I’m not one to play the race card so I won’t even entertain the notion that this is nothing but a bunch of white guys trying to “get the brother man”. Some say that Michael Steele is incompetent, he’s too off script, and he doesn’t stick to the RNC talking points. Well, as if RNC talking points were a good thing, it doesn’t matter if Michael Steele won’t recite them like a high school production of Hamlet. This latest “gaffe” if you want to call it that, is not a big deal. And it’s being blown out of proportion because the Republican Party of Washington is too afraid, and too worried about their polling data to stand for something and tell the truth.

This didn’t start with Michael Steele, but it’s just another example of the impotent leaderless establishment trying to muscle their way to the front of the line. He said quote, “This was a war of Obama’s choosing.”This is not something the United States had actively prosecuted or wanted to engage in.” He also said if Obama was a student of history he should know that you don’t engage in a land war in Afghanistan because other nations have tried and failed. Now, I don’t know about you, but I find nothing false, inaccurate, or demeaning about that those statements.

First of all, he’s right, as far back as Alexander the Great nations have tried to conquer Afghanistan and they have failed. In recent memory the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan and they failed. In fact, their reputation as a Military power was never the same after that conflict. Who’s to say our Military won’t be viewed in the same light? Are we so different? Are we so invulnerable to failure if our own commander in chief wants to pull out in a year? How can this man have his heart all in when he wants to leave next summer? Shame on the war mongers like Bill Kristol who criticized Michael Steele. Kristol said Steele’s comments don’t represent those of someone who should be chairman of the Republican Party.

That’s absurd; I’m an anti-war libertarian who favors leaving the Middle East altogether, does that makes me unqualified to run for RNC chairman? I’m against the United States being involved in international bodies like the UN and NATO, does that mean I could never win as a member of the GOP if I ran for office? You have these guys like Kristol and these other Republican elites who spew these talking points, and tow the line, and these guys sunk our ship in 2006, and 2008. The more war guys who want us to bomb Iran or at the very least support an Israeli led attack against Iran.

For every international crisis their solution is more wars and more bases on foreign land. You know these guys call themselves conservative, but are it conservative to launch wars across the globe? Is Military adventurism conservative? Then I’m not a conservative because I don’t believe in spreading our power across the world like its mulch on our lawns. You think the founders would support this stuff? The most conservative president we’ve ever had Calvin Coolidge, he was against foreign involvement and foreign alliances. He and Thomas Jefferson were the reason why I became a conservative libertarian. If they were around today I highly doubt they would support this nonsense.

And no, I’m not saying we shouldn’t have gone after the barbarians responsible for 9-11, but to have this war drag on for ten years now, propping up an obviously corrupt slimy eel in Hamid Karzai, and spending millions hand over fist and risking lives, at some point we have to ask ourselves when enough is enough. And to my fellow Republicans: How many years are too many? You want to be there for another 10? Maybe 20 years, how bout 50 years? Hell we’ll see the amount of time spent by Alex the Great and the Soviets and we’ll raise them four or five decades.

This war has gone on for too long and its time to leave. And if you disagree with Michael Steele, then you disagree with Pat Buchanan, George Will, and Ron Paul. Despite what Mr. Kristol has to say in his article, there are plenty of Republicans who now oppose this war and they have every right to be a member of the party.

Today the numbers came out about the economic landscape and job growth, and while the Obama administration and the media were looking for pristine valleys and lush forests, instead they got desert sands and scorched earth. It’s becoming increasingly clear that this president not only lacks economic vision and a true sense of what it takes to create sustainable private sector jobs, I’m beginning to doubt whether or not he cares if the private sector recovers and grows. It’s bizarre because the Democrats are trying to carpet bomb the private sector with this financial reform bill, and yet they try to talk up their support for the private sector. Finally, the markets are starting to weed out the contradictory bull-you know the rest.

Now’s not the time to play politics with people’s money. That goes for Wall Street and Main Street. Furthermore, whether they like it or not Democrats are going to have to come to terms with the fact that Wall Street and Main Street are connected at the hip, because the “folks” invest, and without Wall Street, a thriving one I might add, those investments will go down the toilet, along with everything else, including our economy.

Barack Obama is in over his head, and I believe no matter what happens in the midterm, the economy won’t bounce back until and or unless Barack Obama is defeated in 2012. What we have as president is a man who cannot grasp the fundamentals of economics. Economics 101: You don’t create an atmosphere of panic and anxiety within the markets. You don’t call for the heads of executives, shake down corporations, call for a moratorium on oil drilling, raise taxes, increase spending, and create more entitlement programs when the economy is down on bended knee.

We need to cut taxes across the board, and that means deep cuts for the top earners, and we need to eliminate tax cuts for people who don’t work. There should be no reason why a man who doesn’t work, receives a tax cut yet a man who makes over 350,000 dollars a year gets slapped with a tax hike. The idea of economic growth is to encourage people with money to spend that money on products, which in turn compels businesses to hire people, because they have to make those products that the “evil” rich want to buy. If someone wants to buy a new ship, hell let em buy it because that means more jobs for people who need them.

And you know, it’s so easy to understand: Wealth+Consumption=Manufacturing, Retail=Wages earned, and jobs added, which equals economic growth. Yet our president refuses to put two and two together. In his mind 2+2=1.

I’m not making light of the bad economic forecast because I feel for those looking for jobs. I was out of work for a year and then god blessed me with a job and I’m grateful. But unless we put private sector friendly capitalists in Washington, we’re not getting out of this whirlwind with our economic power intact. China just surpassed the United States as the #1 manufacturing power in the world, and this White House was more tight lipped than a virgin in Utah. Instead they’re trying to appease China and carry on about their currency. To heck with their currency manipulation, let’s focus on creating and maintaining jobs here first, then after we’ve regained our economic credibility we can put China on trial for their wrongdoing. But until then, until we cut this debt down, until we reform entitlements, until we stop trying to crucify anyone in this country that makes an honest buck, or works on Wall Street, we’re going to suffer. Our elected officials have this twisted notion that if they bash and break Wall Street the economy will flourish beyond our wildest imagination.

They’re wrong, because the economy as a whole is like our bodies. We don’t cut our arm off if it’s broken. We go to the doctor, they fix it, and we let it heal properly. Each sector of this economy feeds off another. If Wall Street is squeezed or shaken down out of pure politics and antipathy toward capitalism, then Main Street will suffer. If the banks are taxed to death, the construction sector will die because no bank will be able or willing to loan a construction company the funds to buy lumber and other tools needed to build homes and commercial properties. If the real estate market fails again, the retail sector will die, because people won’t have a reason to die furniture, home supplies, and other essentials. If they implement a sin tax then the food industry suffers because people could no longer afford to buy food, moreover, food that is normally cheaper to buy will increase in price, which in turn hurts lower income families.

Finally, energy taxes. Cap and trade will hurt the energy sector and that will eventually hit families on low income payment plans. Their energy bills will increase, which will cancel that low income payment plan out because the payments will increase each month. This isn’t progress, it’s barbaric. You cannot blanket a free people in widespread economic misery and claim its the best thing for them. At the G-20 Summit president Obama was the only world leader calling for more spending. He was ignored and shot down, and rightfully so. He also claimed that America’s economic power is unsustainable and will not last. That just shows you how much confidence our own president has in the country and the people who elected him.

When Al Gore invented the internet I’m guessing he never imagined the length at which the president of the United States, and the Democrats would go in order to obtain complete control over what you see, hear,purchase, and read online. The first attempt by the FCC to regulate the internet was done in the name of fairness and quote, “internet principles” whatever that sh*t means. An appeals court judge however shot that net neutrality argument down and instead ruled in favor of Comcast. Of course Democrats vowed to keep fighting like they do whenever a judge rules in favor of liberty and the constitution. You notice now the media is doing thy bidding by going after the Louisiana judge who rejected the Obama administration’s moratorium on oil drilling and the appeal that followed.

