by Lance Thompson

On 12 December, Ann Scott Tyson of the Washington Post put out a story on an American Special Forces unit in Afghanistan that prevailed against overwhelming odds in a desperate battle against heavily-armed insurgents. The story was also covered by the Associated Press, and the AP story was posted on the FoxNews website. If you rely on other media for information about the world, you probably missed it.

The battle took place in early April when twelve army Green Berets from the 3rd Battalion of the 3rd Special Forces Group and a few dozen allies from the 201st Afghan Commando Battalion were inserted by helicopters onto a 10,000 foot peak in northeast Afghanistan’s remote Nuristan province. Their target was the village stronghold of the Hezb-e-Islami Gulbuddin militant group–previously thought unreachable by Allied forces.

The American Green Berets and their Afghan allies were immediately taken under fire. The enemy were more numerous than expected, armed with automatic weapons and rocket propelled grenades, and occupied fortified positions on all sides of our troops, including some that were 1000 feet above them. The Special Forces team was caught in the open, surrounded, and was fired upon from all sides.

Nevertheless, the Americans and Afghans never lost their nerve or their resourcefulness, maintained good fire discipline and employed sound tactics. In the ensuing seven hour battle, the team was nearly overrun more than once, they nearly exhausted their ammunition, and were aided by friendly air support dropping 2000-pound bombs dangerously close to their position.

The team fought their way downhill through murderous fire, carrying their wounded to a streambed where the first medevac helicopter was driven away by enemy fire. The wounded were evacuated on a second helicopter that landed in midstream, and the rest of the team was extracted by subsequent helicopters. Two Afghan commandos were killed, and fifteen of the group were wounded, including four critical injuries among the Green Berets. The enemy’s losses were estimated to be 150 to 200.

For their valor in this two mile high battle, ten of the twelve Green Berets in the unit were awarded Silver Stars, the army’s third-highest decoration. No unit of elite troops has earned such a quantity of the decorations in a single action since Vietnam.

The story went out on 12 December, as mentioned above. There was no mention of it on the websites of the Los Angeles Times, New York Times or MSNBC.

Once, in an alternate universe known as the mid-20th Century, feats of courage, sacrifice and heroism in combat were honored by our news media. Victories were celebrated, and the men who won them were lauded. I believe Americans still want to hear about soldiers like Staff Sgt. Seth Howard, who accounted for 20 of the enemy with his marksmanship, or Staff Sgt. John Wayne Walding who, after having his lower leg virtually amputated by enemy fire, applied his own tourniquet, or Staff Sgt. Luis Morales, who knelt on the hip of wounded Staff Sgt. Dillon Behr–the only way he could apply pressure to the wound and continue firing–until he too was twice wounded. The true stories of men like these are inspiring, and demonstrate the best and highest aspects of the American character.

Today, the media outlets that ignore stories like these prefer to chronicle the antics of misbehaving professional athletes, scandalous starlets, or corrupt politicians. But the men and women in our armed forces set sterling examples of behavior that we can all aspire to. Our troops continually show that they are indeed drawn from the best America has to offer, and prove it with their courage, commitment and sacrifice. Yet our media would rather spotlight the infrequent mistakes and missteps of the few while ignoring the achievements of the many. Reporters dwell intently on the costs and tragedies of combat, but seldom celebrate the hard-won victories. The media will gladly place blame for the ravages of war, but only reluctantly give credit to those who endure it and prevail.

The men of the 3rd Battalion do not consider themselves heroic. They did their duty as they saw it, and each is more comfortable talking about the courageous deeds of others rather than his own. The vast majority of Americans in uniform fit this profile, but you would never know it from the media coverage of the military.

The people who serve our country in uniform do not consider themselves heroes. But every other American should, and we have an obligation to honor the gift of freedom that they provide for us every day. If your source for news–in print, on television, or on line–covered this story, then you’re fortunate. Too many don’t, and of those, we should ask, “Why not?”

by Lance Thompson

Washington–December 2009

Once the Democrats had control of the White House and Congress, they found it surprisingly easy to pass legislation reinstating the “Fairness Doctrine,” which mandated that no conservative thought or utterance could go unchallenged or unpunished. At first, this was applied only to the last bastions of free market principles in media–Fox News and talk radio. But the new regulations were so effective in silencing conservatives that follow-on legislation found countless new means of expression in which to quash conservative voices.

This also gave liberals an opportunity to create a new bureaucracy to administer and enforce the oppressive measures. During preliminary discussions over what to call this new department, such non-starters as “Bureau of Cognitive Control” and “National Thought Police” were suggested and just as quickly discarded after disastrous poll results. Ultimately, the Chairman of the Committee to Name Committees settled upon “Supreme Directorate of Fairness and Reason.” Due to the many cases brought before the Supreme Directorate by the Secretary of Torts (the most recently-created cabinet post) and the ACLU, every municipality was compelled to appoint local Czars of Fairness and Reason.

These public servants put in long hours, deciding whose ideas must be suppressed and whose should be forced upon the public. Often, they must make snap decisions in order to keep the backlog of cases at a manageable level. Yet, since all their deliberations are required to be carried on in secret, as mandated in the Pelosi Need to Know Acts of 2009, we offer this rare glimpse into the workings of the Czar of Fairness and Reason of an average-size city–Centerville, Colorado.

Omar Flagrant, the Centerville Czar, is a 29 year-old male vegan with a master’s degree in women’s studies and three years’ experience in crisis escalation. He arrives tardily at his charming craftsman-style office in a government-subsidized hybrid vehicle. The building that houses the Centerville Directorate of Fairness and Reason was seized without compensation from a private citizen under eminent domain rules expanded under the Harry Reid Property Reform Act.

The Czar is greeted by his aide, Lionel, with a stack of new cases. “Czar Flagrant, a citizen was spotted last night with a McCain/Palin bumper sticker still affixed to her large American SUV, flouting the United Attitude law that stipulates complete eradication of non-Obama expressions.”

The Czar adjudicates his first case before he sits down. “The citizen must completely cover the offensive sticker with a “Conservatives For Obama” sticker within 24 hours or face forfeiture of vehicle.”

The Czar takes his place at his “green” desk, made entirely of recycled hard-hats (plentiful since the massive construction layoffs of the summer), and asks for the next case. “It’s on the monitor–video evidence.” The Czar scrutinizes his monitor, showing a local female college student on the lake shore with an “I Love the USA” tattoo on her thigh. “A clear violation of the World Consciousness Bodily Expression guidelines,” pronounced the Czar. “She must have the tattoo removed or modified to read, ‘I Love Being a Citizen of the World.’ Additionally, she will attend two years of Nationalist Intervention classes at the Hugo Chavez Center in Denver.”

Lionel hands the Czar a thick dossier. “This one is really outrageous, sir. One of the local stations is televising reruns of the old Andy Griffith Show. On Tuesday last, a character in the show uttered the line, “Gee, Opie!” The Czar, perhaps overwhelmed by the sheer volume of cases, shook his head, failing to grasp the severity of the situation. “Gee, Opie,” repeated the aide. “Sir, it’s clearly a clandestine effort to brainwash the audience.” The Czar stares at him blankly. “Gee, Opie. G. O. P. It’s obviously a subliminal endorsement of Republicans.”

The Czar nods. “Yes. Diabolically clever.”

“The entire show is loaded with dangerous messages,” the aide continues, paging through the dossier. “The male child is not enrolled in day care, is allowed to conduct himself in public without ADHD medication, and is often shown wearing a gunbelt with a realistic-looking toy firearm.”

The Czar grabs the dossier. “Clearly an attempt at indoctrination.”

Lionel points out a crucial passage. “The episode also contains scenes showing both the exterior and interior of a church, which the family attends, in clear violation of the Public Worship Expungement Codes. Additionally, the father is an authority figure whose workplace displays loaded firearms, and the child is permitted not only to see these dangerous weapons, but is never exposed to lectures about the evil and wickedness of gun ownership, as required in the Domestic Disarmament Act of 2009.”

