Don’t look now but according to Wayne Slater if you’re from Texas, and you support Rick Perry, or Debbie Medina for governor, attended the rally for Rick Perry and Sarah Palin, and support the 10th Amendment you’re a racist, or at least some of you are. Well, I think the other half of you should feel good knowing that only some of the people who support states’ rights are racist. I swear the people in charge are either drunk and mentally challenged, mentally challenged, drunk, high, or all of the above. Apparently state’s rights have gone the way of acid wash jeans and eight ball jackets, just ain’t in style no man my friends.

Chris Matthews did his daily Palin and all things conservative bashing today with James Moore and Wayne Slater, authors of the book Bush’s Brain, and you watch Matthews go absolutely bonkers at the very thought of Texas, or any other state rising up against the encroaching power of the federal government. Are we to assume the great anti-federalist and founding father Samuel Bryan was wrong when he warned that a centralized power would be the interest of the well born few? Absolutely not, because the well born few is not relegated to the elected class, it also includes a consolidated media power aligned with the political system. Chris Matthews assailed Perry for a lack of historical sophistication. To him, meaning Matthews, federalism=secession which equals the tenth amendment, which equals war? But perhaps old Chrissy should dive right back into the American history books himself, because apparently he doesn’t know too much about the constitution himself. One of the last wedge issues at the Constitutional convention was the issue of states rights. The anti-federalists were afraid of the idea of a federal government, and with good reason. So in order to bring everyone along to have the constitution ratified, even though the federalists had an overwhelming majority, the founding fathers understood the importance of protecting the rights and sovereignty of the states. Think of it this way: “Without a recognition of states’ rights, there would be no constitution or, a very watered down version would have emerged, or worse, Alexander Hamilton’s vision for an American style monarchy would have been more widely embraced. I shutter at the thought. Then again, that’s sort of kinda what we ended up with now isn’t it?

I could go on and on about history, I just thought it was important to point out the conventional wisdom that plagues the beltway. Even most conservatives have adopted the more radical view of federal power, I call them progressatives. They’re conservative on most issues except they tend to disregard the constitution as a whole, much like their leftist counterparts, in which to that effect they have much in common than they realize. This plague oozed out, went from state to state and diluted any adherence to the constitution. Most people assume, without concrete evidence that Barack Obama’s agenda is constitutional, it’s not. His health care plan or plans are unconstitutional, his economic policies are unconstitutional, his numerous executive orders are unconstitutional, his new war on obesity is by far one of his most unconstitutional policies we’ve seen in the last ten years. I would argue that the Patriot Act has more legitimacy from the constitution than his proposed plans to ban all vending machines across the country and have more control in what your children eat at school. Will parents lose their right to buy their child something outside of school for lunch? Who knows, I’ve seen many a right lost during this president’s reign.

The tenth amendment is an important one. It allows the states independence from a flawed government. The founding fathers intended for the state to be flawed because they wanted a little power to flow through Washington as possible. The fathers never put forth a liberty killing entitlement or plan in the name of possibility or comfort, or fitness and wellness. They believed in a concept long since abandoned in the name of the collectivist banner, that concept was individuality. All I can say is, when the last light of freedom is blown out by the gale force winds of the federal storm,  I for one will seek refuge in my storm cellar, where copies of the Federalist Papers, 1984, Ron Paul’s manifesto,  await.

Long live liberty, down with tyranny-Clark Kent.

“Men are not to be the objects of collectivist experimentation”

Sarah Palin’s speech at the National Tea Party Convention in Nashville was widely seen as her sort of “Coming out speech” of sorts post-Alaska governor, post-Vice presidential candidate. Well, in the eyes of many, especially those in attendance, she didn’t disappoint. But int he eyes of the media, and one network in particular, Sarah Palin, even if she saved a basket of puppies, and old woman, and a newborn from a burning skyscraper apartment building, no matter what Sarah Palin is despised by this one network, and you all know who I’m talking about.

There are those out there who are uncomfortable, or to put in in its most honest form: “Afraid” of the idea that she might very well run for president, win the nomination, and defeat a politically damaged Barack Obama in 2012. Now, I’m a Palin fan but I see many flaws, then again all candidates have flaws. But above all else I see someone who is raw, and by raw I mean real. Sarah Palin, despite criticism by the learned coastal staples has the same quirky broken vernacular as the room mom, you guys remember room moms don’t you? The moms who would be in charge of bringing the treats for the classroom parties when you were in elementary school. My mom, was a room mother for about two years. She’s the first true citizen politician. She’s that PTA mom who gets involved in the affairs of her community. And that not only annoys the elites, yes the elites, and I know that word has become cliche, but it’s an appropriate label nonetheless, it also makes them feel like Sarah Palin is somehow beneath them because she didn’t go to Harvard or Yale, she didn’t spend every waking moment of her life campaigning, consulting with strategists, prepping, and focus grouping every word she has every spoke in her life. They say she needs to come up with new ideas, as oppose to Barack Obama who takes old ideas and wraps them in new gift paper. I mean, what is so old and unappealing about small government and less spending?

But this is what happens when you consolidate power and influence within a relatively small area in the beltway and along the coastal regions in America. And yes John Stewart, a truck driver from Burlington Iowa has a different world view than a journalist from Seattle. What’s worse is the apologists on the right, or as they like to call it the “reasonable right” who constantly throw her under the bus so they don’t offend their liberal buddies, Joe Scarborough knows all about that. Just once I’d like to see a Republican on camera, on MSNBC express their support for Sarah Palin. Pat Buchanan is the only one that comes to mind, but I’d like to see more. You don’t have to be a blind supporter of Sarah Palin, we don’t believe in messiahs in the GOP, but at the same time don’t act like you can’t defend your brother or sister in arms whenever the left rears its ugly head after this woman appears on camera.

So she took shots at Obama, you know I noticed that more so called conservatives were offended by that than liberals. I’ve said this for a long time, there are some in our party who are either afraid of Barack Obama for whatever reason, or deep down they like him because they still think he’s the same Obama from the campaign, as if that were the real Obama to begin with. These people are going to have to wake up and join the fight, or get dumped in the mud because we don’t have time to eat our own. Sarah Palin is one of us, she’s not our enemy what’s wrong with these people. You would think Sarah Palin smells or she’s the demon daughter of Satan. What it boils down to is this: She’s unwavering, political, morally, culturally, and the beltway crowd couldn’t imagine holding true to anything that might put their popularity around the cocktail party circuit at risk.

All they talk about is bipartisanship and reason. So they go out on these fake debate tours together, Howard Dean and Ariana Huffington, and Joe Scarborough, or Alan Colmes, Donna Brazil, and Rick Santorum. These debates are nothing but publicity stunts put on by people who live inside an echo chamber filled with alcohol breath, cigarette smoke, and talking points. Their obsession with bipartisanship is masochistic, it’s all they think about. But in reality, history shows us that partisanship, rather than one party namely the GOP, compromising their principles was widely accepted and encouraged by the founders. Let cite an example: Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton were very skeptical of one another. In fact, when Hamilton was appointed the first Sec. of the Treasury by George Washington Thomas Jefferson was not only a fierce opponent of what Hamilton implemented at the treasury secretary, but he was also opposed to Hamilton’s government solutions because in his eyes he feared it would have influence over politicians and the people. In short, this was the first one many early examples of fierce and substantive partisanship in Washington. Lest we forget Burr and Hamilton’s hatred of one another than ended in a duel, leaving both men mortality wounded. John Adams and Thomas Jefferson remained bitter toward one another after the1801 election. So this so called “destructive partisan ranker” as they call it is as old as the republic herself.

The Jefferson Republicans were down right mean and they went full speed ahead after their opponents and they singled out John Adams. This is tradition in our politics, it’s called democracy at work. Calling Barack Obama a socialist or a liar when he’s clearly both is not uncivilized, it’s justifiable and it’s not uncommon. The way Alexander Hamilton ridiculed and embarrassed Aaron Burr at a dinner party makes today’s partisanship seem like two little girls fighting over a barbie doll, each girl grabbing on end of the doll and pulling it like tug of war. At least in today’s partisan battles they aren’t settled by the barrel of a gun.

And judging by sheer ineptitude of the Republican leadership in the House and Senate, coupled with the GOP’s willingness to appease the president, odds are Republicans will set foot right smack dab in the middle and get caught. If we’ve learned anything about Barack Obama it’s that he excelled at Saul Alinsky school of radical progressive politics. And I must say using Republicans ideas as a trap was his smartest decision yet.

Tax cuts, spending freezes, offshore drilling, nuclear power plants, all of these ideas usually come from the mouths of conservatives and Republicans. But last night Barack Obama laid them out in his state of the union speech. Now, for those of us who come from the other side, we understood what he was doing last night. You see one of the most effective tools used by the left is turning the other side’s argument and agenda against them, thus using it to call their bluff and diverting them from their focus and by therefore marginalizing them. Obama laid down the marker, he set the trap in the middle of Washington and he put some food, i.e Republican ideas in the middle of the trap. I suspect many GOP Senators will take the bait, especially Mitch McConnell who never struck me as a strong conservative nor a strong leader.