The question is will the Supreme Court stand up to this White House, this party, and this now increasingly dictatorial, or at least dictator-like president. I know its taboo to call Barack Obama a Marxist or a socialist, but have you ever seen anything like this? For all the hell Bush caught for the Patriot Act, and rightfully so, this is worse because there’s no valid reason as to why the White House should regulate the internet. They claim it’s to help combat identity fraud and to ensure safer online transactions, but that’s what Life Lock and other identity protection software are for. If people can’t afford Life Lock then they can download a 30 day trial of Norton or any other anti-virus protection software for free. Those programs also come equipped with identity protection capability. There’s no excuse for this, none what so ever.

We must ask ourselves: Why would the so called “internet and social media” president who raised millions in small donations online and garnered millions of supporters on Facebook want to control the world wide web? It’s simple, he wants to control us. It sounds all conspiracy theory like but hey, people who share the same world view and ideology as Obama find absolution in terms of government control essential to their quote, “plan to reshape America”. The man wants to consolidate power in a way that would cause the great Thomas Jefferson to do triple sow-cows in this grave. Jefferson spoke about this push by the elite to gather as much influence and power within Washington in order to push their favored programs and agenda items through without objection.

But the worst part in all of this is the fact that the White House set up a website so people can give their ideas and suggestions on how to go about this takeover. They want our input on how they can control our internet. Talk about being killed with your own gun.

President Obama taps David Petraeus as the new head guy in Afghanistan and the left suddenly likes the idea of war. Well, when it comes to Obama anything goes so long as it helps him, saves him. Chuck Todd on the Daily Runs spoke with Chris Matthews and they were saying this saved the president and this move was widely praised in Washington. Well, that’s all well and good but the American people outside the walls of the beltway still hold unfavorable views of this ten year long war. It’s not that we dislike General Petraeus, on the contrary, most Americans have a favorable view of the man and rightfully so.

But it doesn’t matter if he’s in or not. I said this yesterday, it doesn’t matter who your coach is, you can go out and hire Bill Parcels or Ken Wisenhunt, as long as the GM, which in this case is Obama isn’t willing to draft Sam Bradford then no amount of coaching will help. The game plan has to be one that is concrete, coherent, and the man at the top has to be on board with a positive winning strategy. And, for a man who can’t breathe without blaming George Bush this move reeks of Bush. Remember, Petraeus was the man who saved Iraq from the abyss, and in my opinion he’ll be placed among the top military leaders in American history, but not for Afghanistan, but Iraq.

And the left loves him now. Remember “General Betray Us”, those lefty hacks at MoveOn.org wrote that hit piece and the Democrats at the time weren’t exactly jumping over their chairs to condemn those nut jobs. George Bush was president and they all opposed the Iraq war so that was the difference. Although, the same Democrats who were dragging their feet when it came to funding the war and supplying our troops with basic materials like body armor are the same ones dragging their feet and getting into confrontations with the Pentagon. Talk to David Obey about the Democrats willingness to fund troops in Afghanistan. I said willingness but I’m being sarcastic of course.

This move had to be done or Obama would look small and petulant. He couldn’t fire a guy widely supported by the Afghan people and our soldiers in McChrystal, and then replace him with you know, uh I don’t know General Booger Picker or something, someone with less credibility. He had to tap Petraeus in order to save his own butt, which is pretty sad. It’s sad because Obama doesn’t really have faith in Petraeus, he chose him as Chuck Todd just stated on the Daily Runs, to keep Republicans at bay if Obama had made a bod choice to replace McChrystal. See where this is going?

And the same crowd on MSNBC were running around like chickens with their heads cut off when a new poll came out before and after this pick by Obama. The poll said 44% of Americans believe president Obama, a significant drop from his comfortable 63% rating in the first months of his presidency. Chris Matthews was so panicked you would have thought the man was having an attack or something. It was amusing to see he and Chuck Todd rationalize the across the board drop in Obama approval ratings.

It’s always been about how the events of the world and in our country effective, not the country or the world but Obama. I echo the great Lloyd Marcus because he was out front on this issue long before me. But it’s so remarkably bizarre how the media seems to wrap everything around Barack Obama. He passed health care, never mind the fact that a majority of Americans, not a small one, a very large share of the country opposed it until the final stroke of the clock in the dead of night when it was passed. The media called it a win for Obama, never raising questions about how it was passed, why, and whether or not the country wanted it in the first place, which they didn’t, and still don’t. And now this move is about his legacy, his ratings, how he looks to the country at large. Those jar heads, those fire pissers dodging bullets and sleeping with one eye open out there in the desert, they don’t matter, it’s all about “O”.

Lights, get into character, make sure you know your lines, and wait for it, camera, and action! Now play commander in chief Mr. President. Tell us the reason you relieved General McChrystal of his duties, and then tell us why you really gave him the old Military one finger salute. I know why he did it, you know why he did it, but apparently president Obama doesn’t think we know why he ousted McChrystal. Here’s a little trick I picked up when I used to lie constantly to my parents: If you tell someone the reason you did something wasn’t for the reason they thought, well, that’s exactly why you did what you did.

Let’s be real here: You talk trash about Obama knowing the man has thin skin, you’re asking for a spot in the unemployment line. McChrystal got bi-partisan condemnation and that saddened me because I felt the man called a spade a spade. People were saying “well he broke the chain of command”, “he broke years of tradition” Well, let me ask you a question: If your boss wants you to sell a product say, green socks when everyone clearly likes to wear blue socks, and clearly green socks don’t sell, would you just blindly go about selling those socks and risk the demise of hundreds of jobs and the company itself, or would you question your boss’ business model and vision? Yeah, maybe the general was a bit too candid with those set up men at Rolling Stone, but obviously he was bothered by the lack of direction and the over abundance of ineptitude in the White House when it comes to the war.

You have Joe Biden talking about let’s just focus on the Taliban with predator drones, as if the Taliban were walking around in broad daylight wear hot pink shirts and neon green slacks that had “TALIBAN” down the sides in black bold lettering. Those guys aren’t exactly out and about wearing “Shoot Me” signs. There was also the deal earlier this year when McChrystal put Obama on what we call “front street” when he was being interviewed on 60 Minutes and he said he had only met with Obama once since taking over in Afghanistan.

This was personal if there was ever such a word. Obama was mad because McChrystal exposed a narrative that continues to hurt the president beyond Afghanistan. The narrative is as follows: Obama is aloof, arrogant, immature, naive, and inept, he’s not a leader, he doesn’t know how to govern, he’s disconnected, and he’s too hands off. There’s a reason why this man voted “Present” over 100 times as a state Senator in Illinois. Obama is the type to take responsibility for nothing, but somehow takes credit for everything including the creation of the heavens and the earth, turning water into wine, and the invention of the automobile, the telephone, and the economic surplus during the Clinton years.

Everyone before him failed, everyone before got it wrong, so he’s here to make everything right, and solve all the problems that the previous 43 presidents, despite having more credibility, leadership qualities, integrity, experience, and intelligence just couldn’t crack. He’s a man of little leadership yet he’s the greatest leader in the history of mankind. Howard Fineman on Hardball said General Patraeus just saved Obama’s presidency. That’s what they said about the health care bill, and the speech about the health care bill before it was passed, the speech he gave last week, the speech before that, his economic stimulus plan, when Arlen Specter became a Democrat, heck pretty much any thing this man does quotes, “saves his presidency”.