The Czar is overwhelmed by the list of charges. “This station must immediately cancel further episodes of The Andy Griffith Show. In order to avoid loss of license, it must replace the reruns with the new public affairs program, Weighty Issues with Rosie O’Donnell. In addition, the station must schedule a three-hour bloc of Sunday programming featuring prominent atheists. I also want them to produce, at their own expense, a series of public service announcements encouraging recycling of firearms into useful products like plowshares and paperweights.”

“Just one more, sir.” Lionel opens a digital file on the computer and stands back. “It has been reported that there is a resident of this town who is an Abraham Lincoln impersonator. As you know, Lincoln was the first Republican president. His occupation is thus a capital offense.”

The Czar sighs in exasperation. “It’s fortunate for this scofflaw that we rescinded capital punishment.” Lionel nods solemnly.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/12/3/who-is-the-fairest-of-them-all.html

Chef Newt presenting LowDownCentral’s favorite dish: Cooked Goose

7 – John Edwards – for running on family values while fathering a child with his mistress during his wife’s fight with terminal cancer. Yes, we know this is a peacock.

6 – Peggy Noonan – Cocktail conservative journalist and former Reagan speechwriter – for her slagging of Sarah Palin while forgetting the title of her book on Reagan, “When Character was King.”

5 – Maxine Waters – who threatened government control of the oil industry even before Obama was elected.

4 – Senator Chris Dodd – Single-handedly blocked any reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac in the Senate, thus creating the current economic crisis, while receiving preferential loans from the sub-prime lender he was supposed to oversee.

3 – Chris Matthews – who has vowed he will do everything he can to make the presidency of the man that sent that thrill up his leg – work! No wonder MSNBC has such low ratings.

2 – Barney Frank – The Elmer Fudd of the House Financial Services Committee, dupe and foil for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, whose idea of fixing things are huge tax increases and massive defense cuts. It will take billions of wabbits to clean up his mess.

And the 2008 Turkey of the Year Award goes to:

1 – Joe Biden – Barack America’s choice for Vice President, who, by his own admission, was less qualified than Hillary. Apparently true, since he believed FDR addressed the nation on television in 1929. So go ahead Chuck, Stand Up! and applaud our new VP and turkey of the year.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

As many conservatives already know, and the rest of the country is discovering, truth trumps tall tales — sometimes. This little adage was borne out by MSNBC’s recent admission that they had been taken in by the Eisenstadt Hoax.

As the disseminators of unchecked lies, the media wanted everyone to believe Sarah Palin was just John McCain’s flight of fantasy, not smart enough to be vice president, let alone stand a heartbeat away from the presidency. Unfortunately, as evidenced by Obama voters interviewed on Election Day, the lies about Sarah Palin had morphed into truth.

Now that the Chosen One has indeed been chosen, it is of little or no concern to Democrats that they trashed the opposition in a manner that can only be described as disgraceful lack of heart and unrepentant dishonesty.

Feminists, too, played an ironic role in this election. By pushing their “one-issue” agenda, i.e., abortion rights, liberal women missed their finest hour – finally achieving political proportion with equanimity. That “one issue” mentality does not now, nor will it ever serve women well in and of itself.

While Sarah Palin makes her own personal choices with respect to life, she stated in an interview with Katie Couric that she was not for criminalizing abortion and that she was in favor of contraception. This clearly flies in the face of those angry women who painted her as a religious right-wing zealot. They never bothered to actually listen to what she had to say about choice.

In light of this singular schema, it is time for Governor Palin to whip off the Clark Kent glasses and reveal to the world the Superwoman that liberal feminists secretly envy. She no longer needs to hide behind those peepers to be taken seriously.

She can bring home the moose, fry it up in pan, and never never let Todd forget he’s a man, cuz she’s a woman, W-O-M-A-N. And this is exactly why liberal women hate her.

Sarah Palin is a happily married wife, and a mother of five; she’s gorgeous, accomplished, and does it all with unmatched aplomb.

Witness for yourself the multi-tasking Alaska Governor in Greta van Susteren’s post-election interview and, as Fox News says, “We report, you decide.” Better to hear straight from the horse’s mouth than through the media’s anonymous “insiders.”

It is clear she can “feed the kids, get dressed, pass out the kisses and get to work by five of nine. Cuz she’s a woman.” This clearly irritates all those women that realize they can’t do it all. As Dennis Miller said recently, “people are fascinated by her because the left hate her.” “Mostly women on the left hate her…She looks happy, a lot of them aren’t…and they’re cranky about her.”

One of the more disappointing articles written about Sarah Palin during the campaign came from Christopher Hitchens. In his October 20 piece entitled “Stop covering Palin until she gives a press conference” Hitchens offers that many conservative intellectuals believe criticism of Sarah Palin is “essentially a blend of snobbery and sexism.” This, he presumes is intended as some sort of strike against conservative commentators, like David Frum and Christopher Buckley (both of whom openly said Palin was not qualified to be vice president). Apparently, Frum and Buckley were anointed spokesmen for the party when no one was looking. Oblivious to those authors’ previous journalistic endeavors, Hitchens must have missed Frum’s comment that he (Frum) “…remains immune to Obama’s appeal.” Or, “How such utter empty gas-baggery could sound to so many people like the second coming of Pericles utterly baffles me.”

Hitchens also accepted media reports about Troopergate and Palin’s supposed banning of library books — all without doing what journalists are paid to do: to seek out and report the truth. Hitchens goes on to take Sarah Palin to task for misspeaking about Obama saying our forces were bombing villages in Afghanistan. Why does he then fail to correct Obama’s talking point that McCain said we “would be in Iraq for 100 years” when that was clearly taken out of context.

In light of the Eisenstadt hoax, one would assume a multitude of media retractions, but, of course, there will be none. Not retracting lies is just as shameful as Hitchens’ elitist tone — which reminds us of another adage: “Those that can do, and those that can’t, teach.” Just how many intellectuals can one expect to find in public service anyway? Brain trusts like Barney Frank, Harry Reid or Nancy Pelosi should give us all pause.

Whatever lack of knowledge on foreign policy Sarah Palin may have can be learned. She is energetic, ambitious, and an unstoppable and fast-rising super star. She will continue to challenge and reinforce the role of women in politics and re-emerge in 2012 as the force to be reckoned with.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/11/19/supersarah.html

by Lance Thompson

The recent election left the Republicans out in the cold. Some have recommended that the GOP chase the Democrats and their votes leftward across the political spectrum. Others believe we should return to the core principles of conservatism, and stand up for the issues which once defined us.

But what are those principles? Where is the source? Is there an ancient conservative manifesto buried deep under some Revolutionary War monument, awaiting discovery by intrepid archaeologists?

There may be, but we don’t need an archaeologist to unearth the founding principles of conservatism. They are clearly, concisely, and powerfully presented in Arizona Senator Barry Goldwater’s 1960 book, The Conscience of a Conservative. It’s a quick read, well-organized, and crystal clear. In this it differs from the avalanche of candidate biographies and philosophies that are spewed out during presidential campaigns. The Conscience of a Conservative is all Goldwater–no co-writers or ghost writers intrude. These ideas may not have originated with him, but he manages to communicate them effectively and forcefully.

Displaying the prognosticative talents of a Nostradamus, Goldwater correctly predicts the leftward tilt of the media (back when there were only three networks and everybody read newspapers), the usurpation of workers’ rights by unions (the Workers Free Choice Act, which takes away an individual’s right to vote for or against union participation by secret ballot is a major initiative by Democrats in the coming year), the abrogation of individual rights by the federal government (long before homeowners were forced to give up their properties for the benefit of private developers), the anti-Americanism of the United Nations, the folly of farm subsidies, the increasing encroachment of the Supreme Court into the responsibilities of the executive and legislative branches, the debilitating cancer of the welfare state, the necessity of standing up to and opposing the Soviet Union (a nation currently rearming and challenging us around the globe), the failure of public education, and the self-deluding folly of foreign aid to unfriendly nations. Goldwater couldn’t have been more prescient if he’d predicted the 2008 winners of the World Series, the Super Bowl, and the Kentucky Derby.