We all know what’s going on, at least I hope my conservative brothers and sisters know what’s going on. They won’t cut taxes, they won’t authorize any expansive drilling offshore nor will they develop plans for a massive natural gas pipeline project. Obama went back to his playbook, or David Plouffe’s playbook and he sounded moderate to cover himself, and making sure that if Republicans even think about speaking out he can not only blame them for the “lack of progress” but he can also come off looking like the innocent voice of reason while the anti-everything GOP wants nothing from him but absolute failure. That my friends was the most striking and fool-proof plan we’ve seen from this president since he took office. Ask yourself: Are the Democrats, who take money from the environmental groups, who by an overwhelming majority believe in the faux-science of global warming and make it a sport to bash big oil, are they really going to start the process of drilling off the coast of liberal California? Obama thinks we’re all fools, but we aren’t, the GOP leadership on the other hand well, they’re all fools, scared fools.

Notice Obama said the spending freeze will come in 2011. Also, notice he didn’t say anything about Social Security or Medicare, which are both do to go belly up in four years because of all the wasteful spending. Another thing I notice in the speech was Obama’s in and out tactic. He blamed the majority of the deficit on Bush, but claimed some of it himself which was fine, but then he tried to act as though he was the reason a so called “recovery” was at hand, which is a flat out lie. As my mom says, the man thinks he’s half a@$ slick. We need to pay attention because this is Obama from the campaign, remember? He’s what every intelligent leftist throughout history has been: He’s the chameleon who changes color to fool the unsuspecting citizen. Ronald Reagan talked about this in 1976, he said Democrats run as conservatives and use conservative talking points to appeal to the mainstream, and then when office they revert to form because to them the ends justify the means.

We know what this is and I didn’t buy not one whiff of what he was trying to sell. The man is dishonest but smart in this aspect: He knows the independence are gullible and apathetic enough to be easily swayed by talking points which appeal to them. Obama knows that independence out number his base and the energized conservative opposition that is united ten fold against his agenda, tax cut or no tax cut. He knows conservatives won’t vote for him in 2012 so he had to put on the Obama from the campaign suit last night. He’s done this three times: During the campaign, his first month in office, and last night. His numbers will go up, the media will spin it and praise him as this liberal Ronald Reagan, of course Obama doesn’t have the broad scope of support that Reagan had even after the Democrats gained ground in 1982. All in all this was a strategy, not a plan. And as soon as those apathetic and gullible independents give him some breathing room, Obama will as Reagan said long ago, revert back to form.

You can’t cut taxes on small business and then turn around and raise taxes on those making 250,000 or more a year. You see most small businesses if ran correctly will eventually hit and surpass the 250,000 mark. So in effect he’s cutting their taxes supposedly, at the same time capping success. I mean, listen to the speech guys, the man basically said in so many words he’s going to control and cap success. At least that’s what I took from that tax cut contradiction.

So last night’s speech was a campaign speech basically. It wasn’t the proclamation of the end of big government or Reagan’s platform for growth. Obama recited focus words incoherently. All that was needed was the infamous Howard Dean yell: “We’re gonna cut taxes, drill for oil, build nuclear plants in Florida, then Indiana, then Ohio yaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Word on the street is that the Obama state of the union address will boast an Obama “Spread the wealth” economic platform. As if his blunt force admission to Joe the Plumber didn’t cast him in a brighter socialist light, apparently Obama’s middle class relief plan will not only soak the so called rich (If you make 250,000 dollars or more you’re one rich bastard) an argument can be made, and with reason and confidence that this plan will further deepen the hole on the US economy. I would never wish pain upon my fellow Americans, but I’m afraid pain is what is coming, and pain is what we’ll have for the next three years. Grab a cup kiddies.

If this president wasn’t already economically illiterate, he was to go and raise taxes and slush the money around like he’s one of those giant spinning balls filled with money at the Shoe Carnival. The middle class is suppose to stand inside that ball and grab as much redistributed wealth as possible before Obama decides that we’re too rich and then spreads our money around to the people hanging from the rung of the ladder below us. Daddy Obama will take care of us by giving incentives to people so they can stop taking care of themselves. I’m convinced, this man wouldn’t know how to create a job if he attended a night school course called “Job Creation 101″ Job Creation for Dummies w/CD included.

Or perhaps he just wants to extend the government scroll with the names of the middle class. His answer to sinking confidence, bad health care bills, and unpopular spending measures? More taxes, more spending, and a continued push for a bad health care bill. What possible good can come of such arrogant denial or reality itself?

One of the most common signs of addiction is denial. Often times a person might develop a sense of righteous indignation, or they’ll simply wave off any signs, no matter how apparent that they might very well be addicted to alcohol or drugs. In the case of Barack Obama and the Democrat Party to denial is so obvious and deep rooted one might assume their arrogance could lead to utter defeat not only in 2010 but in 2012, if the denial on the other hand weren’t so dangerously high throughout the party.

The result of last week’s special election in Massachusetts failed to knock sense in the Democrats. In fact, it only added to what was already an extreme case of egotism. They assumed, by they I mean the Democrats, assumed there was a message problem, or in Howard Dean’s case the Democrats weren’t going far left fast enough. I don’t know what it will take to remind the Democrats that they inherited a center right country along with a recession, two wars, and a fragile financial sector. But, I digress in my point, I’m afraid they’ve taken this point of calculation: “Salt+food=salty food, conclusion: More salt on food” . The fact of the matter is this: The country in my opinion anyway and this could change, the country is united and dead set against this progressive agenda. I don’t how many times you can say it, what different languages you can say it in, whether it’s written on the wall, inside a notebook, or on the foreheads of every Democrat in Washington, the country at large is rejecting your ideas, accept it and move on.

The media likes to use the Reagan rationale. They say Reagan had the same poll numbers and lost around 40 seats in 1982, as if to suggest that Reagan and Obama are on the same plateau philosophically, political, morally, and in terms of leadership. It’s basic math really when you breakdown the comparison: Reagan pushed tax cuts and less spending, Obama’s pushing more taxes, regulation, control of the banks, and more spending, and not to mention a transformation of 1/6 of our economy in the form of government health care. Obama is not Reagan alright? He’s not, not even close. When will the media accept the fact that Obama is nor was the candidate they made him out to be. He’s not the smartest guy to ever become president, he doesn’t have the highest IQ of any any president, and he’s not the leader they sold him as. What you have here is a case of bad product management and advertising. Barack Obama was a product, his campaign was the commercial, American bought this shiny new product and it broke the first year. It’s like buying a new salad shooter or cooking pan and them not working quite like the commercials said they would. Problem is we can’t get our refund because Obama is spent it on a miscalculated and politically motivated stimulus plan that created or saved jobs in places that don’t exist on the map of the United States.

I believe Obama is headed toward one and done. I think the country finally realized that this “razzle dazzle, hope and change” gimmick was exactly that, a gimmick. No president can govern simply on a feel good platform. Furthermore no president can forcefully move a country out of its comfort zone, especially if that country likes its comfort zone. And to suggest that our traditions are somehow flawed and antiquated is not only arrogant and regressive but it’s very dangerous and a rather hostile approach to the constitution and the Bill of Rights…barring they still come into consideration in the minds of Democrats and this president. I doubt it.

What’s the argument for the Democrats’ war on big everything, namely the banks? “Well, it’s not fair for the banks to make big profits while the little guy suffers” Well, it’s not fair to bail the banks out while the little guy suffers, you idiots. But I digress, this bailout orgy started under Bush and I believe these bailouts were a blessing in disguise for the progressive regulation happy wing of the Democrat Party now running our government. But far from the anger crowds of granola munchers and coastal leftist elites who have waged a lifelong war on success, there is something that even the most wide eyed drone must understand in the midst of their Marxist outcry: :“By Taxing Banks, Obama’s Punishing You and Me”, and here’s why:

There’s a reason why banks give out these so called obscene profits and payment packages to their employees. You see in a business, especially a large business that affects so many people, you need to make sure you have the best and brightest working for your bank and or your corporation. Now, I don’t subscribe to the Gordon Gecko motto of “Greed is Good” , I believe as moral and honest people we shouldn’t seek out success for the sake of success and wealth, but for honest reasons. However, if you worked hard all your life at something you’re good at, why shouldn’t you be greedy? I mean, to each his own, who are we to decide the intentions of another man.

As a libertarian I was against the bailouts, every last one of them. My philosophy is: If you fail, then you fail, why should we prop you up when you got yourself into a jam. But that doesn’t apply to big business and banks and car companies alone, but to anyone on Wall St. or Main St. You see, failure is good, it’s one of the natural stages in life that make us who we are as human beings. If god was so afraid that we couldn’t handle failure, then he wouldn’t have given us freewill. Now, outside of this website our liberal friends might ask: “But Matt, you’re an unemployed college student who lives with his mother, why are you sticking up for those greedy fat cats?” Well, unemployed as I may be, envy nor hate people with money, namely rich people I do not. I do however admire a man, any man who was willing to stick his neck out there and take a chance on a product or idea. After all, that’s what being American is all about. We take chances, it separates us from our European friends and from everyone else. It’s in our DNA, our favorite actors take risks, our sports figures, we’re a nation of risk takers and conquerors. Did we forget all of that?