This PR stunt won’t turn the tide in Afghanistan unfortunately. The difference between this historical moment that will be compared to Lincoln’s decision to fire General McClellan during the Civil War. Now, I say that because you know the media will compare Obama’s decision to put Petraeus in charge of the Afghanistan war to what happened with Lincoln and McClellan so get ready. But as I was saying, the difference between what Petraeus did in Iraq and what he will do now is the man who occupied the White House. George Bush owned the Iraq war for better or worse. He staked his entire presidency and now his legacy on that conflict and history shines a little brighter on Bush each day that Iraq gets a little better. But with Obama Petraeus has a commander in chief that would rather delay the inevitable withdraw of troops that will still happen in one form of another in July of 2011 despite what Andrea Mitchell and the “crack” team of reporters say their sources at the White House told them. By the way, you ever wonder why MSNBC has so many sources at the White House.

Obama’s hearts not in this war, it never was. He talked it up during the general election in order to win favor with moderate Republicans. He could care less whether or not we lose, he just wants to maintain the understanding that no one is allowed to criticize him, ever. You heard his speech; he talked about coming together and ending the debate on the war. So now we’re not allowed to even question our very presence in Afghanistan. I certainly question it everyday because I don’t think we should be there. In fact, I’m of the mind we leave the Middle East altogether. Call me a Ron Paulite I don’t know. But if the GM isn’t ready to spend a little cheese on some talent, then it don’t matter who your coach is.

Obama can dig up Patton, Washington, Lee, Grant, MacArthur, Beauregard, and Sherman for all I care, but all the great generals in the world won’t change the course of action in a war if the man in charge in the White House is basically playing not to lose, instead of playing to win. And we here at Red State aren’t blaming Petraeus or McChrystal, we’re not casting doubt on our brave brothers and sisters fighting for our liberty, but one must ponder the true intentions of this president. What arrogance and heartlessness would it be if he were to put thousands of troop’s lives at risk all because he can’t take criticism? Let’s pray Obama’s not as arrogant and self obsessed as he’s proven himself to be, at least not in this case.

Chris Matthews of MSNBC and Hardball fame? Presented the loyal fifteen with an in depth (By in depth I mean the depth of a thin crust pizza) look at the rise of the new right. In this documentary Matthews aims to link the Tea Party movement, the Michigan militia, and suburban moms with what he sees as an unusually hostile form of conservatism. You know, as oppose to that less threatening less principled form. At first I was suspicious of this documentary and dismissed it as a senseless and ignorant attempt to marginalize, characterization, and smear the movement, but after watching the documentary I came to the conclusion that in fact it was, a senseless, ignorant, characterization of the Tea Party.

He played clips of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan from the 1960 campaign. He even went as far as to lump “go to” conservative Pat Buchanan in this new right movement. He played a clip of Buchanan’s famous speech from the 1992 GOP convention.

Matthews is trying to be cute by half. Unfortunately he’s neither cute nor intelligent, so his aim is off by a mile or two. He assumes first and foremost that this wave of conservatism is new. He also assumes that this is the most hostile movement in our nation’s history. His tone and his over dramatic narration makes you want to join a militia, not fear one. This “documentary” plays more like a news report inside the world of Islamic terrorists or the New Nazi movement rather than an honest fair look at what is truly a diverse, spirited political force in America today. Matthews is no thinker by any means of the word or the act itself, but he could have at least tried harder to assess the Tea Party and their impact on the country and in politics.

The truth is, this is nothing new. The “right” is as old as the country. In fact, ready for this? The country was founded on “right wing” principles by “right wingers”. Limited government isn’t a right wing belief, nor is the idea that yes even if the government was elected by the people, that doesn’t give elected politicians a mandate for unconstitutional government action and policy. See Matthews, and you can tell he’s not a thinker because he assumes just because the government was as he calls it “honestly elected” that means politicians have the power to do what ever they want when they want.

He said as much on his show last night. He said when one party is in power the losing party lets them do what they want until the country gets tired and then they elected new people, and they do what they want because that’s how democracies work. When I heard that I couldn’t help but to take those words and in my mind imagine a five year old saying the exact same thing. Of course its cute when a child says it but when a grown man says something so misguided and ignorant then you have to wonder about that person.

You’re not suppose to let one party destroy the country and then when the people get tired of all the destruction wait until they vote you in. If the constitution is being dismissed, if every fabric of the civil society are being violated and ripped to shreds, if you don’t stand up and say something then you’re no better than the perpetrators of the act.

Someone needs to learn Mr. Matthews on the process of good government. Good government is never having to actually denounce government itself, because the government should never step out of its constitutionally allowed limits. And those holding the levers shouldn’t have to be told how to govern.

Tonight president Obama will give a speech on his handling, or lack thereof of the BP oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. Facing questions of whether or not he knows how to be a leader, not to mention an effective president who can govern, I don’t view this speech as his moment to rise above the criticism, but a chance to save his own skin. This, is the reason why so many people are losing faith in Barack Obama. When it all boils down to leading people off the sinking ship, he instead pushes people out of the way like George Costanza at the flaming birthday party. Obama would do so on the ship so he could have the first lifeboat.

The president of the United States mustn’t show arrogance. Obama’s problem is that he can’t help but to be arrogant because he’s has his head souped up all his life. When people coddle you and give you everything you want, despite the effective it may have on others, and when people constantly orbit around you telling you have intelligent and profound you are, not only do you develop an arrogant aura, you act as though things in the world will only effect you and how you feel. It reminds me of that episode of Everybody Loves Raymond when Ray’s friend Andy had his article ran by Sports Illustrated, a prize Ray has coveted most of his career as a sportswriter. As his wife Deborah points out, he wasn’t happy for his friend because he was too focused on how his friend’s opportunity effected him. Ray wanted to be in Sports Illustrated and the fact that his friend Andy, who had been asking him for writing tips got that chance upset him. He felt he should have gotten that Sports Illustrated article because he’s Ray Barone.

With Obama its the same thing, he wants this, and that because he says so, he can change the world’s view of America just by walking into some UN summit or what have you because the sheer force of his very existence will move the international body in ways that make Jesus of Nazareth look like a carnival magician. One example, a Hispanic member of Congress shared some time ago that during the health care debate Barack Obama met with members of the Hispanic Caucus. Obama approached this particular member who was planning to vote no, but he said Obama told him point blank that he needed health care to save his presidency and he also said quote, “You guys need to do this for me, I need a win”. Me, me me, I, I, I, it’s always all about Obama and never about the country. This is but one example.

So tonight he’ll give his speech and he’ll exaggerate his role from the beginning because he still thinks the country is either not as smart as he is to figure out a bull let’s say bull spitter, or his words will whisk us up into a euphoric wave and we’ll forget that he didn’t visit the gulf until 50 something days after the spill first happened two months ago. Just like he waited months to meet with General McChrystal for a second time after the good General put him on front street during an interview with 60 Minutes when McChrystal said he had only met with Obama once since being tapped to head the mission in Afghanistan.

You know, when does one realize they have no influence in what is taking place in the country? For Joe Scarborough that day, sadly might never come to pass. Joe’s problem, which has been the focal point of conservative disdain is that he thinks he’s qualified, and justified to sit on his high horse as “Republican Judge” He spouts off on his MSNBC show as if he were the honorable Joe Scarborough of Florida. You see, it’s easy for the beltway Obama republicans to criticize Sarah Palin, and Glen Beck, Rush Limbaugh, but for these know it all phonies leadership is something they can’t do, which is exactly why they slam the outspoken within their party to begin with.

For Scarborough laying out a foundation for true conservatism would mean giving up his unofficial job as “Self righteous Republican lecturer” and believe me I’ve heard his solutions for what this country is and will face, they’re defunct and debunked 1990s moderate Republican ideas that sunk George H.W. Bush and failed to deliver John McCain to the White House two years ago. He preaches pragmatic big government republicanism while sticking his chest out in arrogant fashion proclaiming to be a quote, “Conservative’s conservative”. Truth be told he is neither conservative, nor capable of leading the new conservative movement that propelled the campaigns of Niki Haley in South Carolina, Sharon Angle in Nevada, as well as dozens of conservative grassroots candidate looking to make their mark this November.