The Conscience of a Conservative strongly defends the rights of the individual as guaranteed in the Constitution. Goldwater believes the wisdom in our founding documents is profound and far-sighted, with no need to be reinterpreted according to current fashion. He believes welfare, if extended indefinitely, weakens the recipient as well as the provider. He believes higher taxes are crippling to economic strength and lower taxes a key ingredient to a healthy economy. He believes an individual should not only be able to choose whether or not he wants to join a union, but also whether or not his union dues should be used to support a candidate not of his choosing. Finally, Goldwater believes that our nation’s enemies should not be tolerated, negotiated with, or accommodated. Rather, they should be confronted, opposed and defeated.

Barry Goldwater was the Republican candidate for president in 1964. He was defeated by Lyndon Johnson, who had already started his vast expansion of the welfare state under the Great Society program and had committed the United States to war in Vietnam. Yet Goldwater was painted as the irresponsible, belligerent candidate, while Johnson was depicted as the moderate. Johnson won in a landslide, and his first and only full term as president was marked by controversy, violence and upheaval at home and abroad.

After his spectacular presidential defeat, Goldwater was re-elected to the Senate in 1968, and served several more terms, during which his conservative principles found more favor in the GOP. In fact, one positive outcome of Goldwater’s campaign was a televised speech on the principles of conservatism that was broadcast on NBC a week before the election. The speech was not delivered by Goldwater, but by a retired actor whose movie career seemed to be fading, and the broadcast was almost canceled by some members of Goldwater’s campaign. But the actor’s friends and supporters, who had paid for the broadcast time, insisted that the speech go ahead as planned. So on October 27th, for the first time before a national audience, Ronald Reagan espoused the conservative philosophy that would take him to the White House sixteen years later.

Reagan’s conservatism was more optimistic and inclusive than Goldwater’s. But both men shared unshakeable conviction in conservative principles of individual freedom, limited government, lower taxes, and strong national defense. If you’re looking for the roots of that conviction, Goldwater’s book is a good place to start.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/11/18/return-to-conscience.html

by Lance Thompson

In the wake of the presidential election, some Republicans are recommending that the party should soften its views, back away from hard-line conservatism, and blur the differences between us and the Democrats. These people are called moderates, and the prescription they offer is deadly.

The Democrats did not win with a moderate candidate. Barack Obama was the nation’s most liberal Senator until he became the nation’s most liberal president. John McCain, on the other hand, was a moderate Republican, with a record of reaching across the aisle and favoring Democrat views on issues such as immigration, global warming, and tax cuts. This moderate candidate was clobbered by his immoderate opponent.

In response to the election, moderates will say that we must follow the trend, that Republicans should embrace the issues the Democrats won on. They encourage us to abandon conservative principles, evolve with the times, and adopt positions more in line with the Democrats, who scored many victories.

But we can never out-Democrat the Democrats. The closer the GOP gets to Democratic principles, the less reason there is for Republicans to exist. Why would a Democrat vote for a watered-down version of his own party? We will not only fail to woo Democrats with a slightly less-liberal version of their own platform, we will also alienate the ideological conservative core of our own party.

If liberals are right, and most of the nation subscribes to their principles of peace at any cost, of punishing success with high taxes and redistribution of income, of turning America into a nanny state where all people are dependent on the government for their needs, of opening our borders and legitimizing illegal aliens, of crippling industry as a sacrifice to the false faith of global warming, then conservatives are wrong and should retire from politics.

But if conservatives are right that freedom must be defended at all costs, that success is the well-earned reward of individual initiative, that government should be small and unobtrusive, that our borders must be secure and that immigrants must follow our laws, that global warming is a chimera whose remedies will cripple our economy, then why should we moderate our views at all?

If conservatives are right, what value is there in diluting our just cause? Would you trust a business partner who is moderately honest? Would you place your life in the hands of a moderately skillful surgeon? Would you be happy in a marriage to a moderately faithful spouse? Then what value is there in a moderately conservative candidate? To whatever extent he departs from conservative principles, he is to the same extent departing from the proper course.

Moderate Republicans have already diluted tough immigration laws, voted for the financial bailout bill, and blamed the failure of the incompetent McCain campaign on Sarah Palin–the most promising new conservative in a quarter of a century. How much more damage can they do to conservative principles if their views shape the future of the GOP?

Moderate candidates do not prevail. Voters don’t rally to the banners of moderate candidates. Moderate candidates are compromised in their principles by definition.

Moderate voters are equally uninspiring. These are the ones who aren’t interested in the campaign during the primaries, don’t focus on the issues until the last few weeks or even days of the campaign, and haven’t made up their minds until the last minute. Moderate voters don’t knock on doors, work the phone, send out e-mails and plant yard signs. Moderate voters do not contribute to campaigns or financially support candidates. Moderate voters are the casual observers at the fringe of the fight, with little invested in either outcome.

The reclamation of the GOP will not be accomplished by moderate candidates or constituents. The beacon for Republicans is not straddling a fence or sitting in the middle of the road. Our destination is defined by strong, unyielding conservative principles. There is no need to qualify our creed with labels such as “compassionate conservatism” or “new conservatism.”

Much effort will be required to rebuild the Republican Party. That effort will only be rewarded if we start with a solid foundation. We must not build the future of our party on the shifting sands of moderation, but rather on the solid bedrock of conservative principle.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/11/12/nothing-in-moderation.html

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

“When you look long into an abyss, the abyss looks into you.” – Friedrich Nietzsche

Irony never fails to slip through the cracks in our lives at some of the bleakest moments – like the black widow that entrenches itself in damp crevices and awaits its prey, closing in on it in ever-tightening circles.

When the moment is ripe, irony rears its fangs and sinks them into our moral, intellectual and spiritual arteries, and none are conscious of how fast the poison spreads until it’s too late.

The irony we refer to in our parable is that the spider is actually the media and they are about to devour the meal they have been nurturing for two years, and oh what a tangled web they wove!

Neither his blanket inexperience nor his dubious personal associations precluded their spinning of Obama’s vainglorious curriculum vitae. In the end, his “successful campaign strategy” became his principal claim to experience for the office of president of the United States.

The future president will learn soon enough that this black widow is insatiable and feigns loyalty in order to snare its victims – that anything that moves within sight of its nest is fair game, and it waits unwearyingly in the shadows ready to entrap and devour their prize elected fly.

They will begin by spinning his silky campaign promises into their own escape-proof, beautiful trap and leer at him with disdain as he vainly attempts to free himself from their neurotoxic venom. Just ask Sarah Palin, the spider’s most recent appetizer.

Like the spider in Mary Howitt’s poem, they romanced the President-Elect, telling him:

“You’re witty and you’re wise, how handsome are your gauzy wings, how brilliant are your eyes!”

And he fell for it – lock, stock and mandibles.

He was indeed “chosen” by that hairy spider for a specific purpose: not to lead our nation to safety, prosperity and unity, but rather, in spite of their mutual ideologies, to continue to feed the spider’s writing frenzy. And just like the black widow, the media kills whomever they join with after the ritual “mating.”

And so, there, in the center of the black widow’s web, sits President-Elect Obama – bouncing up and down, like a happy little kid on a backyard trampoline, unawares of the multi-legged arachnid sneaking up stealthily from behind.

Obama’s road to the White House was an open highway, paved smooth by the spider’s secretions, making it free of the bumps, potholes, detours, and dead ends that are part and parcel of most campaigns.

Empty champagne bottles litter the landscape and are stacked to the brim in trash cans. The senator’s rooters are slowly recovering from their Kool-Aid hangovers, and are expecting miracles from him.

Now, however, the seemingly endless and enchanted silk surface has been spun into a gigantic fly trap: this super Fly must navigate the reality of a credit meltdown, the war on terror, illegal immigration, oil exploration, Iran and their threat of nuclear armament, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Israel, Palestine, Putin, Chavez, gang infestations, and crime-riddled cities (like Chicago) – or, like so many arrogant flies before him, be eaten alive by the spider.

But what he and the 63 million that voted for him didn’t count on is, for the merciless black widow, a political miracle is yesterday’s news.

There will be no more unicorn rides, Senator. No more cartoon bluebirds flying onto your shoulder.

The party is over. A pall of silence has fallen upon your suitors and supporters, and it’s time for you to soberly face reality, which is with every statement you make and every step you take, the spider will be on your heels, ready to spring upon what is anticipated to be your first of many mistakes.