The bailouts made us a nation of whiners and we’ve gotten ourselves in this child mode. We get upset over the actions on Wall  St. and we go stomping and crying to daddy Barack and yell and scream until he punishes the big bad bully banks for teasing us and holding us by our ankles until our life savings fall out our pockets. But at the same time, how many people on the left are as angry at the government for raising taxes or taking their hard earned money and using it to bribe other Senators and Congressmen? I mean, if Wall St. is so evil and greedy, what about government? Do we ever hear about the outrage over an expanding government spending what little money we have left in our piggy banks? Or are those who complain about the all too visible hand of the state just a bunch of right wing extremists who hate poor people and children?

Why is it that the only time liberals get upset at government is when government isn’t spending fast enough, isn’t destroying private industry fast enough, or aren’t usurping our freedoms fast enough? Can it be true, that liberals rather the chains of slavery than the fields of freedom? Are they that afraid of failure and the unpredictability of life itself? Surely we’ve evolved as a species to reason with life as to overcome its challenges….perhaps.

Democrat Congresswoman Loretta Sanchez was on Morning Joe and she talked about this issue of fairness. Democrats and this fairness stuff I gotta tell you it’s getting as old as the class warfare strategy they wear out every time they’re in power and every election cycle. Fairness in my estimate is never disparaging a man for his success, nor embracing him in his own self made misery, but allowing him to fall deep in darkness, for that man surely with the means to make a profit in the first place will find a way to make light so he can see. If the Dems want fairness then they will stop getting involved in the private sector. There has never been a more unfair system than that of regulations on banks and private industry. In effect, you erode the chain link that binds the banks to business, and business to the worker.

Not all business is bad business, but all government in business is bad for everyone. The Democrats need to embrace the private sector beyond the deals of campaign contributions. Do not take their money with one hand while smiting them with the other. Democrats are losing credibility with the class warfare argument because of movements like the Tea Parties. We conservatives and libertarians smell the dead body under the rug, we know government is to blame for all the problems we face as a nation today. Though it was the libertarians who saw it coming first, the rest of the people are now waking up to the fact that government is playing Wall St off of Main St, and moving to control both.

Scott Brown’s victory last night had nothing to do with health care and everything to do with big government. Did you know that our most recent elections have been about “Big government versus Little government” Pitting two sides from two parties against each other, all the while both parties represent one side of the debate. The Democrat Party is the official party of the progressive big government movement of the 20th century. The Republican Party is the party of the big government conservative movement that started under George Bush. Both sides understand little of the history of government and the reason why big government should never be an option on the table.

The great patriot and founding father Samuel Bryan said it best of big centralized power: “A central government will become the interests of the well-born few, and moneyed tradition” Our current system is controlled by a consolidated mindset: “Big government versus Little Government”. The job of an elected official isn’t to argue for the growth or decrease of government, nor is it the job of an elected official to grow government. The job of an elected official is to maintain the institutes of government which are provided by the constitution in respect to the Bill of Rights and the rights of sovereign states. The Anti-Federalists were right perhaps, the moneyed few, i.e. FDR, Ted Kennedy, and other wealthy elite progressives on both sides have taken over. Scott Brown’s victory in Massachusetts though essential to the path back to our founding, it is yet a mere dot sized crater in the ballooning government prism over Washington. The Democrat response: “The people voted us out in Massachusetts because they want more government.” So when they vote more of you out next fall, that will be because of what, they wanted even more government?

We libertarians believe in ordered liberty, not ordered government. There is a difference though that term “ordered government” may have you scratching your head, I’ll explain. Ordered liberty is a society and a country with laws, and in those laws liberty is protected as is the people themselves. With “ordered government” you have a system where the state controls the people. The state coordinates the lives of the masses, in order to in that age old idea, “Save them from themselves” How compassionate…. The idea of ordered government comes from compassionate governance or as progressives put it: “social justice” But any justice that seeks to punish one group over the other in the name of fairness is neither fair not doing thine bidding of the noble. In fact an enforced compliance to order is tyranny. Laws aren’t tyrannical, but a mandated adherence to government, whether it’s health care, cap and trade, what have you, that my friends is tyranny.

Our system of laws and our constitution allows for such loopholes in liberty. The left argues that a promise of liberty cannot be fulfilled without a government enforcing those promises. One example is this health care mess. There are more mandates in the current health care bills than their are protections of freedom from usurpation. The bills offer nothing in the form of true reform, but instead it accomplishes two things: A long awaited self fulfilling achievement for the left, and a renegade persecution of the private health insurance industry. All the Scott Brown “Nay’s” in the world won’t surpass the flood eager disruption of our health care system. This Democrat Party and this president I believe know deep down the future is not bright, so they deal in the darkness, knowing their stay in Washington is at the mercy of time. The people are speaking and it’s clear they reject this progressive government agenda. Now the Democrats are just waiting anxiously while the big hand strikes the final hour of their political existence in power.

So we can rejoice and pat ourselves on the back, my conservative brethren need to look inward as well, for they have a big government agenda of their own. The Bush era of compassionate conservatism and its remnants are alive and well within the GOP. Defeating the likes of Lindsey Graham and Charlie Crist won’t rid the party of that philosophy. We must also confront our neo-conservative colleagues over the issues of Military adventurism, because that too is apart of the big government mass. Our founding fathers weren’t neoconservatives, in fact they were isolationists to an extent. In the case of George Washington and John Adams they were in the Ron Paul realm of foreign policy. I find myself moving toward that end of the spectrum as well.

I would address Democrats but I feel the relay would fall on deaf ears. They are committed to the agenda, and taking up residents in their state of denial makes those “We’re for the little guy” campaign gimmicks all for not. You can’t be for the little guy while stealing his liberty. One hand doesn’t control the other, so one may steal while the other shows a sign of compassion. Maybe the brain tells both hands to divert the innocent from the crime at hand. On the issue of pragmatism in this scattered and breathy post: I don’t believe a pragmatist is what the founders had in mind when they drafted the constitution. The constitution doesn’t call for a lukewarm commitment to upholding the guidelines of the document, but a firm and unwavering pledge to its oath. Would Thomas Jefferson who believed in violent rebellion be lumped in the same basket as Glen Beck and Rush Limbaugh? Would he be a “Right wing nut?” Would the gun toting Hamilton be on the DHS watch list of right wing terrorism? After all he shot Aaron Burr.

What we need to do going forward is shrink government in a dramatic way. We need to enact true reforms that separate the private sector from the government, not link the two. The health care bill expands government while linking private insurance with a public system. Trust me there is a public option made up of parts that latch on to every provision and mandate like fleas on the back of a mangy dog. There is no need for a Trojan horse when you can simply spread a virus here and there to attack the current system. Every one of those mandates and provisions are like viruses that get into your computer and are hard to clean, resulting in the crash of your computer, or in this case the system as a whole.

In closing I support little government, not kinda sorta little government, or even a pragmatic government, but a government that is less and less the focal point of the civil society. Our elections must be about the elimination of the big government option. If that were the case on the table, then Alexander Hamilton’s idea of a Monarchy would have been more widely supported, it wasn’t. Although, I look at Washington and I’m not so sure we can give a great distinction between the halls of the halls of the British Empire and that of the monuments in Washington. If Samuel Bryan were alive today he’d played the role of the old coot. In the movies the old coot usually turns out to be right about all the things he so incoherently rambled on about.

Hey, I have a message for the great people of the Bay State: Do not under any circumstances vote for Scott Brown, because he drives a truck and it truck drivers are elitists. The president was stumping in Mass for the utterly incompetent Martha, Martha, Martha Coakley and he took a few digs at Scott Brown and in so doing made fun of him because Brown drives a truck. Now, I don’t understand something here, so Scott Brown is out of touch with the people of Mass because he drives a pickup truck? As oppose to Martha Coakley thumbing her nose at the idea that, I don’t know you actually have to shake hands and interact with the people in order to get their votes. I know, I know Martha Coakley was appalled at the very idea of shaking the hands of the so called “unwashed masses” but surely someone in her campaign had to tell her the idea behind a political campaign. You greet the people, tell them why they should vote for you, and you hope they actually vote for you. See Martha, was that too difficult to comprehend?

Barack Obama can make fun of Scott Brown and his truck all he wants, but not many coastal elites drive pickups, nor have they ever seen one, I’m halfway kidding. But seriously this immature dig at Mr. Brown is a desperate act of a desperate and prideful man who knows deep down his charm offense is offensive like bad breath in a crowded elevator during the dog days of August while the person with that bad breath picks their nose and farts three times. Nothing is rubbing off, Obama’s popularity is going down faster than Lisa Ann in “Nailin Palin”.