The verdict will read as follows for the Mike Murphy, Mark McKinnon, Joe Scarborough types who like to talk and hear themselves talk, while others like to hear them talk, but they offer little if anything in terms of real, constitutional, conservative ideas that have proven much more effective than the all too unreliable pragmatic moderate solutions of the establishment. The irony in Scarborough’s constant eye poke of the GOP Washington establishment is that he in fact belongs to that same club. He mocked GOP leader Mitch McConnell over the defeat of Trey Grayson in the Kentucky GOP primary for Senate. McConnell was a huge supporter of Grayson, but Grayson was defeated by Rand Paul, who is the son of Texas Congressman Ron Paul.

Here’s a question I have for the Morning Joe and any other Republicans who hailed this as a nut punch to the GOP establishment: Did any of you support those grassroots candidates or candidates supported by the Tea Party? And speaking of the Tea Party, if you rail against the establishment, then why do you hold such contempt for the Tea Part which is the complete opposite of the Washington GOP machine?

They couldn’t answer because they know where they stand, but they hope you don’t know where they stand. These are bitter, has been political lifers who lash out at Palin and Rush Limbaugh and Michelle Bachmann because deep down they’re jealous. They feel they should be out their drawing big crowds and moving the political needle. So instead of joining forces with said names above they smear them and try to cast them off as fringe and out of the mainstream, politically and ideologically unelectable so their liberal friends in the media will approve.

We have no place for irrelevant useful idiots in our party. The GOP is becoming more female, more conservative, and in my opinion more libertarians and the Joe Scarborough types need to accept it, work with us, or simply get out. Judging by how difficult it is for Scarborough to say anything critical of Barack Obama, I take it he would have no problem being a Democrat. In fact, I bet he voted for Obama. You guys see it right? Whenever he criticizes president Obama he has to criticize George Bush, as if he’s appeases the liberals over their at MSNBC. Either that or he gets off criticizing Republicans.

There are some boycotts and calls for boycotts of British Petroleum across the country for the now infamous and historically important oil spill in the gulf of Mexico. We all appreciate a good recognition of incompetence and BP has to own up to their large share of mistakes and negligence, but to call for an outright boycott of BP puts service station workers and managers who are low on the totem poll at risk of losing their job, at which case this outrage over the BP oil spill would have been for not, and would have solved nothing in holding the oil giant responsible for their lack of adherence to precaution.

This is yet another reason why boycotts are a bad idea. They don’t hurt the targeted person or persons, they usually (not surprising) hurt the people working below the executives, Vice Presidents’, and Presidents’ of different corporations. The annual call for a boycott of Wal Mart for example, the boycott wouldn’t put a dent in the wallet of the Wal Mart big wigs, but it would most definitely put thousands of low level store, customer service, store managers, and distribution center jobs at risk.

In a capitalist, well what’s left of a capitalist society anyway we must embrace the invisible hand of the free market. BP will pay but it shouldn’t be held in the court of government. Of all places in fact, the federal body cannot teach nor lecture British Petroleum on the topic of morals and responsibility. The federal government lacks moral roots to even be aware of the damage they are causing with debt percentage to equal that of our Gross Domestic Product. Furthermore, the federal body lacks the responsible heart to recognize its own misdeeds and usurpation of liberty and constitutional boundary. So, perhaps this is a case of the guilty persecuting the guilt ridden. Call it the court of flawed men who sit on high chairs of misplaced righteousness and misguided moral arrogance.

The word is out and BP will pay a hefty price both symbolically and of course literally because they owe a lot of people millions of dollars in damages. But perhaps maybe the biggest and most essential lesson  learned is that maybe we should rely less on foreign oil and more on our own domestic supply. We should also refrain from the idea that accidents never happen. The oil spill itself was an accident, the response was BP’s fault, as well as the government. There will be another oil spill in some part of the world if not right here at home in America. Long after BP gets this mess cleaned up, long after Barack Obama decides to lead instead of engaging in political trash talk like he’s on the basketball court somewhere in Chicago, there is still going to be an oil spill. The question is how bad, and how fast will the response be?

Let’s put the comments and the reaction to those comments by Rand Paul aside for a moment. The elite media and the elite political and social class inside the Beltway reacted in the way someone who has become vastly disconnected with not only American history but America’s founders. Make no mistake, the founders were all libertarian with the exception of Alexander Hamilton who admired the British Monarchical system so much he wanted to create an American version which, was immediately slapped down by the anti-Federalists and the Federalists. In fact it was the only thing both sides could unequivocally agree on at the time. When I say libertarian I don’t mean civil libertarians and liberal on government issues, I mean further down the line than both Rand and Ron Paul. The founders, for example Thomas Jefferson, who makes Pen Jillette look like Bernie Sanders was very anti-government, almost to the point where he could be considered an anarchist in some cases, certainly by today’s standards of ideological purity.

Yes the founders wanted to establish a new central government but they also wanted that government to be as powerless and irrelevant to the private lives of the citizens as possible. In fact, the anti-Federalists were so paranoid of this new government they literally revolted against the idea until finally the Bill of Rights were adopted, thanks in part to the influential support from James Madison and Ben Franklin. I believe without the Bill of Rights there wouldn’t be a constitution nor a newly established federal government. What the Bill of Rights did was give anti-Federalists the confirmation they needed to ensure that states’ rights wouldn’t be usurped by the federal body. Rand Paul only echoed the same concern Patrick Henry had 230 years prior.

Henry feared, like many anti-Federalists at the time that the government would become the playground for the elite, the well connected, and would ultimately become an environment of stagnation and gridlock due years of cronyism and special interest as a result of consolidated power and financial influence, and that the president could unite power around him, so much so that he could become king. What Rand Paul said and what he believes echoes, unfortunately the forgotten roots of our very nation. John Jay for example was someone who believed slavery contradicted the freedoms sought by the founders, but he also believed that states would move to act on the matter. Jay didn’t argue for the federal government to step in and force states to adhere to the creed, and if John Jay were alive in 1964 I doubt with great confidence he would vote for the Civil Rights Act.

The argument however against Rand Paul’s comments is that if left to the states African Americans to this day would be treated and considered second class citizens. Well, perhaps that’s true, but even after the Civil Rights ACT you still have racism and discrimination taking place in this country. Now, I’m not suggesting the ACT was a waste because I’m a direct result of the benefits, as in I’m freer today than my family members including my dad was in the 1960s. But, my question is this: How far should the government go? Should the government then force diners and restaurants to eliminate pork dishes on their menus because some Muslim customers complained time and time again because that diner or restaurant served pork chops or pork tenderloin? Or should the federal body force private schools to allow transgendered students to use the Girl’s or Boy’s bathroom? I mean, if a transgendered boy wants to use the girl’s bathroom and his teacher says no because he has male anatomy, should the government step in? And let me elaborate on this, if the boy is transgendered and he’s using the girl’s bathroom, but he has male genitalia and female students complain to the principal, the principal addresses the young man, does the government have the right to override the ruling of the principal that the boy must use the male facility because he has male genitalia?

You see there’s only so far the government can go, or is there? And if there isn’t then how can we defend the unconstitutionality of denying terrorist suspects their day in an American court, yet the left has no problem with government acting in an unconstitutional manner when it comes to civil rights. Yes, I said it because it’s true, the government can push itself beyond its constitutional limits when granting and or protecting civil rights. I believe I call it “Freedom for some, at the expense of others’ freedoms.” The left makes this argument through emotion, not history. They say well, “the minority class isn’t represented; they must be equal to the majority.” Even if the majority loses their rights as a result? In Connecticut we saw an example of this when three white firefighters and one Hispanic firefighter were denied promotions due to the accusation and by accusation I mean assumption that the test given to these firefighters were racial discriminatory. The racial discrepancy arose when the black firefighters failed the test. Before giving the firefighters who passed the benefit of hard work and determination, the city of Hartford readily assumed that the test must be racial bias in favor of non-blacks because the black firefighters failed.