So keep this little ditty in mind when you take the oath of office:

“…And now dear little children,
who may this story read,
to idle, silly flattering words,
I pray you ne’er give heed:
Unto an evil counselor,
close heart and ear and eye,
and take a lesson from this tale,
of the Spider and the Fly.”

The abyss awaits you, Mr. President-Elect.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/11/10/welcome-to-my-abyss-said-the-spider-to-the-fly.html

by Lance Thompson

This column will focus on the positive aspects of the week, so it will be brief.

The loss of the presidential race is the work of John McCain and his campaign. Though many other factors contributed to Obama’s win, a good candidate and an effective campaign could have prevailed. After a bruising bare-knuckle campaign in the primary, McCain elected to follow the Marquis of Queensbury rules in the brutal street fight of the general election. This was hardly unexpected–McCain was always tougher on Republicans than Democrats.

The good news aspect of this is that “moderate” Republicans can not claim the ascendancy over conservatives. If McCain had prevailed, we’d be saddled with the argument that only a Republican who believes in the sorcery of global warming, the folly of open borders, and only reluctantly in the value of tax cuts can win the Big One. The Democrats put their money on the most liberal senator in America, and won. This is not necessarily because people prefer the liberal view to the conservative. More probably, they prefer a true believer to a fence sitter. McCain’s me-too populism in reaction to the financial meltdown and his refusal to pin the blame on Democrat policies was inexcusable. Conservatives don’t have to question our principles–they were never part of the campaign.

We thought they might be when McCain, in the single savvy move he made after the primaries, chose Sarah Palin as his running mate. The campaign muzzled her, booked her on ambush talk shows, and never used her effectively. But the good news is that Sarah Palin now has experience on a national campaign, connected with conservatives in a way no candidate has since Ronald Reagan, and didn’t even have to spend her own money. The new generation of conservative leaders has a face, and it’s one that wears well.

The GOP maintains enough Senate seats to filibuster the most egregious parts of the socialist agenda of the Democrats. It’s a thin margin, and it will take skill to wield it effectively, but Republicans in the Senate can still influence and shape legislation. At this writing, Norm Coleman has a slim lead over the un-courtly jester Al Franken, but that race is headed for a recount.

In the House, our losses were significant, but California is sending a conservative stalwart to Washington in the form of Tom McClintock. McClintock is a principled, courageous, mentally agile true conservative, an instructive example for conservative Congressmen to follow.

While we hope that Barack Obama will enjoy the same “holiday from history,” in Charles Krauthammer’s words, that favored the Clinton administration, such an outcome is unlikely. President Obama is sure to be tested, as Joe Biden so solemnly warned. Already, on election night, Russian President Medvedev announced the emplacement of offensive missiles near the Polish border. The enemies of freedom multiply, hydra-like, with each passing week. The campaign statements of the president elect make it clear that the new administration will have a vastly different approach to world affairs than the current one. That’s the last positive aspect of the election.

It’s likely to make the foreign policy of George W. Bush look positively masterful.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/11/7/modest-morsels.html

by Lance Thompson

Americans will vote tomorrow in an election which, contrary to all predictions and manipulations, will be a close one.

The arguments against Barack Obama and for John McCain are well known and seem to be gaining some traction in the final hours. I’d like to take this space to mention a few reasons to vote for McCain that aren’t commonly addressed

First, vote for McCain and against the mainstream media. Show the broadcast and cable networks that we don’t want them choosing our president for us. Our free press is an important part of our political system. But remind journalists that their job is to cover and investigate candidates, not to anoint them. Their job is to follow the campaign, not influence it. Show them that when the media picks a winner months before the election, they not only jeopardize that candidate’s chances, but lose their credibility in the process.

Vote for McCain and for a higher standard. It is said that in the United States, anyone can grow up to be president. But let your vote show that the honor of being elected to that office requires a candidate to demonstrate strength and depth of character, and to earn your trust rather than just asking for it. Presidential timber is not the ebullient confidence of a candidate who believes his transgressions will never catch up with him. It is the quiet dignity of a hero who does the right thing even when it will cost him dearly, and when no one is watching. Let your vote show that the presidency is an office that follows a lifetime of selfless service, and not a brief career of conveniently shifting positions and moral expediency.

Vote for McCain and for the troops. There is no more noble or honorable profession than serving in the uniform of the United States. The men and women of our military make tremendous sacrifices to defend our freedom and that of people around the world. Vote against the candidate that never thought our troops could prevail in Iraq, and accused them of committing atrocities in Afghanistan. Vote for the candidate who has served his country, sacrificed for his comrades in arms, and will remain faithful to Americans in uniform. As Sarah Palin said at the GOP convention, “There’s only one man in this race who has fought for you.”

Vote for McCain and for pride in country. Barack Obama’s campaign is based on the fundamental notion that America is unfair, blameworthy, shameful and flawed from its inception. John McCain believes that America has been an example that nations around the world aspire to, and a beacon of hope to people starved for freedom in every corner of the globe. Vote not for an America to be ashamed of, but for the America we are justifiably proud of–generous, self-sacrificing, noble and free.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/11/3/an-appeal-to-reasons.html

by Lance Thompson

Here we are, a few days before the election, and Barack Obama finds himself in a very tight race with his most potentially devastating opponent–himself.

In the long campaign that is coming to an end, Obama has knocked off Democrat rivals like the once-sure-thing Hillary Clinton and his own running mate, Joe Biden. Then, when the GOP chose its standard-bearer, Obama ran rings around the incompetent campaign of John McCain.

But now, as time runs out, Obama hopes to cross the finish line before the greatest threat to his victory catches up with him. The threat comes from the real Obama, the Obama that the mainstream media has shielded from public view, the Obama that Americans are only now getting to know.

This is the Obama who attended the racist, America-hating sermons of Reverend Jeremiah Wright for twenty years, then claimed that he was unaware of the nature of those sermons. This is the Obama who won his first political races by bringing lawsuits against his opponents to have them pre-empted from the race. This is the Obama who started his political career in the home of terrorist William Ayers, served with Ayers on the boards of community organizations, and maintained a relationship with Ayers over the years. This is the Obama who was the attorney for ACORN, whose campaign gave $800,000 to ACORN, who was a community organizer for ACORN. ACORN is under investigation in fourteen states for voter registration fraud, and was also instrumental in coercing lending institutions to make shaky loans that contributed to the financial meltdown.

This is the Obama who believes the Constitution of the United States is fundamentally flawed and demonstrates a “blind spot” that must be corrected. This is the Obama who wants to take money from those who earn it and give it to those who don’t. This is the Obama whose campaign received the second-highest amount of contributions from disgraced Fannie Mae directors, and blames the financial failure not on the duplicity of those directors, but on Wall Street greed.

The candidate Obama has successfully denied the existence of the real Obama, with the indispensable collaboration of the media and the inexplicable reluctance of John McCain to engage on those issues. But glimpses of the real Obama continue to leak out. Tapes of Reverend Wright caused Obama to abandon successive positions–first standing by Wright, then expressing surprise at the content of his sermons, then cutting off all contact. He has gone from characterizing as a “professor of English” the man whose Weather Underground terrorist group bombed the United States capitol and the Pentagon

More recently, Obama erred by telling Joe the Plumber that his goal as president would be to “spread the wealth.” This week, statements by Obama from 2001 indicate that he blames the Supreme Court for not endorsing income distribution. Tape of the same vintage show Obama characterizing the Constitution as flawed, and containing a blind spot. Obama’s socialist principles are increasingly evident and undeniable.

The real Obama views this country as flawed, unfair, and cruel. The real Obama wants to remake the nation to fit his image. The real Obama is the only remaining obstacle to the victory of the candidate Obama.

If candidate Obama wins the election, there will be no further need to hide the real Obama. The mainstream media will not challenge or criticize him, as they do reflexively with Republican presidents. Alternative media like FoxNews, talk radio and conservative blogs will be muzzled with the Fairness Doctrine. Democrat-controlled Congress will fill the empty judicial seats on federal courts with liberal judges, who will uphold the changes the real Obama plans to make.