Tomorrow the polls open for the people in Massachusetts and I have a feeling Coakley will somehow against all reasoning and reality pull a victory out of her pompous, condescending arse . I don’t know, call me a pessimist but with the Dem’s entire agenda on the line I doubt these people will have the utmost to play fair and nice with old Scotty boy. If we know Democrats, and we do and we all hate them, they play dirty, real dirty, like Gorgeous George and Jake the Snake Roberts dirty. The Dems are like that guy in the casino who has mirrors on his shoes and X-ray sunglasses. Although I must say if Brown won I wouldn’t be at all shocked. I don’t know much about Scott Brown except that he drives a truck, and apparently that’s a bad thing, and he posed for some magazine in the 80s. When I saw that photo spread of Scott Brown I thought to myself: “When did Richard Gere pose for Playgirl?”

But that aside, this race is important, more important than Virginia and New Jersey because the fate of the nation rests on the shoulders of a man who looks like Julian from “American Gigolo“. So to the people of Massachusetts I ask you to vote with your heads and not your hearts. The last time we saw this many people vote with their hearts a man with the middle name Hussein got elected president. So be smart, think about the consequences if Martha Coakley became the Senator from Massachusetts and was the final nail in the coffin for 1/6 of our economy. It’s like Scott Brown said, this isn’t Teddy’s seat, and it’s not the Democrats’ seat, this seat belongs to the people.

The comments of Harry Reid, off the record or not centers around this idea that some black people, specifically the lighter toned black people are more acceptable and accessible than their darker brothers and sisters. This myth goes back to the plantations where lighter slaves would be allowed to work inside while the darker slaves had to work the fields and were treated much differently, namely much harsher. Of course, the lighter slaves, the majority of whom were young light skinned women slept with the plantation owner, that was no secret. Why do you think they were allowed in the house?

But this myth, this idea that dark skin black people are somehow more assertive, angry, confrontational, or militant, is just plain dishonest and an unreal perception of black people as a whole. One’s personality has nothing to do with the color of one’s skin, nor the texture of one’s hair, nor the color of one’s eyes. But we have no one to blame but ourselves as black people because it started with jealousy and envy toward the lighter slaves from the darker slaves.

But the idea that because Barack Obama spoke well and had light skin he was able to win the presidency is completely false. Barack Obama won the election in 2008 because the media, felt he was an acceptable Negro, not the people of this country. You see the majority of Americans of all races don’t see color, they just wanted results. Those in our Party the GOP wanted something that was fundamentally different that George Bush, because we were disenchanted by the Bush policies that failed. The left was the only group of people in this country during the election that focused like a laser beam on Obama’s skin color, his background, his “story”. They constantly fed us the line, “He’s black, you must vote for him so he can be the first” As if to suggest that there will never be another if this man Barack Obama isn’t elected president.

But perhaps history misses them like common sense and reason. Jesse Jackson, Colin Powell, Al Sharpton, Alan Keyes, and Shirley Chisholm all ran for president or at least considered running years before we ever even heard of a man named Barack Hussein Obama, Senator from the state of Illinois. In the case of Colin Powell, he too was light skin like Barack Obama, he too spoke well and carried himself well like Barack Obama, yet her was never elected president after so many people had predicted that he would be the first.

I appreciate the GOP for at least having the honest gall to recognize people based on their principles and their ideas, not how light they are or how well they speak “Country Club Negro” Sure there were some in our party who stepped in it, but at least they didn’t track it in the house and when people started smelling sh*t they didn’t blame the dog. Democrats I believe need to own up to the fact that they think they can arrogantly exploit the African American community and use them to get votes and get away with it.

But enough ranting for one day, I feel this will get me no where. Instead I want to introduce you to a smart, principled, intelligent, tough minded, experience man who shatters that condescending myth. Oh by the way, he’s dark as midnight and has the accent of a good ol’ southern boy.

Many progressives in the media and in the Democrat Party are all hot and bothered about this health care debacle, and it has them asking each other, "What are the alternatives if the current health care non bill bill ultimately fails?" Well, I think the progressives need to stop asking that question in the context of what would happen if a nuclear warhead misses the football field size asteroid headed toward earth, and instead take that question and apply it to the proper context of true, reasonable, libertarian reform.

The alternatives to a Trojan horse health care plan are quite simple and highly effective. Are they perfect? No, but the whole point of reform is to make gradual steps toward a more perfect system, not one giant leap toward the confines of the ever so desirable progressive Utopia. The Utopia doesn’t exist, it never has, and when tried throughout history it failed or transformed into a diabolical system of soft and or hard tyrannies.

One of my favorite examples of reform would be to reform medicaid and medicare. You all know my stance on these two programs, I want to ultimately see them outsourced from our system, but I tend to believe like Barry Goldwater that you cant simply pull the rug out from under our seniors and expect them to sustain a quality of life they rightfully deserve. Instead we need policies focused on drawing down medicare but we also need a plan b that doesn’t call for an expansion of government and tax dollars.

We also need to secure S-CHIP for children. I actually support this program because obviously children cant buy their own health care, but I would only allow this program to be used for low income children whose parents make around 17,000 a year, and I would let parents choose whether or not they want to enroll their child into the S-CHIP program. However I wouldn’t allow illegal immigrant children nor illegal immigrants or pregnant women to enroll in the program like they can since Obama signed the ACT back into law after Bush  vetoed plans to expand it.

Some other alternatives to the current nonexistent existing bill would be portability, a tax credit for people to buy their own insurance, a law one law mind you that no private company shall deny anyone coverage for pre-existing conditions and in exchange those insurance companies would receive tax credits and less regulatory guidelines that currently choke the industry.

I would also reform COBRA , eliminate illegal immigrant loopholes because that causes waste in the system, because we are providing coverage for people who came here illegally and citizens of this country have to pay out of their pockets to fun illegal immigrant who receive medical attention.

Lastly I would cut taxes, about 45% depending on income. For example the upper class would get a 45% tax cut on all earnings, I would eliminate the death tax and I would cut taxes for the middle and lower class about 25-35 %. We also need to look at the strong possibility of health savings accounts.

Now, some of these ideas of reform read like big government conservatism, but its not. The point is to draw down government programs and allow Americans to keep more of what they earn and to encourage them to use that money on something they will need later on. You don’t want to force them to buy something they may not need or can afford right now, but instead you want to promote the foundations of health care sustainability down the road, especially for young people when they get older.

A basic, yet effective and focused structure of reform is needed, not some Utopian Christmas list for all the progressives who have dreamed of socialized medicine since they could say the phrase "To each according to his need, to each according to his ability"

I wrote a while back about the direction the GOP needs to take going forward. As a former Democrat and former progressive I laid the foundation based on my experiences long ago and the danger I saw whenever principles and integrity were compromised in the name of party and power. Right now in the GOP we have talking heads, who sit on their self righteous high horse inside the beltway and proceed to try and lecture  a party they claim they don’t represent, yet they want to tell us how we should conduct ourselves within a party they claim they don’t belong to…..yeah

Friends, the worst kind of Republican is one that talks from both sides of his or her mouth. They always have a heaping pile of criticism to lob at the rest of us, yet when it’s time to rebuild the house that collapsed under the weight of bad leaders and bad elections, those who talk down to us don’t want to be bothered with the arduous task of rebuilding that house from its foundation upward. They all sing the same old songs, and they act like the answer lies within their fingertips, that is, until their way doesn’t work, they place blame on others.

Now, John McCain was a moderate Republican. He was our candidate last year, and he lost. And yet, you have the faux conservatives saying that we need to moderate the party, we need to run centrists as our presidential candidates. Folks, it’s like these people slept through moments in our history that debunk these arrogant assumptions. We had a centrist candidate who pissed his party off and appeased Democrats, his name was John McCain and he was one of the worst and most ineffective candidates since Bob Dole.

It’s not a matter of these faux conservatives realizing that moderates typically can’t win elections because they’re not willing to run on solid principles because these same folks usually act within a state of utter denial. You have that two faced Joe Scarborough who kisses liberal ass like it’s solid ground and he was lost at sea for ten years. All he does is slam Sarah Palin and other solid conservatives as narrow minded and regressive because they aren’t willing to accommodate Democrats and they aren’t afraid to criticize Barack Obama.

Scarborough was on that trip where a few beltway Republicans defended Obama because deep down they knew he was a leftist, but they refused to acknowledge the fact that he was. I remember when David Brooks kept trying to make the argument that Obama was a centrist and a pragmatist even when Obama did something or signed a bill that was way far left.

I want to ask these Republicans: When has Obama ever done something remotely pragmatic or centrist since he’s been in office? And then they say: “Well, you know by all accounts Reagan wouldn’t be a Republican or a conservative by today’s standards” That little greasy haired troll Donny Douche said Reagan wouldn’t be a Republican today because he wasn’t a conservative. Let me tell you something you 5 foot trash can, Reagan was the most ideological president in history. He was the most conservative president since Calvin Coolidge, and he wasn’t some moderately tempered politician who compromised his principles in order to win favor with left wing Democrats like Tip O’ Neill.

Reagan was a conservative, pure and simple. He promoted conservatism in an unapologetic way, but he did so with a smile. But that smile didn’t make him any less conservative, nor did his optimistic nature. You see, these losers like Kathleen Parker and Joe Scarborough want you to think that conservatives are angry white folks from the south, caged in their ideology therefore they aren’t inclusive or open to other points of view. And if god forbid you support a pro-life cause in American society or for heaven’s sake oppose gay marriage, oh well then you’re a bible thumping wing nut from the backwoods.