Eventually the four firefighters won their case because the Supreme Court ruled against the city of Hartford. Even then, the mayor, the mayor no less said he would seek to overturn the ruling. My word. My point is this; government can only do so much before things get out of hand. Racism still exists, the Civil Rights Act did nothing to cure this disease, it only granted the ill the right to seek treatment, but there is no cure I’m afraid to what ails them. Blacks will always face racial injustice and mistreatment. What we need to do is look inward as a society and not look to the government to step in. The progressive Utopian society is a myth. You cannot have a society without some form of racism or discrimination, jut as you cannot have a country where at least 6 million out of 20 million of its people are unemployed, or 12 million people don’t have access to health coverage.

It’s neither no one’s fault nor the desire of the majority to have racism or unemployment or what have you. It’s called reality, and the founders were smart because they purposely created a non progressive government incapable of being so perfect as to let the citizens wallow in mediocrity and entitlement programs. And at the same time they knew a flawed government would be too incompetent to protect the rights of the individual. So there was a balance, as with everything else in life. The government provides for the common defense meaning the military. Sometimes people assume the police provide for the common defense but the police aren’t actually obligated to protect citizens according to the constitution. The government ensures the pursuit of happiness, not opportunity. Most progressives assume that would “happiness” mean you have a right to be happy, not pursuit happiness. You don’t have a right to free lap dances if you can’t afford one, even if it makes you happy. You do however have the right to get a lap dance if you can afford it. And if the nice lady refuses to give you one then you can’t have one. I better not hear of someone taking their objection to a stripper’s refusal to the Supreme Court.

I’m getting sick and tired of this attempt by the media led by MSNBC and that anatomically unidentifiable failed Air America host Rachel Maddow to smear and paint Rand Paul as a racist and someone who not only opposes the Civil Rights Act of 1964 but someone who wants to appeal it. First of all, Rand Paul never once said he favored a repeal of the bill because it goes against everything he stands for as a libertarian. In case our friends at MSNBC didn’t know, which I wouldn’t put it past their ignorance, libertarians are constitutionalists, and believers in the word of the Declaration. Therefore we libertarians both embrace the 10th Amendment while rejecting slavery and segregation. The constitution has long been at war with those who believe in racial and ethnic oppression. You cannot express and desire freedom as a sovereign nation as we did during the American Revolution and support slavery. The founders were openly reflective and conflicted by this.

It was Thomas Jefferson, my hero who in his later years spoke of slavery through the thoughts and words of a man analyzing that which generated a contradiction in his life. He wrote the declaration and yet he himself owned slaves. Rand Paul was simply a victim of his own honesty. You see in America today honesty is contemptible, and if you speak truth to power you’re an extremist that must be persecuted in the eyes of the mainstream. And it is this that saddens me most of all about what our country has become. Has it indeed gotten to the point where we cannot even speak the truth? Are we so sensitive, are we so modeled after the phony mantra of political correctness that even a simply innocent criticism based on harmless facts and historical perspective formulated by an individual from one’s own mind and not of a group can be condemned and deemed unfit for the conversation at large?

What Rand Paul said was nothing more than that: An opinion based on his knowledge of the constitution which by the way he possesses more of than all those leftist smear merchants over at MSNBC. Rachel Maddow doesn’t know the constitution, nor its historical significance on how laws post American Revolution was passed. The problem is that the left has shifted reality. It’s now extreme to oppose and want to reform Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, and other unnecessary items that grow government beyond its constitutional limits. 60 Minutes correspondent Leslie Stahl asked David Gregory if Republicans’ quote, “extreme views on economic matters pertaining to social security” could create an opening for Democrats in November.

So once again we have a case where the left tries to move the goal post in order to trap conservatives because ultimately the left knows the Democrats are in a world of hurt this November. And I’ll tell you right now despite this phony gaffe that wasn’t a gaffe; Rand Paul is going to win Kentucky because I guarantee more people in Kentucky agree with Rand Paul than disagree. He’s also catching flack for calling Obama’s criticisms of BP un-American. As if Paul just randomly said these things without past examples. Everything that comes out of Obama’s mouth when it comes to capitalism, corporations, and the private sector is un-American and borderline Marxist. Remember, it was Obama who said to a crowd in Buffalo during a town hall meeting quote, “I’m not saying people on Wall Street shouldn’t make money, but at some point you’ve made enough” Now, does that sound like someone who believes in free markets?

They’re trying to paint libertarians in a light that makes us look and sound extreme or anti-minority. But they forget that our founders were more libertarian than Rand Paul, or you or I. This from John Adams: “The happiness of society is the end of government” This from the great Patrick Henry, or as I like to call him “the original Glen Beck”: “Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” Are those words from the founders not as they would say, incendiary? Was that speech given by Patrick Henry not divisive or out of the mainstream? Could you imagine Henry giving that same speech in front of the boobs that inhabit the House of Representatives in today’s America? What’s the difference between what Rand Paul said and what the founders said years ago? Nothing, because the left despises both Dr. Paul and the founding fathers.

But I want to touch on this quote by John Jay because it rebukes and destroys the argument of the left and this fake ass outrage over Ran Paul’s Civil Rights Act comments. Here’s what John Jay said quote: “It is much to be wished that slavery may be abolished. The honor of the States, as well as justice and humanity, in my opinion, loudly call upon them to emancipate these unhappy people. To contend for our own liberty, and to deny that blessing to others, involves an inconsistency not to be excused.”

The founders weren’t oblivious to slavery. They were more obliged to let the states handle this matter as an act of good humanity and conscience than the federal powers. I believe the states would have eventually emancipated slaves. I also believe the Civil Rights Act could have been a much more effective and less divisive issue had it been circulated through state and local governments rather than through the federal government. I also believe the Civil Rights act paved the way for Affirmative Action and other measures that exercise racial discrimination against whites and males. Yes I’m a black man saying this, and I don’t mince words. To suggest that any federal power must be exercised in order to resolve issues is to suggest that the people within the states have no good faith in their own sense of moral integrity or their sense of right and wrong. You do so almost readily to condemn the American people as regressive and narrow minded.

What Dr. Paul said in clear tone was that he objected not to the Act itself, but to the idea that federal bodies can force a privately owned business to serve whomever they wanted. He went out of his way in fact to dismiss the idea that he opposed grant African Americans civil rights, but still the media pushed and pushed. We must educate now more than ever because the left is trying to dismiss the constitution as an out of date, out of touch artifact crafted by the hands of slave masters. We must teach the American public otherwise.

The running narrative created by the media elite in Washington is that the upcoming primaries tomorrow are a beginning stage for what will be an anti-incumbent year in November. But one must analyze the narrative itself in order to figure out the reasons why all media outlets say the same thing: This is an anti-incumbent year” Yet, polls show more people consider themselves conservative (44%) while only (25%) consider themselves liberal, and the remaining35% align themselves with a more centrist philosophy. I must say when I first starting hearing about this anti-incumbency talk I paid no attention, that is until Bob Bennett was thrown out in Utah and the media seized on it and starting pushing this narrative that both parties are in trouble.

