can be comfortable? It is unfortunate that The Democrat Party would need to splinter in order for factions of The Republican Party to be able to stand as viable options.

I realize that the idea of deconstructing the two-party system is highly unlikely to become a reality, but in the spirit of Obama’s campaign, one can hope! Assuming this dream is not realized, we will face the non-Obama related struggle to prevent the RINOs from convincing primary voters that despite the McCain example, our only chance to win is to run another soft-core liberal. The night will only be prolonged if we repeat our mistakes.

Here’s to remaining faithful to our values and to never forgetting how we arrived at this moment! Here’s to conservative leadership that can communicate conservative ideals (what a radical notion!) Here’s to the cleansing purge of Republicans that behaved like Democrats (or the division of the former party!) Here’s hoping that America will not have to wait a quarter of a century to awake to a new day!

The tidal wave of support for the absolute worst presidential candidate in my lifetime is thought provoking as well as alarming. What motivates a person to honestly believe in the promise of Barack Obama? What is the promise of Barack Obama? Will the Obama media machine’s slick sales pitch to the irresponsible provide a return on the (largely undisclosed) investments?

I believe a large portion of the mindless support for the Marxist who must not be identified accurately (at least according to his apologists) stems from a childish narcissism. It makes sense that Obama’s global unity rhetoric would appeal to people who believe they are the axis about which the globe revolves. Obama and his surrogates have been adept at striking the right chords with those that feel they are owed something. The sense of victim-hood has been magnified, manipulated, and targeted by the Obammunists. Who is responsible to meet the needs (real or perceived) of these people? Who owes these narcissists what they believe they are due?

While I never would have supported the brutal killing of innocent babies, as Obama supporters do (although I’m sure many of them block this nasty tidbit from their minds), I spent approximately 2/3 of my life developing a narcissistic mentality similar to that displayed by the Obamabots. The first 2/3 of my life was unpleasant and I felt entitled to something better. I was raised in environment where I learned to put my own wants above all else. No, I wasn’t taught this directly, but indirectly through the actions and attitudes in my environment. It should surprise no one that this environment was filled with the type of Democratic voters who thought Republicans meant “big business.” It should also surprise no one that these Democratic voters enjoyed their many self-indulgences (even the ones they couldn’t afford) due to the fact that they were indirectly employed because of the hated “big business.”

In my misery, I felt like there should be more for me. I believed that people with good jobs already had enough and should share. If somebody had something that I would like to have, I was jealous. I couldn’t find an easy way to get what I wanted out of life. I was miserable and felt victimized by those that had success. My focus on myself led to near self-destruction.

I was lucky. I met the woman that would be my wife and began to grow-up. I began to see the value of self-reliance and individual responsibility. When my wife became pregnant with our first child I became fully aware of exactly who was responsible to meet my needs (and wants) as well as the needs of the family we had created!

My wife had a college education and a job. I had a low-paying job that I hated. So I decided to do something that an Obamabot would likely never dream of doing. I took responsibility for the future of myself and my family. I went back to school and eventually got a better job. I sought increasing responsibility at work and this coupled with my achievement of a B.S. degree, allowed me to attain an engineering position. During this time I also converted to Catholicism which filled a gap in my life.

In short, I grew up. I didn’t ask taxpayers to provide for my future. It might shock the libiot Obamorons that the misery abated as I accepted responsibility. Another benefit of growing into self-reliance was a new generosity of spirit. I found that once I stopped expecting to receive, I actually felt inspired to give.

I hope the grown-up voters can overcome the narcissistic child voters Tuesday. Obama proposes to make it nearly impossible to follow the path I took. It will certainly be harder for people to grow up and be responsible for themselves when Obama’s job killing dreams are realized.

Today’s Washington Obamost has “an excerpt” from an internet series titled “On Faith.” It should surprise no one that the chosen excerpt is Deepak Chopra’s commentary, “Please Keep God Out of the Voting Booth.” Of course it may surprise or sicken the reader to see this rabid Obammunist even mention the Constitution.