The candidate Obama is hoping that most Americans don’t meet the real Obama until after the election. Every voter who gets to know the real Obama before November 4th makes Obama nervous. Because if Obama is not an enemy of the United States, he is at least friendly with and sympathetic to this nation’s enemies. His Republican opponent is not. Whatever John McCain’s faults, no one has ever had to wonder about his fidelity to the United States of America.

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

The MSM and the powers that be in the Democratic Party have proven Sir Isaac Newton’s theory wrong: What goes up does not necessarily come straight down.

The stratospheric rise (or holy ascension, as the liberal knee-benders prefer to think) of Barack Obama is unprecedented in modern and perhaps even ancient history. It has changed the laws of political physics so radically that the once reliable landscape of hero monuments in our nation’s capital is being overgrown by scraggly liberal ivy.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/10/23/the-manchurian-voters.html

In trying to make sense of non-sense — or explaining the unexplainable – we have concluded that the country has either lost its collective mind or millions of liberal alien pods were left beside our beds as we slept at night.

We have sought reasonable answers to reasonable questions but have been met with mindless, predetermined phraseology from the largely ignorant, or bombastic and grandiloquent rhetoric from the liberal elites – all of which has been translated and boiled down to two words: “change” (apparently for the sake of change) and “hope” (that the end of George Bush will solve all their problems).

This Obaphenomena defies logic, whether cursory or scientific.

From their well-crafted new age brainwashing, the media have embedded their chosen leader in our collective conscience to a level of omnipotence. That measure has taken hold of voters’ minds like the spiny tentacles of a Stone Age octopus.

But Barack Obama is not The Manchurian Candidate as some in the right media have lightheartedly speculated. No, it’s a million times worse: It’s his followers who are The Manchurian Voters.

There are useful idiots and then there are useful voters. Perhaps they are one and the same. Not even criticism based on facts can bring him or his followers back down to earth. Those useful voters then prey on enervated Republicans drawing the politically fatigued into their ultimate political solution.

At the recent Alfred E. Smith Charity dinner in New York City, we heard Obama joke about not being born in a manger, or really being from Krypton, fathered by Jor-El. The Chosen One laughs, giggles, grins, chortles, chuckles and snickers with the best of them. Yet, despite his attempt to come across as the guy next door, the humor is peppered with disingenuousness because he really does believe he is awesome.

Barack Obama has never been content with the possibility of changing America, but has now announced “We will win this election and, you and I together, we’re going to change the country and change the world.”

What exactly is he referring to? The last time we heard that type of phrase was from Adolf Hitler – “Today we rule Germany. Tomorrow, the world.”

For months, the best conservative political writers have taken aim at his campaign, but they have been shooting blanks. All manner of fact-based rhetorical weaponry has been deflected by their newly minted super man. The ordnance of conservatives has consisted of well-researched facts, recorded video clips, television/newspaper interviews and campaign speeches of That One. But the left has erected a fortress around Obama, and armed their super hero with a Teflon-coated thick skin to counter-weight a disarming smile.

As the Church Lady used to say on Saturday Night Live, “Isn’t that special?”

Drawing up from scratch a cartoon hero versus a real living hero (like John McCain) is not difficult when aided by a journalistic shield. But a nation of Useful Voters – that is an accomplishment. The Manchurian Voters have been armed with rhetorical slings and arrows, albeit of crude material, to use on family, friends and co-workers. Their sheer numbers are a force the weakest cannot resist.

Entertainment industry moguls, A-List ignoramuses and television behemoths, like Oprah Winfrey, all possess the ability and wherewithal to dazzle, mesmerize and transmogrify political fence sitters with make-believe fantastic characters like Barack Obama. As luck would have it, even his name sounds other-worldly. They offer limitless and unedited exposure for his thoughts and opinions in all forms of communication. In light of this gratis coverage, it remains a miracle that John McCain has come this far and a clear testament to his ability, even without the full support of his base.

The liberal objective: to vanquish all remaining opposition to their subversion of America.

Why have average Americans seemingly chosen to ignore Louis Farrakhan’s proclamation that Obama is The Messiah? Why has Obama’s judgment with regard to his dubious and unsavory associations not been called into question by Democrats? Why are his connections to the mortgage meltdown ignored by the MSM? Why is his utter lack of executive experience to assume the office of president dismissed out of hand by liberals?

Because they can. Because they have The Manchurian Voters. If they can use fantasy and fiction to create their invincible leader, we can use histrionics to describe our utter disbelief.

by Lance Thompson

It has long been a Democrat tactic to accuse Republicans of whatever unprincipled, illicit or deplorable act that they themselves are about to perpetrate. This tactic has been repeatedly employed with great success, and is about to pay off with the grand prize of the Presidency.

The Democrats paint themselves as champions of free speech. The broadcast news networks, MSNBC, CNN and the major newspapers and news magazines all support the Democrats. Only FoxNews and talk radio are free of liberal bias, yet even these outlets are unacceptable to Democrats. Thus, Democrats plan to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, a regulation that requires media outlets to present balanced views. This regulation will not be applied to the already liberal-leaning news outlets, but to talk radio, whose conservative voices the Democrats cannot bear. Democrats ask for votes to protect free speech even as they plan to muffle conservative voices.

The Democrats pose as friends of the working man, touting the Employee Free Choice Act as evidence. But the Free Choice Act is precisely the opposite, removing the requirement of a secret ballot from union elections. Under the Free Choice Act, union representatives can confront employees, not only at work, but in public or at home, and coerce them to sign cards in support of joining a union. The Democrats, who have the overwhelming support of unions and their pension funds, are no friends of employees, but are the bought servants of union bosses.

For years, Democrats have fought to ease or remove identification requirements for voting. Accusing Republicans of trying to disenfranchise minorities, Democrats have passed legislation that allows people to vote without identification, without a permanent address, without pre-registration. With each new statute, the validity of elections is eroded.

The Democrats have steered taxpayer funds to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). ACORN is the group that Barack Obama strongly supported, steered funding to, and worked with as an attorney during his community organizing days in Chicago. ACORN’s co-founder, Wade Rathke, was a member of the Students of a Democratic Society, the organization from which the terrorist group Weather Underground sprung. ACORN is currently under investigation in fourteen states for fraudulently registering voters who are already registered under other names, already registered in other states, deceased, or don’t exist at all. The long-term campaign to ease registration requirements make possible the wholesale manufacture of bogus votes. The votes ACORN manufactures are Democrat votes. Thus, as Democrats ask for your vote to fight disenfranchisement of minorities, they are in fact using your votes and money to disenfranchise you.

Both Barack Obama and Joe Biden, along with the usual Democrats in Congress, have blamed the current financial crisis on rampant deregulation during the Bush years. Vote Democrat, they say, and they will restore the regulations that will repair the economy. In fact, it was over-regulation that caused the housing crisis in the first place. The Community Reinvestment Act, passed under Carter and enlarged under Clinton, coerced lenders to make loans to people who could not pay them back. Incidentally, they were helped with this coercion by the people at ACORN. Over-regulation forced banks to make risky loans, yet the Democrat solution is still more regulation.

These Orwellian tactics–seeking to take away our rights under the guise of protecting them–have been part of a long-standing and effective campaign to seize power. Seizing power is also something the Democrats accuse the Republicans of, because that is what the Democrats are about to do. They will defraud the American electorate, secure the White House and Congress, and fill the judicial branch with liberal judges. The direction of the country will be decided for at least a generation.

Ordinarily at this point, I would say that’s why this election is so important. Unfortunately, our side is limited to only one vote per person.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/10/20/the-accusation-game.html
Lance Thompson/LowDownCentral.com
Contact: lancet@q.com

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

The party of Ronald Reagan is looking more and more like those persons who stand idly by and watch strangers get mugged. Except the “mugees” are members of their own party.

We would be putting it mildly if we said we’re sick and tired of hearing so-called conservatives (are you listening, John McCain?) tossing about docile rhetoric at his opponents the way nymphs sprinkle flower petals on a placid pond. We hoped McCain would throw down the gauntlet, swing away at Obama and show no mercy. As a military man, he knows well the country we love is at stake, and this is no time to worry about hurt feelings. The anger “out there” is palpable and he needs to address it today.