In reality however, the Democrat Party stand to suffer far more loses than the GOP. The numbers, despite the media’s effort to change the narrative suggest that more Democrats are vulnerable by way of primary and general elections that Republicans. Bob Bennett was a good Senator and a solid conservative, but make no mistake, the man was merely an insignificant casualty in a large battle yet to come. He lost because the party is in the midst of a conservative and libertarian revival. No longer are we the party of bargaining, or compromising on our principles, even if our establishment brethren in DC continue to cut deals with the left in order to maintain their own power.

By their own reporting the media manages to divert from their own set of facts. The facts are: A large number of Americans have a favorable view toward the Tea Party. Now, the media has said in the past that the Tea Party is a reflection of the mood of the country. Now, 100.999% of all Tea Party members are conservative or libertarian. They believe in small government, less spending, less taxes, and more freedom. Listen carefully to how the media cut and lifted the message of the Tea Party in order to change it into a narrative most Americans of all ideological stripes can support: Spending. You notice they always talk about spending as the culprit, driving anger at Washington. A Washington mind you that can’t seem to look out for average Americans. They’ve turned the Tea Party message of conservative small government constitutionalism into a chameleon narrative that can be mistaken for progressive populism and a call for bigger government that is much more effective rather than big for the sake of being big.

They would rather cede only this point, and in so doing have the room to cast Republicans into the sea along with Democrats: This is all about incumbents, not Democrats. However, one cannot arrogantly dismiss reality that both incumbents and Democrats are directly linked, joined at the hip in fact. It’s not a coincidence that Republicans are predicted to win about 30 seats this year. Furthermore, what’s so damaging if you’re a Democrat is the fact that your party is in so much trouble even though there are more GOP retirements this year than slated Democrat retiring from the House and Senate.

So I thought I’d touch on that because it was annoying the hell out of me.

What if we followed Ron Paul’s advice and left the Middle East, would terrorists give up their global war on what they see as western secularism and decadence? Would they suddenly cease to indoctrinate people in Mosques and the Madrasah? Would they turn back plans to quote, "Islamitize" the world in order to create an Islamic Caliphate? Well, we could give it a try but I’m betting on no, they wouldn’t stop. You see, Congressman Paul with all do respect because I’m a pride Paulite, you don’t seem to understand the foundations of Islam, nor do you understand just how deep these roots run within the Muslim world. The same goes for 60 Minutes’ Correspondent Leslie Stahl who described radical Islam as a "narrative" that puts the United States as chief antagonist trying, to quote Mrs. Stahl, "destroys Islam" or at least that’s what she said all Muslims who commit acts of terror think when committing these violent acts.

But, what about circumstances in which radical Muslims kill other Muslims? I mean, was the United States behind the Taliban’s bloody oppressive rule in Afghanistan? What about Saudi Arabia the most oppressive Islamic state in the Middle East where its illegal to be a practicing Christian and women aren’t allowed to drive cars or own property. You never hear the left talk about the treatment of women in the Muslim world. Could you imagine if this country or countries in Western Europe made women cover up from head to toe and if they weren’t covered properly they were stone or had acid thrown on them? Could you imagine the outrage and rightfully so. But our religion, my religion called Christianity doesn’t promote such barbaric acts. I’ve said this many times and I believe it, Christianity is the most progressive, forgiving, and accepting religion on this earth, period. We must recognize that far beyond the social gripes with America’s Middle East policy lies something far more expansive and far more sinister. Remember, the Qur’an doesn’t call for the killing of all infidels because they built an Air Force base in your country’s capital. It calls for the killing of all non-Muslims.

Shelby Steele was on This Week with Jake Tapper and he offered his reason behind Islamic terrorism: He said that Muslims from the third world struggle with modernity and thus that compels them to commit violent acts on a large scale because the inner conflict of religious and ethnic pride clashes with their new life in the west. Now, on its face that might sound like a rational and coherent analysis of why Muslims commit terror. But the key words are "Muslim", "Islamic" it’s no coincidence that 98.9% of all terrorists are of the Muslim faith either by birth or conversion.

Look, "the blame America or blame western social requirements" routine is annoying but I sympathize with the left and how they try to dance around calling a duck a duck. But this duck not only walks and quacks like a duck, it tried to detonate a pocket rocket, shot up innocent soldiers at Fort Hood, shot two innocent soldiers in Arkansas at a Military recruitment center, posed as two pizza delivery men and tried to kill soldiers in New Jersey, terrorized a hotel in Mumbai, bombed the USS Cole, destroyed the twin towers on 9-11, and just recently the duck tried to blow up the Viacom building in Time Square. Now, is this a socially disconnected duck, a poor duck angry at the unfairness of the global economic structure, or is this duck committed to a twisted ideology spawned from an even more twisted and oppressive religion?

During a town hall style get together in Quincy, Illinois, just one of the stops on President Obama’s “From The White House to Main Street” tour, by the way is that not the most politically manufactured name for a tour you ever heard in your life? Anyway, just a side thought, you know this president has a habit of talking in front of people and really digging into capitalism. He strikes me as a man who not necessarily misunderstands capitalism due to a lack of legitimate knowledge of the economic system we used to embrace in this country, but instead that misunderstanding comes from 20 years inside the church of one Reverend Jeremiah Wright. Also, you add on a few years with Bernadene Dorne and William Ayers, Obama’s days as a street agitator and lawyer for ACORN in Chicago, and the end result of this mad science experiment is a man who fundamentally objects to what he perceives to be a system that promotes and excuses greed, materialism, economic individualism which he sees as selfishness, and wealth creation at the expense of the poor and disenfranchised, which means poor blacks and browns.

But Obama’s views of capitalism are flawed, for he fails to understand that which cures his own perceptions. Capitalism itself is like soap, you know how soap is self cleaning, well capitalism is a self regulating system. It weeds out the bad actors, it rewards the visionaries, and it punishes the greedy and dishonest. I believe capitalism is one of divine structure, like the god it rewards and blesses those who abide by its moral code, though it often damns those who seek to distort and misuse, and in many cases reject capitalism’s moral foundation. There are more examples of capitalism’s own effective punishment on the so called “fat cats” than any government regulation ever created. You know why? Government regulation takes place at the expense of the economy at large, while the natural law of capitalism ie self regulation targets a certain entity whether its a corrupt business or an unlawful act by a CEO, and the economy is usually spared. And yes, even recessions are about of this natural order of capitalism. I don’t have to tell my conservative brothers and sisters that but I’ll pretend I’m giving a lecture at Columbia.

So when president Obama says a t some point you’ve made enough money he’s wrong, he has no say in the matter. The market forces that be will decide the fate of a Wall Street executive or some bigwig trying to make out clean on a dirty deal. All of this anger at Wall Street is misguided, and this is coming from someone, that someone being me, who questions the motives of the Wall Street crowd, but I do so without surrendering or watering down my strong support for capitalism and individualism. The mix up is simply a case of what Ron Paul calls “Corporatism” There is in fact a purposeful merger of the two by Democrats and anti-capitalist progressives who want to blur the line between the honest and natural laws of capitalism and the shady dealings of the corporate welfare system. They do so while taking contributions from big banks.

Congressman Paul is right, corporate welfare is the problem, not capitalism itself. Could you imagine being told that you made enough money last year, or that your investments have limitations in terms of how much they grow each quarter? Imagine if you will your employer passing you less and less each week or every other week because they feel the need to cap your pay at a certain amount out of fairness to those who work under you. That’s not fairness, especially when you reward some at the expense of others. We need to educate the president on what it means to be a capitalist. Capitalists aren’t short, fat men in suits with handlebar mustaches riding around in Model T’s with paper dollars flying out a bag as we zoom down a road made of poor people. Gordon Gecko’s “Greed is good” is not a philosophy nor a motto to which I subscribe, and yet we’re painted with this broad brush as evil and wealth hungry.

To the president I say this: if you get to assume the title of “Wealth manager” this perhaps we should apply the same logic when it comes to your job as president. So, Mr. President, at some point you’ve been president enough. Maybe it’s time you give being a one term president some thought. Or better yet, like your pay czar we’ll decide for you.