There never will be, and never should be, a religious reason to pick one candidate over another. God hasn’t personally voted in an American election, but he keeps voting by proxy. In an ideal world that would never happen. Supernatural beings aren’t citizens. Omniscient deities don’t make choices (since they already know every outcome in advance). To anyone who holds a serious regard for the Constitution, voting your faith should be a private matter, not a public one. It wouldn’t make me happy to know that a Catholic friend voted for someone solely because he was a Catholic, or that a Jewish friend voted for someone solely because he took a hawkish stand pro Israel, but that’s their right. No public discussion is required.

Yet we have to be realistic. God is going to vote by proxy this year. The real question is where his massive voting bloc is heading, now that the Republican Party has been so thoroughly discredited. Can we hope that religious voting will return to being a private matter?

Please click the link to Chopra’s commentary if you want to read the rest of the piece and perhaps be insulted for even considering your faith as an influencing factor on your vote.

I am confused about the implication that the Constitution would discourage a person from casting his or her vote based on the things that are important to him or her. This notion is foreign to me, perhaps there is something in the Bhagavadgita that informs Chopra’s perspective. I took a course on Eastern Philosophy approximately 8 years ago which covered Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, and Confuscianism. True I did not take this course out of any desire to learn about these religions, as I was motivated strictly by the idiotic degree requirements imposed upon college students. I do remember being unimpressed by the course material and coming away with a sense that a common theme in at least some of these philosophies was the avoidance of individual responsibility.

Perhaps there is confusion regarding which candidate Chopra is supporting despite the fact that The Washington Obamost published his drivel. A visit to his own web-site and blog should clear any doubts as to his hope for change. His recent blog post, “The Man Who Changed the World?” makes it clear why he would be afraid of American voters considering faith when casting this year’s votes.

Wanting to change the world is different from having to. The latter is what’s expected of Barack Obama if he’s elected. The huge crowds he keeps attracting aren’t looking simply for a new leader, or even a reformer to undo the bad things wrought by the Republicans. They are looking for transformation. This isn’t pure fantasy. Sometimes history forces change right before your eyes, and when that happens the road forks. You can tinker with the world as it is or you can remake the world as it should be.

While it is too bad Chopra didn’t stay in India and spare this nation from his interference, the fact is, he didn’t. Of course his idea of change involves one global “collective” and therefore he likely recognizes no borders.

Is Chopra advocating global communism with “Big Brother” Barack Obama as the head of the commune known as Earth? Does he seek a global unity based on his faith and does he see Barack Obama as promising in that regard? Perhaps he hopes to attain the goals of his faith via the Saul Alinsky “Rules For Radicals” notion that the ends justify the means. How appropriate that a spiritual Obammunist would seek to further the goals of his faith by issuing a devious plea to people of faith to cast it aside before they vote?

It should be obvious that any Obamoron would want voters to ignore faith and their sense of right and wrong on Tuesday, for a reasonable consideration of right and wrong would preclude casting a vote for the man who spoke out against “The Born Alive Infant Protection Act.” It would be obvious that Barack Obama’s campaign based on deceptive practices (Saul would indeed be proud) would not mesh well with a sense of right and wrong. Indeed the dangerous purveyors of Obammunism desperately need you to ignore common sense, your faith, right and wrong, and simply be dazzled by the theatrics. Vote with your brain switched off, that is their hope.

On a somewhat related note, “The One” mentioned selfishness the other day. Isn’t it amazing that these libiot Obammunists believe in charitable giving… as long as it is with other people’s money?!? What has Barry given to his brother in Nairobi? What has The Messiah given to his illegal aunt in Boston? How do the charitable contributions of the Demoncrat candidates compare to those of the Republicans? The selfishness charge is completely misplaced. Selfish describes the narcissist, Barack Obama. Selfish describes the “Gimme! Gimme!” voters that see the promise of increased handouts on the backs of this nation’s productive! Selfish describes the wealthy Obammunists that stand to gain when their smaller competition is wiped out by the tax increases and regulation nightmares that would strangle small business in an Obamanation! Selfish describes Deepak Chopra, who would see our nation suffer to fit his warped philosophy.