We’ve heard horrendous statements from liberals, such as when they compared George W. Bush to Adolf Hitler – and they got away with it. We never heard a word from our party renouncing this extremism.

We are appalled by film footage from New York City of Americans for Obama actually booing, shouting down and flipping off Americans for McCain.

It’s clear and beyond doubt that the liberal media have taken over this country, and moderate-to-conservative Republicans have only themselves to blame. They haven’t stepped up confidently to the plate and swung with all their might at every pitch with a home run in mind. Rather, they just bunt and hope to get to first base. That’s not good enough if they want to score enough runs to win the crucial series, especially if the opposing infielders are allowed to step over the foul line and are never called on it.

What is wrong with the Republican Party? There is no grit and anger, no snap and snarl. We are literally in the fight of our lives but the party is holding back, waiting for that “perfect pitch.”

Where were all the wealthy Republicans the last 50 years when Liberals purchased controlling interest in media concerns, such as television networks, major metropolitan dailies, movie studios, etc.? Liberals have steamrolled their insidious propaganda over the American psyche.

All we can do is preach day in and day out to the choir in the church of Republicanism, on a few radio stations and online journals. That forum is not now, nor will it ever be enough to turn back the tide because this tsunami of liberalism has all but washed away the few strong conservative voices. And those voices could be squished like bugs by a Democrat majority when the so-called Fairness Doctrine sails through congress after the election.

We have been hammering, yammering and all but screaming about the squeaky-wheel gets greased mentality of the left for the last two years. But have our elected officials, party leaders, and their consultants, really listened to their constituents? NO.

The Republican candidate has offered us little in the way of unique or substantive recommendations and assurances for us to stand behind him wholeheartedly and with complete confidence. His slogan, “Country First,” is an excellent choice to describe his patriotism, but it also serves as a contradiction of his intentions. He straightforwardly ignored supporters’ polls and pundits with a hand on the conservative pulse, all of whom overwhelmingly favored Mitt Romney as his logical running mate.

With all due respect to Mrs. Palin (who we admire tremendously), no one can convince us that many Republicans in congress were not aware of the impending credit meltdown. On the contrary, it was a bomb waiting to explode, and they knew it. Who, then, was better equipped than Romney, with his financial genius (and as a Washington outsider), to stand up for our side? We, and the majority of our co-conservatives, practically pleaded with the nominee to bring Mitt onto his team, but John McCain allowed his maverick ego to get in the way of “Country First.”

Our anger and fear doesn’t begin or end with McCain. On his radio show very recently, Howard Stern played a tape of random interviews of Obama supporters in New York, who weren’t even aware of what they were agreeing to. All they heard was Obama’s name, and automatically answered, “Yeah,” “Uh?Huh,” and “Okay by me” to every question the interviewer posed, despite the fact the interviewer had juxtaposed McCain’s policies for Obama’s. It apparently matters not that Louis Farrakhan publicly proclaimed Obama as their Messiah – the Chosen One. That is what angers and frightens us – that few seem to notice.

These New Yorkers are not isolated voters, but are more than likely a good representation of the majority of ACORN-induced registrations. We are equally tired of the race card being shouted out every time we open our mouths to breathe. Republicans, as a whole, are not, nor ever have been, the party of racism. Red Alert: When and if the Bradley Effect should occur, it will not be Republicans in the voting booth.

Senator McCain’s performance in the first two of three critical debates was embarrassing. The old saying “nice guys finish last” endures for a reason. A presidential debate is for engaging in a formal argument of the issues, not a recitation of talking points. His performance was and is critical — because we have but one opportunity left to confront Barack Obama on the issues and on his questionable alliances before a national audience – live and unfiltered by liberal malarkey.

Say what you will about the liberal leaning moderators, they cannot outsmart a smart candidate.

If John McCain is unable to close the deal for the Republicans tonight, it won’t be long before our party becomes the hangout for the lonely and the desperate, where we’ll all be banging into each other, for God knows how long, like billiard balls on an uneven and hostile surface.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/10/15/the-party-of-weenies-deserves-to-be-roasted.html

During the second presidential debate of this campaign, Senators McCain and Obama were at pains to explain the merits of their respective health plans. Obama seeks to bring all people under one plan to capitalize on economies of scale. McCain plans to bring market forces to bear on medical costs by giving consumers a tax credit to apply toward any medical plan they choose. Though McCain’s plan is marginally more sensible, neither addresses the root cause of high medical costs, which is medical insurance.

Imagine a small community of twenty or thirty people. In this community there are two doctors. Each charges his patients for each service as it is rendered. The doctors are roughly equal in skill and experience. Obeying the law of supply and demand, the doctor who charges less for his services gets more business, and thus forces the doctor who charges more to lower his prices to compete for that business.

An entrepreneur in the community decides to start his own business. He tells people that none of them can be sure when a costly medical visit will be required, and that none of the other members of the community are responsible enough to put money aside for such an emergency. But he offers an answer–medical insurance. Instead of paying the doctors on the occasion of requiring medical service, residents pay the medical insurance provider a fixed amount each month, allowing them to add medical costs to their monthly budgets. When a medical service is required, the insurance agent will take money out of the funds he has collected and pay for the service.

Several consequences result from this arrangement. Since medical costs are the same to the patient whether he uses them frequently or infrequently, demand for medical services increases. Since medical costs are the same to the patient whether he avails himself of elaborate procedures or simple, he chooses the more elaborate. Since medical costs are the same to the patient, whichever doctor he chooses, each doctor may raise his rates without fear of competition from his colleague. The two doctors, wishing to maximize the revenue from their practices, can raise rates without driving away business.

The insurance agent, however, wishes also to maximize his own profit, and seeks to reduce the amount of money he pays for medical services. He may try to force the health providers to lower their rates, but he is dependent upon them for his livelihood. The doctors can in return threaten to cease providing services, which would put the insurer out of business as well.

So the insurer seeks relief on the other side–from the insured. He must either raise the rates of insurance or limit access to the health services covered. In the first event, the consumer, who can exert no pressure on the costs of health care, must pay more. In the second instance, the consumer may not be able to gain access to certain services at any cost.

More importantly, the health care expenditures of the small community, which once supported two doctors whose prices were kept down by competition, now supports two doctors and an insurance agent who are free of market pressures, and can raise their rates at will.

Likewise, in the larger world we live in, Americans’ health care expenditures must not only support health care providers, but also a vast, multi-billion dollar health care insurance industry. This industry does not provide care, produce medicine, or perform medical procedures of any kind. It is merely a processor of fees, but the hundreds of thousands of people and hundreds of companies which provide health insurance or administer managed care are all part of America’s health care costs.

The appeal of medical insurance is that each person is protected from extraordinary health care bills, and instead pays a set amount each month. But if such bills are inevitable as an individual ages, and all patients will eventually need expensive care, then the insurance agency must charge enough so that those costs can be passed on to each customer. Thus the insured will still fully pay those costs, in addition to an amount which pays for the vast insurance industry, and allows that industry to make a profit.

If only a limited percentage of health care customers will require expensive care, then those who will not require such care will be subsidizing those who will, and health care for those people will be an unnecessary expense. And if healthy lifestyle choices such as diet, exercise, and environmental factors can reduce the chances of requiring expensive medical services, then Americans would be better off incorporating those choices in their lives, and opting out of paying insurance premiums inflated by those who do not make those choices.

Eliminating health insurance and managed care, and allowing Americans to pay for their health services as required will eliminate the cost of a vast industry from health care bills and further reduce costs by allowing the free market and competition to keep prices down. Doctors who provide better care will be able to charge more; those with lesser qualifications will be forced to charge less. Access to health services of all kinds will be guaranteed, with those who require the highest level of service compelled to pay the highest prices.

Nationalizing health insurance, as Obama advocates, or finding new ways to pay for health insurance, as McCain would like, will fuel the continuing increase in health care costs and reduce the array of services available to health consumers. This is the path both presidential candidates have chosen to follow. It is a placebo whose psychological benefits are certain to wear off shortly after the election.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/10/13/health-insurance-bad-for-your-wealth.html
Lance Thompson writes for LowDownCentral.com

There is a vaccine for nearly everything: typhus, influenza, polio, the pox – or so we thought.