Former governor of Virginia and current chair of the DNC Tim Kaine was on Morning Joe and he laid out pieces of the Democrats’ strategy going into the November midterm elections. Now, if any of you saw that segment with the good governor maybe you caught something he said quickly under his breath. He said the word “tactics”. The Democrats are going to use tactics they see as beneficial to their survival effort. In other words, they’re going to race bait and smear Republicans and their unofficial leader Sarah Palin in hopes of raising their negatives. Tim Kaine also touched on the Tea Party movement and how it will actually play in the hands of Democrats because quote, “The right wingers are pushing out the moderate Republicans”. Before I go deeper into this, what exactly is a right winger? I keep hearing this from leftists and some champagne Republicans and yet they never explain what exactly it means to be a right winger. What qualifies someone to be one of these infamous right wingers? Does anyone know?

Kain said the Tea Party movement will help Democrats win seats in Florida, Texas, and other Democrat hostile areas that traditionally elect conservative candidates. There’s only one problem, not a major one, just a tiny problem with that opinion of the Tea Party governor: It’s not the Tea Party that made Marco Rubio, nor was it the Tea Party that made Rand Paul or any other “right winger” and libertarian running in 2010. Rand Paul and Marco Rubio are, now are you ready for this? They’re strong candidates with a fresh appeal and good ideas. You can’t take that away from them even though you’re going to try darn hard to do that this fall. I’ve been saying this since February of 2009, libertarianism is on the rise in this country and progressivism is on the decline. This has been the case since the stimulus package. Despite the Democrats so called, bringing the economy back from the brink, despite passing death care, despite all the news about the economy, there’s a reason why the president’s approval numbers are in the lower 40s, and Congress’ approval numbers are in the teens.

The media and the Democrats like to compare what will happen in November to what happened to Reagan in 1982. The only difference and I get tired of this because I have to explain it every time they try to make the Obama/Reagan comparison, the only difference between what will happen and what happened to Reagan in 1982 is that Reagan’s economic stimulus plan, or at least the bulk of it was tax cuts and spending cuts. Obama’s plan was more spending than tax cuts. Under Reagan’s plan the economy came roaring back and eventually the man they called “The Gipper” was responsible for the largest economic expansion in 20 years with over 20 million new jobs created in that time. Barack Obama with his minimal tax cuts and load the box spending won’t create even close to the half of the 20 million under Reagan. His  agenda isn’t working what’s so hard to understand about that? Sure unemployment dropped but that was due in large part to the temporary Census jobs that will end in the summer. So by my calculations unemployment will rise over this summer. So we’ll probably hit 10 maybe 11& and that will boost real unemployment near 20%. Furthermore, this president has increased jobs we must give him that, but the jobs he created are mostly public sector and what they call “temp” jobs. Barack Obama has created more public sector jobs than any president since FDR, and he’s not done.

Under Barack Obama the private sector has lost money, jobs, and confidence in the future economic outlook of the United States. Also, under this president the national debt has increased and he has accounted for more debt than all of his predecessors combined. Imagine that if you will, he’s amassed more debt and deficit spending than FDR, George Bush, and Jimmy Carter, and they were some of the biggest spenders we’ve ever had as president. Under Barack Obama unemployment is at 9.7%, we’ve lost 8 million jobs out of the 750,000 they claim to have saved or created. Well, you can’t go to Gary, Indiana one of the poorest cities in America and explain to voters that you saved or created a job, because it sounds as though you aren’t sure whether you saved or created a job in the first place.

The GOP can run against Obama and win but it’s important that they tie Obama, Reid, and Pelosi together and wrap them up tight. The Republicans have to link them together and explain the damage done by these three socialists. And another thing, if you want to use the word “socialist” you have to then explain your use of that word and why its an appropriate description of this president and this Congress. For example, tell the voters about the plan to nationalize the student loan program that was secretly placed in the health care plan that oh by the way that same public overwhelmingly opposes. Explain to voters that one had nothing to do with the other, but their overall agenda called for such a measure.

it’s time for us to hit back and hit back hard. I believe if we run on a libertarian message of freedom, optimism, and common sense not only will we win in November, we’ll ensure that Barack Obama won’t stand at that podium in January of 2013.

When you threaten a cash crop of potential voters the Democrat Party will react like a cornered cobra, perhaps worse. Had this new law in Arizona targeted say, Irish immigrants or say, Russian immigrants would the outrage be as ferocious? Perhaps not, and do you know why? Many of you here know why but I’ll pretend I’m giving a speech to a crowd of liberal college students at NYU. You see, Democrats need new voters, namely poorer ones who need a hand out, not a leg up or a hand up. What better way to help those in need while consolidating voting districts than to pour millions upon millions of dollars in welfare and entitlement money into illegal immigration barrios across the southwest and west coast.

See its all about power at the end of the day. Arizona’s laws, the violence on the border that means nothing to the Democrat Party or else it wouldn’t have taken a state exercising its states rights to get the federal government’s panties all twisted and turned in knots. This wasn’t an issue until it affected Hispanics, let me be clear (My Obama impersonation) Had this been blue eyed, Anglo-Saxon European immigrants this wouldn’t turn one stomach within the Democrat Party. You need not look very far after all, the Democrat Party is home to the Hispanic Caucus, and the Congressional Black Caucus. Why we need a Hispanic and Black Caucus is beyond my realm of thinking although I might have a few good reasons why we don’t need either. There are two things Democrats treasure most in order to maintain power: Minorities and Welfare. Without welfare they have nothing to offer minorities which in turn means minorities might give the Republican platform a chance. Without minorities Democrats are left with billions in entitlement programs and no one to which they can bribe them with. It’s sad really because our border is in dire need of a true concrete plan, it’s our national security that’s at stake, let alone Democrat reelection campaigns.

But, like all things domestic I’m afraid this issue will become one of extreme toxicity and therefore an excuse will arise as to why we shouldn’t tackle immigration reform. Either that or the Democrats fearing a decline in new voters will rush through a bill that is both unsustainable and reckless in the long term. You have to think like a control hungry power addict in order to defeat such creatures. These people have no backbone to accompany their lack of a moral compass. It is equally as shameful and disgraceful to treat poor Mexican immigrants as merely pawns in your plan to stay in power for another 12 years. Just as the left decries conservatives and libertarians as “racists” or “anti-immigrant”, the same can be said of the leftist who supports to no end the foul treatment of illegal immigrants from Mexico. You never hear the left argue for humane treatment of these 12 million or so illegals. They only argue that we let more of them in, and the ones who are here already stay without penalty. But where was the noble left when businessmen and rich farmers were using illegals from Mexico has spare parts in their slave labor machine?

As long as they vote for Democrat candidates and the Democrat agenda who cares if they only make one dollar a day picking fruit in Florida. After all they do the jobs most Americans won’t do. I mean sure, most Americans won’t clean hotel rooms, wash dishes, cut grass, tend roofs, or even work on the construction site for 650 a week. In fact, I’m why don’t we do a national survey and ask every natural born citizen in America who makes up the 17% of real unemployed and under employed whether or not they’d rather be sitting at home worrying themselves to near death over their late mortgage or installing carpet for a construction company, or washing dishes on the weekend as a second job, or working for a landscaping company to help build their 15 year old’s college fund. Not only will that survey tell us that a majority of people polled are willing to do those jobs, young people will as well.

So, what’s the real reason behind the outrage?