They play right into the hands of the liberal media and every single time like clock work they’re on some NBC or CNN show apologizing for conservatism. They create scapegoats by smearing Palin and they want us to view them as some sort of voice in our party? You know what, if you want to help lead this party in some way, first you have to stop disassociating yourself  when it looks like the political waters might be rough, and when the party bounces back you run to embrace us like nothing ever happened *cough* Mike Murphy.

Don’t become another Mark McKennan or Steve Schmidt. Those guys lack integrity. We have to seer clear of the beltway Republicans and the Republican strategists from the Bush years. They don’t operate in terms of principle or honesty, they only care about power and gaining more of it. They aren’t motivated by the constitution or the values of this country, but by the prospects of consolidating control in Washington. Their end game is to increase their own standing and we don’t need people like that telling us what to do and we don’t need people like that in our party.

So, I could care less what that talking chin Scarborough and that tart Kathleen Parker has to say. I guess it’s envy, maybe some resentment because the party trusts and supports Sarah Palin and actually listens to what she has to say, as oppose to following the misguided advice of the pseudo-conservatives. Just a thought.

Last night I heard on the radio that, according to Fox News the Obama administration will plan a new cash for clunkers program. This time around instead of cash for old gas guzzlers, you’ll get cash for your old appliances. Now, at first glance this sounds like a reasonable short term spark for an otherwise stagnant economy. You see our economy isn’t necessarily in a recession, but unlike the economists who are bought and paid for by the administration like Eric Schmidt, Mark Zandi, and Warren Buffet, my economic forecasts are based on facts, not predictions or the over hyped Wall Street bubble that drive a tendency inside the beltway to proclaim the US economy back on track, it is not.

The cash for clunkers program failed, in fact the only economy it expanded were the economies of Japan, South Korea, and our chief competitor, and banker China. You see, the media hailed this “bright idea” as a big win for the Obama administration but the devil was in the details and apparently old scratch himself sought to rob thousands of propped up car dealerships throughout America by way of government spending. Car for clunkers took money out of the US economy instead of putting money back in. The majority of sales were of foreign made cars like Toyota and Honda, whereas the struggling GM and Chrysler failed to really take advantage of the government softball. This programs was specifically made for GM and other US car companies to iron out their weaknesses and they couldn’t even do that.

I’ve noticed something particularly the economic strategies of this administration. When it comes to the private sector, they’re oblivious, even downright ignorant to what it takes to expand the economy by growing the private sector which accounts for the vast majority of our growth. It’s the idea of central or general planning which became the hallmark of the former Soviet Empire and now Communist China.

Now, I’m not suggesting that Barack Obama is a totalitarian, but I am suggesting that he subscribes to the ideas of the former communist union. For example, the Soviet Union and China built their respective economies around the foundation of the state, by which controlled, determined, set, and create prices, goods, jobs, and services. Right now in China the communist regime controls industry, they control the manufacturing sector.

But in America such an experiment could destroy what is (for now) the greatest economic model in the history of the modern world. Our capitalist system developed from the same ideas and principles of our founding documents and traditions. The idea that individuals could determine their own economic destiny by way of hard work, an entrepreneurial spirit, and an environment where government protects these freedoms, not stifle them.

The central planning model of the old Soviet Union contradicts these principles, and yet the current administration and a far more progressive and leftist Democrat Party looks upon such a system as a pathway to an Americanized version of that soviet system. Are you still with me? Their intentions are clear: Government can plan our lives for us, in fact it can sustain excessive spending, higher taxes, limit rights, and decrease a deficit while it’s increasing the deficit all at the same time, oh by the way it can also expand our GDP.

It sounds irrational because it is irrational. But these programs have a lot riding on them because it they succeed in any measurable manner, they will make Obama’s argument for him. And thus the markers will be drawn for central planning.

I predict higher unemployment, and a stagnant economy through 2011. I also predict more economic illiteracy because it is becoming clear to many in America that this administration and this president, with all these so called experts and all these smart people around, don’t know how to create jobs.

Let’s set the record straight here, Mary Landreiu received a 300 million dollar bribe for her vote to move the health care bill to the floor for debate, not 100 million. Yeah, and John Gotti was convicted of conspiracy to commit murder, not actual murder ya see.

There’s a difference, at least in this bizarro America between the amount a bribe actually is, not the bribe itself. But we must keep in mind the arrogance of criminals, and to what degree that arrogance serves in their eventual down fall.

I’ll make this short, but insightful and sweet. When you have a room full of crooks, disloyalty and dishonesty, greed festers and begins to spread to the brain like cancer. You have hands standing outside the door of Harry Reid’s office, a line stretching from one end of Washington to the other. All those hands sticking out, sweaty, cold, shriveled hands attached the arms of desperate and unethical people who lack the integrity of a man who slept with a drunken girl he didn’t know, and when she calls him to tell him she’s pregnant, but he tells her he pulled out and then hangs the phone up. Yes, even such a douche like the one in my detailed example has more integrity lining the veins of his Johnson than the Senators stealing from us with a wink and a nod.

Am I such a naive person to believe in truth and justice? Am I so tainted with the spirit of simple men who once laid foundations of what we now called the greatest country god gave man, that I actually believe in this thing called honesty and integrity.

The cost of their soul is 300 million, at least for Senator Landreiu. I wonder what it will cost for Ben Nelson, or Blanche Lincoln. How can they call themselves fiscally conservative when they willingly take money under the table? Your money to be exact.

Blue Dog Democrats are liberal Democrats who were somehow elected in Red States. They aren’t conservative, or independent because when it comes down to walking the walk, they walk forward straight off the plank into the ocean, and they become fish food.

The Blue Dogs are nothing but a bunch of p*ssies who at the end of the day will crawl on hands and knees toward the party line and vote to save their own a$@. I have no more respect to dole out, as do I have not one penny left to spare, kind sir. If this bill should pass, I will not buy health care, I will not pay the fine, jail me, and you better put me underneath the foundation of the prison.

We’ll make our stand in the form of a collective tax revolt. They can’t put 7,500,000 people in prison. They’ll try of course, believe you me arrogance can turn people into tyrants.

But of course we’re already baring witness to the end result of arrogance run amok.

When people talk about, you know people on our side who claim to have the key to this supposed revival, when they talk about being civil and you know don’t call Barack Obama a socialist and, you know don’t criticize the health care plan because we don’t want to be seen as derailing a historic moment, you know I get sick of these people because they act like we’re angry for no reason. They act like this sense of anxiety and fear, and frustration is some spontaneous act. These are the same people who supported Obama behind the scenes. You know the David Brooks, David Frums, the uh, Kathleen Parkers, and Joe Scarboroughs of the world who liked Obama and probably voted for him because they were to cowardly to stand side by side with the Republicans who made the mess during the Bush years.

And I know this is off topic but, you know these suit and tie Republicans and in the case of Ms. Parker and Peggy Noonan, these Sex in the City Republicans apologized again and again to the liberal media for conservatism and the movement. They tried to act as though they had nothing to do with the actions of the GOP over the last eight years, even though they were the ones who lined the pockets of the same people who damn near destroyed the economy.

When it was cool to be a Reaganite, they were right up there smiling and laughing in Reagan’s face, all claiming to be Reagan conservatives. Of course now they try to moderate Reagan, but they know damn well Reagan wouldn’t support what Obama and the Democrats are trying do. And he wouldn’t play the moral relativist role and try to as David Frum said, “cut a deal”. Reagan would speak out against this act of unconstitutionality and he would try everything he could to defeat it.

But no, we need to cut deals and concede ground in order to moderate these policies. I’ve never heard such cowardly bull in my life. Here I am, a former Marxist Democrat showing more pride in my new conservative brothers and sisters than the so called conservatives.

But let me tell you it’s always the former Democrats who show the most intellectual evidence to why this must be stopped. We’re the ones who always cover the conservatives who actually believe in the movement and who are willing to put themselves on the line in order to preserve the nation and the freedoms we cherish. History shows us this matinee every single time, and sure as time moves forward conservatives  step out in front of the tank, while the same old characters seek compromise with the driver.

Time and time again I heard Brooks and Frum talk about “Well, the president means well you know, we as Republicans need to cut a deal. We should accommodate him and hope he succeeds, because you know, everyone wants him to succeed.”

No, we need to defeat him. We need to go at him like Derrick Thomas went after quarterbacks every Sunday for ten years. But these actions aren’t made out of a personal hatred toward president Obama. No one here hates this man on a personal level, nor do we despise him because he’s a minority. We’re talking 200 some odd years of an experiment that actually worked, and the Democrats want to ruin 200 years of history as if it never existed in the first place.

They have a tendency to place markers at random points in time, and pretend the nation was founded at that point in which the marker stands. This obsession with the last eight years, and beginning every argument, every policy with “The Last eight years” or, “The Bush administration” or they just play the “We inherited” card like it was going out of style.

I can’t take this anymore I really can’t. I’m sick and tired of irresponsible people who are so arrogant and so oblivious to history itself they would actually risk the financial security of this nation because they’re so contemptuous with our founding.