A new pestilence has reared its ravenous head and has enveloped the U.S. with such wildfire speed and intensity that even the American Medical Association cannot cope with this contagion: the Political Plague, or as it is better known – Obamapox.

Symptomatically similar to louse-borne typhus, Obamapox produces a smoky or lazy state of mind. That effect was obvious in the faces of the crowds following his gratuitous thank you speech in Munich, – the vacant stare, wild-eyes and incoherent babble. That’s where the global outbreak of Obamapox was initiated and has since grown into a pandemic – and the hysteria is now reaching worldwide proportions.

As we all know, the human body requires a proper, balanced diet to remain in good physical shape. But the body politic of this country has been starved nearly to death due to a complete lack of the one vital nutrient to keep it healthy: Ethics.

The monumental federal bailout was believed by Congress and the president to be the antidote to this epidemic. It turned out, in fact, to be hopeless compensation from the start. Their $700 billion anti-serum has proved more poisonous than the meltdown itself: 401(k)s being wiped out; savings and pension benefits, wiped out; real estate values and ownership, wiped out. The worst hit has been our hopes, dreams, and faith.

Everyone except those we elected heard the branches of our tree of liberty creaking and then breaking off under the weight of misguided egalitarianism. Only now are they racing blindly armed only with squirt gun-sized syringes to stop the plague they, themselves, have caused.

The Democrat-controlled Congress (that monkey house where the occupants grunt and groom one another) is the hot zone of this plague: Ground Zero. The host and major carrier of this pox on our economy is none other than Barack Obama.

And where is Obama during this mega-crisis? No doubt safe and warm in an antiseptic, germ-free (Teflon-coated) environment where nothing and no one are allowed in. The secondary hostile liberal organisms (advisors) emanated from the viral vector that was Fannie Mae, but Obama learned quickly to insulate himself from that nexus.

Obama even debates in a sterile bubble of safe words and phraseology designed to distract from the virulent liberalism which evolved from his far left-wing radicalism to camera-ready moderation via the smoke and mirrors provided by the mainstream media.

Like any pestilence, it has infected both liberal and conservative Senators, Congressmen and campaign workers. At the other end of the spectrum, teachers are indoctrinating and contaminating children from K to 12 with a new strain specifically designed to infect future generations. Politics took for granted our immunity, which was financial dominance. But it was politicians like Barack Obama, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank (and insiders like Franklin Raines) who plundered that dominance: our hard-earned money that we placed for safekeeping in their hands. And then the liberal media purposely mangled the emergency sirens that were ringing dangerously louder on a yearly basis to make them sound as though all crises of every nature were emanating exclusively from the Oval Office.

Despite this mounting catastrophe, congresspersons continue to live in selfish luxury and generous pensions while the taxpayers who support them are falling wayside by the thousands. George W. Bush is guilty of over-spending. But directly after the Democrats seized power in 2006 and proclaimed “there’s a new game in town,” Speaker Pelosi’s first order of business was to demand a large private jet be at her disposal, and chauffeured limousines on both coasts for an entourage of family, boot polishers and other toadies.

Recently, in the middle of the initial bailout vote, Pelosi alone coughed up enough partisan sputum to spread Obamapox to Wall Street, causing the Dow to drop like a fiery stone.

The Democrats were so all-fired angry about spending, which is the major reason they were voted back into power. Yet Nancy Pelosi couldn’t wait to get her manicured mitts onto taxpayer money to satisfy her diseased greed – every penny of which is funded by taxpayers. She fell ill with Obamapox almost immediately. The only inoculation she had availed herself of was against the Hillary strain.

The first sign of infection is deafness to reason, which comes early and has nasty side effects. At its most malignant stage, those directly exposed to Obamapox (many photo-op Democrats in Congress) degenerate into Obamania, the final stage before being institutionalized.

The Surgeon General says the long-term prognosis for survival is not known, but, in most cases, it appears to be terminal or until honest Republicans and Democrats burn the House down and start over.

Hey, all you cats & kittens out there in funny money land, the clock is tick, tick, ticking. It’s almost time we hit the mattresses and harvest that stashed cash we’ve been storing for a rainy day, ‘cause our savings and 401(k)s’ might be “Blowin’ in the Wind,” and then it’s going to be “See You Later, Alligator” from our Pension Funds.

The Dow Jones had its “19th Nervous Breakdown” when the The 3 Gs (Good Guys & Gals in Government), better known as “Strangers in the Night,” did a “Shake, Rattle & Roll” and voted “no $$$$-ING way” to bail out the credit market a/k/a the “Space Oddity” – that was famous for its jingles “We Can Work it Out” and “My World is Empty Without IOUs, Babe.”

Treasury Secretary Henry “It’s Now or Never” Paulson went from “Mellow Yellow” to a “Whiter Shade of Pale” when the American people rang up their reps and sang our anthem, “I Fought the Law” and rejected his $700 billion “Eight Miles High” bailout compromise. Then Representative Mike Pence of Indiana cut through the “Purple Haze” and announced: “The American people rejected this bailout, and now Congress did likewise.”

Would the underlying message to Congress be: “You Can’t Always Get What You Want?”

Just when we thought the “Smoke on the Water” was clearing in the violin section of the Democrat party, “Dazed and Confused” Barney Frank must have had a “Psychotic Reaction” when he issued the statement: “The Republicans killed this.”

Back in 2004, during “A Day in the Life” of the illegal bookkeeping hearings, Barney Frank said “you seem to be saying well there are areas which could raise safety and soundness problems. I don’t see anything in this report that raises safety and soundness problems.” And just like that Frank figured: “There Ain’t No Stoppin’ Us Now.”

And who can ever forget Maxine “California Dreamin’” Waters at those very same hearings declaring: “Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Freddie Mac, and in particular at Fannie Mae under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines.”

“Is it Just My Imagination” or was Maxine telling Raines “Don’t Stop Till You Get Enough?”

If that weren’t enough, and “With the Tears of a Clown,” Federal Reserve Chairman, Ben “I’m So Lonesome I Could Cry” Bernanke, warned of “grave threats” to the global financial system if Congress rejected the plan. Apparently, his “Paint It Black” warning was met with the “Sounds of Silence” by the “Comfortably Numb” (up for reelection) Congress who were unwilling to hop on the “Last Train to Clarksville” and vote the wrong way just before the General Election — wishing we all could, once again, be “The Way We Were.”

The “If I Had a Hammer” (and Sickle) Democrats and “God Only Knows” Republicans hammered out a compromise measure entitled “The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 with a “Whole Lot of Shakin’ Goin’ On” from both sides of the aisle. They’d still be shakin’, but they took a couple of days off before “Takin’ Care of Business.”

Certainly, Representative Jeb Hensarling (R) of Texas thought “The Times They Are A’Changin”’ when he declared the bailout might put the nation on the “slippery slope to socialism.” In practically the same breath, please “Say It Ain’t So,” Rep. James Langevin, Democrat from Rhode Island, said “we must ensure hardworking people will have access to financing for mortgages, as well as auto, student and small business loans.”

The American people believe little in “Sympathy For The Devil” that is Wall Street and are “Crazy” for another Congressional “Hard Day’s Night” of negotiating.

It was widely reported that President George W. Bush was disappointed with defeat of the bailout bill. He was “Wishin’ and Hopin” otherwise and last overheard saying “I Can’t Get No (Satisfaction).”

Democratic Presidential candidate Barack “With No Particular Place To Go” Obama, made a token phone call to the real working senators saying “Please Please Me.”

Gaffe-prone Senator Joe Biden asked his running mate “Did You Ever Have to Make Up Your Mind?”

On “Needles and Pins” and with rolled up sleeves, Senator John “I Feel Fine” McCain insists “A Change Is Gonna Come.”

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/10/2/bailout-rock.html

“Love him or hate him” means there have been no shades of gray sentiment for George W. Bush, except for what we see now on the top of his head. When you look at a photo from the year 2000 of the newly elected 43rd President of the United States (or “appointed” if you’re a lefty), you see a man in his prime — nary a sign of misspent youth on this face. The full head of wavy medium ash brown hair was well-groomed, but not the pampered $400 coiffures of the opposition party prima donnas.