Well now look at all you affluent, college educated mostly Republican Tea Party members with your Obama Hitler signs and your opposing health care while favoring Social Security and Medicare. You people make me sick, you’re so racist because one in five of you believe the president was born in Kenya and not the United States. I mean, how ungrateful and uninformed can you get? You guys are marching around protesting taxes when the president cut the taxes of 95% of the Tea Party movement. Yeah it’s kind of sort of true guys, he did cut taxes, then he pushed through a health care bill that will raise them in every direction, and his administration is strongly considering a VAT or Value Added Tax like the one they have in Europe. So, while the president lashes out at those who marched on Washington because he feels you’re being ungrateful, perhaps we should thank the man for all that he’s done for us so far.

Let’s see, he’s increased the already bloated Bush deficit, his deficits by the way, he meaning Obama are the largest deficits of any president before him, uh, he promised unemployment would not exceed 8% if his stimulus package was passed, we’re now at 9.7% (17% real unemployment) and counting, let’s see he’s cutting our nuclear defense, our missile defense, and soon our defense budget overall, he’s slashing NASA with a machete, he’s responsible for the most hostile political environment since the 1960s,  he’s become the most polarizing president in history, his approval rating is in the lower 40s, well, that I will say thank you Mr. President, and oh yeah, he put in place the worst health care plan in history that will lead to unemployment, death, despair, civil unrest, resentment, and bankruptcy. Now, shame on you ungrateful right wingers for not being thankful to daddy Barack. The man cut your taxes kinda sorta, why under Obama hundreds of jobs were saved or created, no make that thousands, or was it millions? I can’t remember.

I think we’re getting under his skin. Remember during the State of the Union when Obama talked about how he cut taxes and then he paused for applause and got rejected? And he was like, "I thought I would have got some applause on that one" The man craves constant approval and adulation because he’s so insecure. Behind the walk, the lifting of his nose when he speaks, the teleprompter, and the photo ops with world leaders, remains a man who is small both in stature and intellectual fortitude. He’s no visionary, nor is he even a master of triangulation. He’s the guy who spends hand over fist on a girl and when she leaves him on the doorstep without a goodnight kiss he gets mad and tells everyone she’s a whore. He can’t take "no" for an answer and he certainly can’t take the fact that a once adoring electorate no longer adores him. So he will complain and dismiss us as the unreasonable ones because we won’t praise his very existence. This my friends is the sign of a president that is weak, childish, arrogant, and very, very afraid of his coming political demise. So hey Mr. President, we’ll thank you when you’re out of office in 2013.

Today the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia struck down the FCC’s plan to massively reshape and ultimately regulate broadband users and companies that offer broadband service such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast. Our salute to the Associated Press for this little gem in such a large body of water when it comes to the FCC and this administration’s push to regulate everything from our bodies to what we say, hear, and what we see and how we gain access to information.

The irony in all of this is that candidate Obama used the internet like no candidate has before. He raised money, built support, and organized millions of young people by reaching out with the single most effective tool used by young people today, and that’s the internet. Most internet users in the world today are those between the ages of 16-35. So one has to wonder why all the sudden Obama wants to expand broadband access while at the same time pushing for more control of the internet through the FCC. My guess is he wants to silence as many voices as possible while trying to control is own message that has without a doubt been shaped for him, unlike during his time as a candidate when he had no problem getting the message out there to supporters. But as the loyal opposition does well, what the loyal opposition is suppose to do, conservatives have caught on to this thing called the internet. Or as George W. Bush put it: “the internets”.

I figured Barack Obama was a control freak but this is going too far, even for him. When you seek to control what people think, what they hear, what they see, and how they get information you’re not only taking the most essential freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of expression away from the people, you’re also disarming them of the two most powerful weapons citizens have to defend themselves from a dangerously intrusive and usurping government. Which I suppose would be the point in all of this. Barack Obama won’t stand for his message to be drowned out by the unruly right a second time, now he’s going to make sure he writes the rules, enforces them, buys the arena, and uses the best players to win the game. What we have to do is draw on this rare acknowledgment of the constitution by the courts and make our case from there.

One more point I want to make before I’m done, this push by the FCC to regulate broadband and their providers comes a week after AT&T complained about the cost they would bare due to Obamacare. I’m just saying some things add up better than others, it’s all a matter of how good you are at math.

But I suppose the FCC isn’t finished with their ultimate goal of controlling the airwaves, radio waves, and whatever waves come from computers. We’ve heard the rumblings from the left on this issue of the Fairness Doctrine, or as I like to call it the “Fearness Doctrine”. You had Ed Schultz on his radio show talking to all five of his listeners and complaining about how the Democrats need to bring it back because apparently according to Ed we’re int he midst of a culture war, and in the mind of Ed Schultz the right is winning.  You also heard Bill Press and “She ate too many Little” Debbie Stabenow express support for the Fairness Doctrine. So I would prepare for yet another battle.

Who made you?

I was reading a Newsweek piece by Andrew Romano just a few minutes ago and if I may say it was complete crap. I’m sorry I’m sure Mr. Romano is a good writer and I don’t know him personality but his article basically laid out a reason why Republicans should quote, “cut deals” with Barack Obama and the Democrats. Of course he quoted the usual moderate suspects like David Frum. By the way Frummie looks like Steve Gutenberg, I’m just sayin’. Any who, we have to be careful of those in our party who are now, in the face of defeat calling for a truce, or some sort of leverage with the majority party in power. The reason we can’t take these voices with heart is because they argue for something that has landed the GOP in the lose column, not the win column. For example in 1994 when Newt Gingrich led the GOP to large gains they worked with Bill Clinton and in so doing cut Bob Dole off at the knees because he could no longer peg Clinton as a big government out of the mainstream liberal.

But I suspect this is what the Frums and Brooks and Joe Scarboroughs of the world wanted. They were willing to have Obamacare become law just to spite and marginalize the tea party movement. Let’s face it  those talking heads who make up the so called moderate conservative wing never really took to the grassroots and most of them felt the tea party activists were stepping on the toes of those in the GOP who so arrogantly claimed to have the map back to the House, the Senate, and more important 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. But is cutting a few deals here and there and appeasing the president and Democrats really a good strategy? Or is it the white flag of those who never really saw outright opposition to Obama’s agenda as a viable tactic? Just remember back to the beginning of 2009 and the words of Mike Murphy: In order for Republicans to regain a majority they’re going to have to work with Obama” Now does that make any sense to you? It sure doesn’t make much sense to me. I mean how does Obama and only Obama not gain from Republicans working with him?

In his article Romano cites a new poll that says 49% of Americans now believe the reform measure by Obama and the Democrats was a good thing. While 40% still feel it was a bad idea. Now, I don’t believe that all of the sudden after months and months of fiery debates, town halls, and protests, poll after poll showing a large majority of Americans strongly oppose Obamacare, you mean to tell me the attention span of the American people is only a week or so long? Not after what this country just went through politically starting back in the summer of 2009. I don’t believe one bit of that poll.

You’re going to start to see this more and more. Moderate republicans coming out of the wood work trying to cut deals with Obama because to spite the tea party. They feel their way is best for the GOP, I’d beg to differ but let’s see who’s way is best. There’s nothing in this bill that would win over such a large majority of Americans, immediate pre-existing coverage and all. What we have to do as conservatives and libertarians is reject this idea of compromise. We can’t compromise on issues like Cap and Trade and Immigration because the end result is a watered down liberal approach. Call it incremental socialism or incremental amnesty, rather than the whole shebang all at once. I don’t care how far Lindsey Graham’s arm has extended to the “other side of the aisle” You cannot trust nor make deals with people who have a fundamental view of America, her constitution, and her system than you and people in your party do.

So here’s some words of wisdom to Republicans: Don’t use the 1994 model, and don’t, I repeat don’t listen to Romano, John Avalon, and other so called high plane “conservatives” because at the end of the day these are the guys who still believe that Obama is a moderate who can be reasoned with. Apparently delusion is airborne inside the beltway.