That’s all I got to say about that. I won’t be contributing much to Red State anymore because of other projects, but dammit, I see two scenarios that which have created two Americans. I can easily picture either coming true.

I want to touch base on a few things before we all rest our minds for the Thanksgiving season. I read an article by Howard Fineman on the Newsweek website. It was about Obama and Ronald Reagan. Now, I’ve noticed this recent tendency by the left to compare Obama to Reagan. Perhaps they do it because Obama invoked Reagan’s name a few times during the campaigns, perhaps not. Well, I see it a bit differently.

They’re doing this because they’re trying to convince themselves, not you, but themselves that Obama’s failures are similar to Reagan’s failures early in his presidency. But what the media fails to understand is that Obama’s ideas and policies aren’t good ideas or good for America. Reagan championed small government, tax cuts across the board, and a freeze on spending. Obama is pushing an activist government, higher taxes by way of a VAT tax or “Value Added Tax” and more spending. Reagan sought to draw the line in the sand when it came to our enemies abroad, namely the former Soviet Union. He never blamed America or tried to minimize American power in order to make our allies and our enemies feel comfortable. Reagan never apologized for American Military and economic might, instead he sought ways to unite the world behind our ideals, rather than plead a case for why our unique principles and individual freedoms weren’t necessarily a model for the rest of the world to follow.

Reagan never imposed on the rest of the world his will, he wasn’t an imperialist. He didn’t think like Teddy Roosevelt that America must expand beyond her borders because she was a great nation destined for world supremacy. Ronald Reagan saw America the way James Monroe saw America, the way one of my heroes Calvin Coolidge saw America: A strong nation engaged in the world but not bound by international and trans-national bureaucracy. America was a force for good, a defense orientated Military and a capitalist economy. We weren’t going to cage ourselves within the confines of the UN or in the case of Calvin Coolidge, the League of Nations. More importantly, our very existence represents the contradiction of ever becoming beholden to international policy and agreements that might compromise our sovereignty as a nation state.

But with Obama, his knee jerk reaction is to compromise American power in order to gather around him both allies and adversaries. He calls it “soft power” but one can argue, and with great success, this policy of accommodation gains us nothing, and sacrifices everything.

The comparison between Reagan and Obama are purely a calculated attempt to reiterate the fear on the left that Obama might instead be compared to Reagan’s 1980 opponent Jimmy Carter. This is a psychological argument within the minds of liberals who can sense the sky falling around them. They hailed Obama’s election as a realignment of the American political landscape. They told us that in order for Republicans to win we must now follow the Obama model and adjust to demographic changes.

And yet, merely 10 months later the landscape remains the same as it did when Reagan was president, Bush I and II were president, and when Bill Clinton was president. Obama’s problem isn’t his charisma, or his speaking ability. His problem is that he’s bound by an ideology that is out of step with America. Americans were willing to give the new guy the benefit of the doubt. They wanted to elect the first minority president and you know, I consider the last election a sort of American Idol election if you think about it.

But when it came time to govern, he didn’t and what he proposed came off as out of the mainstream, political, and irrational. Shutting down Gitmo and trying terror suspects in American courts a few blocks away from ground zero no less, doesn’t sit well with the American people. Neither does back door socialized medicine, energy taxes, sovereignty killing treaties like Kyoto, and the pathetic apology tour across Europe and the Middle East.

No, Barack Obama isn’t Ronald Reagan, he is Jimmy Carter, perhaps a bit worse. And it’s sad and it will be sad when the time comes to vote for either a new president or reelect the one we have now. What will the media do then? If the current economic scene stays the same or gets worse, what will they do? How will they defend such regressive policies? And whom will they compare Obama to this time around?

We libertarians are often seen as out of the mainstream, pot smokers and isolationists. Well, as a libertarian I can firmly speak for those of us who believe in a strong national defense without the sudden urges of adventurism on foreign soil. Now, we’re constitutionalists and we believe in common defense, self preservation and such. Furthermore, we do not believe in an America or a society for that matter where drugs are the discretion of our youth. Our version of the civil society reflects that of our founding fathers. But I digress from those topics, I have not come to argue for libertarianism.

But on that other topic, the founding fathers. James Madison said “A popular Government, without popular information, or the means of acquiring it, is but a Prologue to a Farce or a Tragedy; or, perhaps both. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance: And a people who mean to be their own Governors, must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.” We’ve made the most crucial error in a people’s relationship to their government. We’ve allowed ourselves to relinquish full trust and loyalty to our elected officials in Washington. And without pause we now expect of them what they cannot do, have not done, and aren’t allowed to do according to the constitution of the United States.

This health care matter, is one example of a people’s willingness to put literally, their lives and their welfare in the hands of what Ronald Reagan called a little intellectual elite in a far distant capital. Yes, we all know the majority of Americans oppose these measures, but it is far too late for opposition, when the flood gates were opened decades ago. This, sudden rush to judgment by our elected officials to transform and thus interrupt without validity our health care system comes from their notion that the people they serve want government in their lives.

Whether it’s food stamp programs, the welfare state, the Fannie and Freddie institutions, or Medicaid, Social Security, and Medicare before them. For some odd reason, call it dependency, the people settled for these alien programs because we were told they were needed for the benefit of all humanity here in the United States. And now when you talk serious reform the first objection you get is from a senior telling you not to touch their Medicare. Some of the worst ideas to arise from the 20th century were the entitlement programs of FDR and Lyndon Johnson. They create in essence a culture of dependency and need.

You now have people who are willing to game the system in order to gain access to health care and financial assistance they don’t need, and when you speak out against these programs Democrats and their progressive allies call you racist and heartless. They accuse you of racism and discrimination because you oppose the welfare state in black America, they say you hate children and would rather see them die because you want to reform S-CHIP.

But we all know this is nothing more than a play on the natural instincts of Americans, which a caring one. The left successfully exploited the good nature of the American people in order to pass some of the most regressive policies known to man. But I sense an awakening and I’ll get to that in a second.

I want to talk about honesty, and integrity. As libertarians you must possess a foundation of both traits. The reason being our constitution was created on the idea that both honesty and integrity should be the only components needed to preserve it. Without honesty you cannot defeat tyranny, without integrity you cannot root out corruption.

Senator Harry Reid from Nevada bribed Senator Marry Landreiu of Louisiana. He had to bribe his fellow Democrat in order to gain her support for the health care bill. Now, if you have to bribe someone for their support, then perhaps this bill shouldn’t be passed in the first place. Moreover, when I heard about this on the radio I got physically ill, and I’m not kidding. It sent me into this state of frustration and doubt. For the first time since my progressive days, I wasn’t proud of my country.

So the question is, “Are we living underneath the umbrella of a soft tyranny?”, as our conservative friend Mark Levin likes to say, perhaps. Are we living in a state of contradiction? Most definitely.

The contradiction between the constitution and those who impose on us a free people, the alien system in which they believe will lead to a Utopia here on earth is now more than ever, a distinct and apparent one. Their idea of a perfect system, is naive as it is dangerous; and would be comical if it weren’t so serious and a threat to our liberty.

But if we go back to what Madison said of knowledge in the face of power, the people are becoming more aware but I’m afraid if they do pass this bill the people will accept it, thus accepting their own defeat. We can talk about slave masters and the shackles of oppression, but it’s more than that. There are lives at stake here.  Our grandparents, our mothers, wives, children. The government has already started telling women to hold off on their annual mammograms and now they want women to delay their cervical cancer screenings. Is this a preview of what it to come? They say it has nothing to do with the government or the current administration, but it was the president himself who said instead of a pacemaker, take a pill and lay down.

Well, to all you women out there, don’t get your annual breast cancer or cervical cancer screening. Just take a pill, lay down, and call Dr. Obama in the morning.

The war against the constitution is underway, and a tough fight is at hand. But we must realize that we hold have a much larger majority than the one in Congress. If they pass this bill, we must throw them out with the garbage. Sending a message in 2010 will not only put those Democrats who by the grace of god dodge certain political execution, but it will also derail Barack Obama’s agenda.

Today I did my end of the week round of the beltway Sunday shows because I like to analyze the comments made by not only the guests on these shows but the shows’ regulars or Sunday panel if you will. On “This Week” with George Stephenoupolus they were talking about Sarah Palin and her upcoming book ‘Going Rogue’. Now, before I proceed, yes I am a Palin fan, not I’m not a Palinite, there’s a difference between the two. Anyway, they were talking about the book and Palin in general when conservative apologist and Canadian reject David Brooks of the New York Times called Palin quote, “A joke”. “She’s a joke” he said with an annoying smile on his face, George Will, a man who I respect and often appreciate for the intellectual drubbing he gives liberals offered no defense for Palin other than to dismiss her without actually being dismissive and rude, unlike Brooks who all but gave Barack Obama oral sex when describing his support for the president on Charlie Rose in the likeness of a sixteen year old girl’s fanaticism for Zach Efron….or a Motley Crue groupie back stage at their Dr. Feel Good tour.