It is well documented scientifically that stress is a silent killer. Many of us are familiar with its effects and can expound at length on the various levels of pressure we personally tolerate on a daily basis. There are few among us that don’t reach for the Advil or a cocktail just to level out. Workers from the highest to the lowest end of the totem pole experience some form of stress whether physical or emotional, or both. An unexpected financial or health crisis can debilitate the strongest among us.

We would do well to ponder for a moment just how (or if) we could manage the pressure of having the weight of our country, and often the world, on our shoulders. For most of us, it’s unimaginable.

George W. Bush has endured the intense highs and lows of eight turbulent years in office. His calm in the face of vicious unwarranted and false accusations has impressed us. But the effects have carved valleys of anguish on his face and a premature winter on his head. The indelible marks will remain with him, but they should be worn as a badge of honor. He has borne with graciousness personal attacks that would certainly have brought lesser men to their knees.

Like his father, George H.W. Bush, that inherited handsome countenance which might have graced many a historical monument some day may instead only remain chiseled in the American psyche.

Conservatives have had their issues with some of this President’s positions, but we always remained grateful for his strength of leadership, his steadfast and unwavering focus in the face of evil, and his calm in the stormy eye of Islamist terrorism.

However history remembers this man, it must also note that, like no other president in recent memory, George Bush bears on his face the pain of sorrow for the loss of each and every soldier, sailor, airman and marine, and for the gut-wrenching deaths of innocent Americans of all races and cultures from September 11th to the present day. He has worn his heart on his sleeve, weeping openly for the pain and suffering of others, with genuine dignity and without shirking his duty. He walked into that office with a twinkle in his eye but will depart with the reflection of our many lost souls.

No other American president has had to endure the unanticipated and tragic levels of natural disasters, heinous acts of terrorism on U.S. soil and on American ships at sea and U.S. outposts all over the world. The growing financial catastrophes presently overwhelming us were not the result of one person’s action or inaction, but a series of bi-partisan machinations that snowballed into this avalanche of financial despair. George Bush will accept the blame because that is part of the job. The media will continue to have a field day with him fueled by their blind hatred which has changed the face of journalism forever.

This is not a panegyric to George Bush, but rather a fair and sincere acknowledgment of gratitude to the President that has kept the country safe. Unlike the cockeyed thinking on the left, we do not believe it is mere coincidence that we have not been attacked again given the provocative jihadist proclamations issued regularly since 9/11. President Bush promised to keep us safe, and he has kept that promise. His protection is not the paternalistic form of government craved by the left, but from the honest conviction of one man borne of his faith. Whether you are guided by religious or secular beliefs, there is an underlying moral code at work that cannot be denied or denigrated.

George Bush has been (and we do not use this description lightly) our Commander-in-Grief as well as the leader of the free world. He earned his stripes the hard way – by leading our nation through a minefield of media booby traps, by staying the course of his unpopular decisions (like comprehensive immigration reform and Medicare prescription benefits), and never bending to the arrogance or outrageous demands of European elitists.

He has protected all things American. The most salient example are the thousands of ugly Americans that have disrespected and smeared the office of the presidency and spewed forth eight years’ worth of venomous rhetoric, the sole purpose of which was to destroy the man who has protected the very democracy that gave them that right of expression.

This is the man who, time and time again, reached far across the partisan table knowing he was crossing the Rubicon of his party’s principles. There is an underlying non-ideological goodness to this man who has been willing to do what he believes is best for the nation without equivocating about his intentions.

No one, if they are honest, can devalue or take that strength of character away from him. This trait of unfaltering conviction has been mocked mercilessly for two full terms. But in the end, notwithstanding his whitened hair, President George W. Bush will be able to depart from the White House with his head held high.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/9/20/the-withering-heights-of-a-frosted-flake.html

In 1917, Vladimir Lenin spearheaded his leftist revolutionaries in a massive people’s revolt, which smashed Russia’s monarchy to dust, and forever disfigured the face of worldwide power politics.

Nearly fifty years later in the 1960s, radical feminists and other useful idiots here and abroad placed a bear hug on Lenin’s adage that “a lie told often enough becomes the truth,” and wouldn’t let go. Those hipsters believed that their efforts would absolve them of negative connotations, hostile repercussions, or the drilled-in-stone truths in connection with the fresh-anointed “pro choice” movement – or so they thought. They were, to a large degree (and to the detriment of all things sacred), successful. They inculcated the notion of “choice” into their husbands, into their offspring, into their work, and into their fused-at-the-hip hippie mates. “Choice” (not unlike “Change”) began to spread and ultimately rooted itself into the American lexicon, into legislation, and promulgated to extremes in the media.

In a recent article, feminist Camille Paglia expressed that “Democrats are clinging to pat group opinions as if they were inflexible moral absolutes. The party is in peril if it cannot observe and listen and adapt to changing social circumstances.” Sarah Palin has unwittingly thrust a cool new wave of social reform upon us again. Not a huge step backwards, as may initially be thought, but a giant leap in the true meaning of womanhood.

Why bring up the abortion argument now? The answer is simple: Because the time is right. Republican Vice-Presidential candidate Sarah Palin ’s rocket-launched emergence onto the battleground for the presidency is proving to be the liberals’ worst nightmare on the topic of abortion as well as the true meaning of “choice.” She has struck a chord of dissonance in the hearts of the opposition party when Carol Fowler, South Carolina’s Democratic Chairwoman, says that Sarah Palin’s primary qualification seems to be that she hasn’t had an abortion .

Additionally, Mrs. Palin’s strength of will and character is the ultimate threat to the Democrats’ bitter fight for the White House. Sarah Palin also happens to be the embodiment of all things female, and is a walking, talking contradiction to every argument espoused by the Left and social moderates — that women are less superior intellectually, whose choices must be made for them, not by them.

The proof by assertion on the left that a fetus is not a human being worthy of protection (even from its own mother) is the kind of rhetoric that the feminist left built their power base on. Again, as Paglia notes, it evolved into their obsessive idée fixe of the post-1960s women’s movement. By never referring to fetuses as human beings, radicals have rationalized the heinous act of arbitrarily extinguishing over 40 million lives. Two generations of talking points for politicians and the media have been brainwashed into the population, much like Madison Avenue advertising.

Abortion has become an acceptable alternative for responsibility and respect for life. Derision is a favorite elitist reaction to the idea of abstinence — as if only the uneducated are sucked into an idea whose core is based on common sense. It is not just the sphere of the religious right as they would have you believe. Apparently, common sense among the elites is not so common. Even the word “choice” is chockfull of contradiction when applied to the abortion movement. We are all pro-choice, except that our choice occurs before and not after conception.

Leftists and ill-informed moderate feminists have accepted that rape and incest pregnancies are common instead of rare and have used that position as their hue and cry because it was easier than personal responsibility. Vice Presidential candidate Sarah Palin’s exemplary life flies in the face of so many of those proofs by assertion promulgated by the feminist movement. The fact of the matter is that assault and incest rape pregnancies are rare. Under optimum conditions, the fecundity that comes with youth and good health is approximately 20% in any given cycle. What should be rare — irresponsibility, ignorance, carelessness and downright stupidity — is not. For a great many American women, abortion has become the birth control of choice (no pun intended).

The abortion movement has almost reached its goal of making partial-birth abortion law. Barack Obama has come down in favor of this extreme position and holds out this egregious error in judgment and logic as an example of being in touch with the people.

Sarah Palin has, in one fell swoop, has eviscerated the arguments of the women’s movement with respect to those other choices we were supposed to have made, i.e., children or career; or “children and career” by simply being all that a woman can be.

In this final analysis, the one unforeseen consequence of the pro choice and feminist movement was the long-range negative effects on population growth. (Someone forgot to pass the word along to all of the illegal immigrants and fast-growing Muslim populations in America and Europe.)

We have painted ourselves into a corner with respect to the long-term viability of Social Security by cutting down the numbers behind the Me Generation. We are aborting ourselves into extinction.

http://www.lowdowncentral.com/feature-article/2008/9/11/sarahs-gift-of-life.html