I agree with some in our party that Palin needs to hone her policy craft, but I can’t help but to notice this all too familiar position by the figureheads in the GOP, which by the way are all men. Now, am I some radical feminist, obviously not, I’m a guy. But do I sense this tendency by the “Grand Old Party for White Men to sort of dismiss their female colleagues like Sarah Palin, yes, yes I do.

Then again, many of you might ask: “Well what about Michele Bachman?, She’s never been dismissed by her male colleagues in the House.” Well, true, and untrue, for example instead of defending the outspoken conservative women like Palin, Anne Coulter, Bachman and others, more often than not so called leaders like Eric Cantor, Newt Gingrich have to distance themselves, and when asked if Palin in particular could be the GOP nominee for president, they give these sort of dismissive without being dismissive, kinda sorta well, she’s interesting, well you know, sort of dodge the question answer without actually answering the questions sort of answers, which makes them look “mainstream” and makes Palin seem like a far out there right winger on the fringe of the GOP, which is an inaccurate characterization.

You don’t have to agree with Palin, that goes for conservatives, but when your own is being trashed by the left, you have an obligation as not only a Republican but as a proud conservative to defend him or her, period. But unfortunately, when it’s one of your own doing the bashing well, you won’t find many in the GOP who are willing to defend her. And that my friends is sad. In our search for power, we must not search for power just to regain power, but to regain the principled and moral ground. Sarah Palin may be unpolished, quirky, “Podunk” and highly unorthodox, but she’s a principled, moral, and honest woman, and that’s something this Grand Old Party needs, honesty, principles, and morals. Newt Gingrich stands to learn a thing or two about morality. As for Mr. Brooks and the swarm of beltway journalists and pundits who claim to have all the answers to what ails the party: We tried your way, it failed twice (1996, 2008) and even when it succeeded (2002, 2004 with G.W. Bush) look where it got us, and who it drove to the White House. I rest my case.

I’ve heard this knock at the so called “far right” being thrown around by liberals. This term, “wing nut”. For example, Chris Matthews called former congressional candidate Doug Hoffman a quote, “wing nut”. And, it annoyed me but most of all it confused me, especially Matthews’ criteria on what constitutes one to be a wing nut. According to Chris those who fear government, and have feared government for quote 30 or 40 years…whatever that means. He also equated a skepticism and fear of government with black helicopters? I don’t know folks…

Liberals really don’t understand liberty, and this only proves my point. I mean they would literally hand over their rights in the name of the state. For Chris Matthews to condescendingly paint anti-big government, not anti-government, but anti-big government conservatives as this group of deranged conspiracy theorists shows you the level of disconnect between people like Matthews’ and their brains.

So I starting thinking to myself: I wonder what liberals would think of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington? George Washington famously said of government: “It is like fire.” Thomas Jefferson was often described as a borderline anarchist because he so mistrusted government. He said government is best when it governs the least because the people can govern themselves. What about that seems crazy or out of the mainstream? Now, one can blame this twisted view of our founding principles on the left, or the government programs that are slowly destroying the foundations of our constitution and our liberty.

In my opinion, conservatives are to blame as well. They failed to make the argument stick. Sure, Reagan ushered in a conservative movement that started with his mentor Barry Goldwater. But those who came after Reagan failed to push forward, and instead ran on his conservatism as oppose to spreading their own conservative values. In the case of both George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, it would have helped if they were conservatives in the first place; but they weren’t.

John McCain, service aside, heroics aside, the man is about as conservative politically as Barack Obama. During the ‘08 election McCain was out of step, disconnected with reality, and to me it felt as though McCain didn’t want to be the one who defeated the first African American candidate who had a strong shot at winning the White House. You see McCain’s political correct tendencies, often advertised as a warm hearted and wise nature by those on the left who have gained from his appeasement caged him during the election. He dodged questions about Obama’s political background like a dead beat dad dodges child support. Was he a weak candidate? Who knows, I didn’t think he was, but he sure acted like he didn’t really want to be president in the first place. In fact, McCain was a default nominee. The other guys were so bad the voters basically made the decision you make when you’re trying to decide between the last four people left when you’re picking teams for dodge ball.

But back to the whole wing nut issue. So let me get this straight: If you, believe that government ought not be trusted, if you believe government should be efficient, honest, but small in scope and never intrude in the lives of the citizens, if you believe that states rights and sovereignty are important, if you believe in American culture and reject this idea of multiculturalism that leads to eventual Balkanization, if you believe in strong border security and immigration laws, if you believe in strong national defense, and a strong footing in the war on terror, if you believe in the constitution as the concrete law of the land and not as some living and breathing document left to the irresponsible discretion of elected politicians to change as they see fit, and finally if you believe that citizens are individuals and should have the freedom to work for anything they want out of life, and that the government ought not stifle that freedom..that makes you a wing nut? Do I have that right?

So if you believe in government, if you believe in compromised liberty, confiscated wealth, collectivism, Balkanization, secular progressivism, and appeasement, you’re a normal patriotic American with his or her head on straight?

I can tell you with great confidence, our founding fathers would be ridiculed daily for what they believe and what they would say about our government. No they would not support Barack Obama because they would see him for what he is. They wouldn’t support socialized medicine of any form, Medicare, Medicaid, S-CHIP, COBRA, any form, because they’re the ones who put that little “General Well fare” clause in the constitution, so you know, they would have the correct interpretation of it. They understood limited freedoms and the denial of individual liberty because they lived it. And so are we. Hey, I’m not a conservative politically, but I am one socially. Politically I’m a libertarian but I take it the left doesn’t know the difference so I would be labeled a wing nut along with you.

I want everyone to listen carefully: “The GOP isn’t falling apart” Though that seems to be the running gag on throughout every media outlet and it just shows you how shallow the brain depth is inside the beltway. Look, this tent, this legendary or mythical tent everyone keeps talking about, it’s not real. I don’t care what Reagan talked about, the man knew deep down in his heart that conservatism and unshakable conservative principles, not stubborn ideology would triumph over wish washy indecisive centrism.

It’s like our GOP leaders in Washington have a case of memory loss, or at least selective memory loss. Reagan was a conservative, not a moderate but he was able to explain conservatism in a way that prevented the media and others from defining or defaming conservative principles and philosophy. These elections, specifically the one being held in the 23rd District in New York aren’t  anti-moderate Republican free for all’s, but instead, or at least in my opinion an awakening of true conservative leaders who want to lead the party, and the movement, not control it and purge it of those who fail their litmus test.

Everyone here agrees that a party of diverse views is a strong party, but a party with strong principles as its foundation, along with diverse views and candidates is a party that lasts until the end of time. We don’t want to kick out moderates because we hate them or because we have contempt for them, but make no mistake, if you don’t abide by the constitution, and the principles of this party you will be challenged and defeated. We want the Chrissy Todd Whitman’s, and the Olympia Snowe’s and all the other Republican moderates from the northeast. But what we’re trying to tell you moderates is simply this: “Our leaders, our principles, and our messengers will be conservative and libertarian, because history tells us that solid conservative principles work, and those principles and values are best when the country needs a leader whose vision is clear, coherent, and unique.

This election has many themes, one of which: “This party will go back to its founding, whether the Washington suit and tie gang like it or not” We libertarians who fight under the flag of the Elephant alongside our conservative brothers and sisters do so as skeptics of the party, but admirers and believers in the conservative movement. We feel for the right because we know all too well the condescending jeers and comments about how nutty and fringe libertarians are. We’ve heard one too many pot jokes and we wear the “Conspiracy theorist” label like a badge of honor. Why just today I could of sworn I saw a black helicopter, probably taking Obama the trans-nationalist to a summit at the UN, and you know how much we libertarians hate the UN.

So ignore the media theme, they’re trying to cause mischief. And a lot of Republicans who were so quick to apologize for conservatism, endorse Obama, and indict Bush will come running back when the GOP and Conservative Party candidate Doug Hoffman sweep tonight’s elections in New York, New Jersey, and Virginia.

Fox News has successfully accomplished something no other news organization could (or wanted to): They made the Obama administration’s enemies list. Yes yes folks, the Fox News channel, or “Fixed” News as Keith Olberman likes to say is public enemy #1 and the word has gone out to all the news networks, both cable and local, that Fox News is now considered an arm of the RNC, and therefore shouldn’t be seen as a news outlet because they constantly distort the facts, lie about the administration, smear the president, and treat administration officials unfairly.

You know, this would be funny as hell if it weren’t so unconstitutional and dangerous. Fox News is being attacked because they do their job. Are there hosts on that channel who dislike president Obama? Sure, but do they dislike him or his policies? One could argue that Sean Hannity and Glen Beck would support Barack Obama if he were a conservative, so you can throw the idea of personal hatred out the window. But this latest ploy by the administration to rally their hapless and pathetic followers is yet another example of the Obama camp’s thin skinned politically machine. And what of that machine? What happened to the politically savvy, in touch, well connected organization that used the internet like it’s third arm? What happened to this next-gen, advanced well oiled machine that took down the greatest political machine in American politics, I speak of the Clinton machine of course.

They handled the Clinton’s’ like Florida handled Charleston St. And yet they have trouble with Sean Hannity and Glen Beck? Hardly two men with any influence, I mean as far as the middle of the country is concerned, beyond their loyalist conservative listeners, these guys have nil in terms influence on the country. And yet, we’re suppose to believe that these two men are almighty harbingers of the political power of persuasion? Something doesn’t sit right with me.

I believe strongly in the 1st amendment and the freedom of the press. Both in this case are under siege and we need to call the administration on this Chavez like act. You see Hugo Chavez would often ridicule and embarrass a media outlet that openly criticized his agenda and asked him tough questions during his weekly press conferences….(sound familiar?)

This obsession with Fox News ought not be swept under the rug or dismissed as some petty quarrel between the administration and a news network. This is serious because there are people in this administration who take these fair criticisms as personal slights and they’ll resort to radical means to shut them up.

But I’m also curious as to why the administration doesn’t seem to have a beef with MSNBC or NBC, or even CBS (rhetorical of course) After all they push an agenda, distort facts, smeared a president, and in some cases they neglect facts altogether, let alone twist them. But there is a distinct difference between MSNBC and Fox News, set aside the brutal reality of Fox News dominating MSNBC and CNN in every category every night like it’s first and second nature to them. On MSNBC one host gets tingly feelings and a thrill up his leg when the president speaks, one host on Fox has the “Stop Obamacare Express”

On MSNBC one host, well all of them actually,  bash Republicans, accuse them of wanting the president to quote “get shot” or, accuse them of being racist. The hosts on MSNBC call Americans who disagree with the president, “Teabaggers” which is a term used to describe a homosexual sex act.

I guess you could say Fox has some skeptics but so does MSNBC. For example, they have something on MSNBC called the “Sarah Palin Chronicles” where they basically report on everything Sarah Palin, from her resignation as governor of Alaska to what kind of food she ate. Not only that but MSNBC led the way when the media firing squad took aim at Palin during the campaign. David Schuster of MSNBC failed television show host fame once referred to Palin as an idiot. So, can Sarah Palin then accused MSNBC and David Schuster of stalking because they talk about her all the time and devote a segment to her? Fox doesn’t have a segment called “The Barack Files” do they?

See, MSNBC is promoting an agenda, the president’s agenda. As long as they continue to attack Republicans, tea party protesters, Sarah Palin or whomever so dares to criticize the massive spending, health care overhaul, or any other regressive left wing policy of Barack Obama, they’re going to be targeted, marginalized, and hung out to dry. Get me?

So this really looks like a Hugo Chavez move. And Obama wants to make sure he looks above it all, even though he’s ordering the hit. So the attacks on Fox News will go on, it’s the highest rated news channel in the country right now and you know that comes with the territory. I just don’t know why they seem so surprised. That’s my only criticism of Fox, the fact that they seem so caught off guard knowing the type of people they have on their (all two of them) and the fact that they actually report news and not talking points or manufactured events from the White House communications department.

But is Fox News the last line of 1st amendment defense? Are they the example, or the first in many victims? What about Town Hall, News Busters, National Review, Chimpy’s Republican Revolution, the PUMA blog site, Republican leaning and conservative Facebook groups, people who subscribe to conservative magazines, the entire southern region of the United States, the RNC, 45% of the American people, Hillsdale College, Texas A&M, Rockford College, conservatives in Hollywood like Dennis Miller, talk radio, 90% of country clubs in America, the church, the health insurance industry, American business, the Chamber of Commerce, Red State, and me. Everyone I named at one point criticized Barack Obama’s policies. So are they going to marginalize them and attack them too? And when does it stop? How far does this game go?

When some Democrats step out of line, will they be attacked? Are they going to shut us all down for exercising our constitutional and god given right? Freedom of press my conservative hooligans, is a precious right, though the press was hated by our founding fathers they understood the importance of a press bound not by the chains nor strangled by the coils of government. This administration doesn’t seem to get the relationship between the press and the state. You’re not supposed to use media outlets as your propaganda toilet Mr. Obama.

But this time I think he and his Mao loving advisers want to take a huge brown cloud on the constitution. They have been so far, what would make them stop now?

There’s a big lie being peddled out there. One bigger than that of when the devil convinced man he didn’t exist.  This lie has to do with the highly political, and overly hyped Obama stimulus package or, the American Reinvestment Act.

This package was suppose to save or create millions of jobs, and keep unemployment under 8%. Instead it neither created nor saved not one job, and unemployment is at 9.7% and rising like the sun in Japan. But we must look deeper into this so called economic stimulus package, and thus I’ll explain why it was a failure and why Obama can’t create real, strong job growth.

Let’s take a trip down memory lane shall we? Franklin Delano Roosevelt ushers in the New Deal amid an economic depression the likes of which the country had never seen before. Massive spending programs, new government entitlements, and regulations that would last for more than 50 years came out of the New Deal. FDR did what many leftists today try to promote, and that is invest in the people. Government redistributes wealth and uses it to invest in the public sector. But this did not fare well for FDR, for even his own Treasury Secretary admitted that the New Deal was a failure because it didn’t end the depression, in some ways it made the Great Depression worse.

Then World War II happened, and we were attacked by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor, dragging us into a war we were previously committed to stay out of. The United States engaged itself in a massive manufacturing period because the British Air Force needed planes, and we built planes and other Military arms like they were going out of style. In short, the war ended our depression, jobs created by the private sector ended the depression, not government spending and new intrusive programs like Social Security.

So even in the face of history rebuking their Utopian idea of what government can do for the people, leftists insist on these “public investment” ventures.

I want to ask you guys a question: “How does government create millions of jobs?” Let’s say, 40 million, which was the number of jobs the Obama administration claimed the stimulus package saved or created. Of course when they was shown to be a fabrication at best, they moved the goal post to about 38 million, then 25 million saved or created.

But the truth is, new data shows the stimulus package saved or created 430,000 jobs, mainly in construction. But one thing this Associated Press report doesn’t tell you is that most of those road construction jobs, most of them were already on the list to be approved by their respective state governments. So in reality, Obama saved 430,000 jobs and created none, well government jobs, but who’s surprised about that?

You see Obama doesn’t know how to create a job, nor does he have the insight into what it takes to generate the ability within the private sector for job creation. He like other progressives believe the government through spending program after spending program will create a job eventually along the line, somewhere in there, some time, at some point?

For example the White House’s green jobs plan. Now, cap and trade won’t create jobs, according to the CBO it will kill over 20 million jobs annually for the next 10 years. So for every rate say China’s economy grows, our economy will shrink by about 15% over a 10 year clip. Instead of true green energy innovation and planning like for example drilling offshore, building gas pipelines like the one being built in Alaska (Sarah Palin was governor at the time, just so you leftists know) exploring new technology, finding ways to improve coal mining safety and improve the ways in which we use coal so that it won’t affect the people of West Virginia, Obama wants to make life a living hell for the coal industry.

Who cares about the hundreds and hundreds of men who support their families, the polar bears are far more important than those greedy, industrially dependent humans. Cap and trade along with health care reform will break our private sector. Cap and trade will make it nearly impossible for construction companies to bid for jobs, because standards will continue to change and get tougher because the EPA will decide what’s enviro-friendly and what’s not. They already want to end driving as we know it, and instead invest in a mass nationwide light rail system and other public transportation projects. So do you really believe car manufacturers will be safe under cap and trade?

Central Planning won’t work in the United States the way it worked in the old USSR and China. You see the American economic structure is more diverse, our private sector is more innovative and it doesn’t rely on one main foundation the way China’s economy (exports) and the USSR (weapons production) did. China’s economy is an export economy and they lack a strong vibrant domestic economy. Here in the US we have a strong domestic economy, strong small business, finance, development and technology, and a moderately strong manufacturing sector. So when you try to create a government central planner, the other sectors of our economy become outmoded.

We need tax cuts, not VAT taxes or Sin taxes. We need offshore drilling ventures, we need to spend wisely on our research and development sector so that we boost our findings for new energy technology. We need to lower EPA standards, and build nuclear plants. France, of all places, one of the most fanatic of global warming true believers, nuclear energy make up more than half of their energy source. And yet, Barack Obama refuses the build one new nuclear plant here in America. He believe the EPA knows the way to green job creation by way of taxing us and raising our energy bills.

We need to build pipelines for natural gas, we need to upgrade our electrical technology, promote small business with a 25% tax cut, get rid of the sales tax, and lower the Corporate tax by about 40%. Right now the United States has the highest corporate tax in the world. That’s one of the reasons American companies look for opportunity in India, and China.

Why increase the burden on those responsible for creating jobs? I would think the government wouldn’t want to stand in the way of you know, employing the little guy so he can have a chance. But, they do and they will. Barack Obama and this new Democrat Party can’t possibly lessen the burden on the private sector because they’re at war with it. Sure, they can take all the corporate donations they want, but at the end of the day, they take with one hand from the private sector and strangle it with the other.

In terms of health care, this is the most serious. Today the one true sector of our economy that saw large growth not only during the height of the recession but during the recession and that is the health care field. Today you see commercials for schools designed specifically to train nurses and medical assistants because the health care field is growing at a positive clip. Why does health care in America cost more than it does in Canada? Because there are more people in America than in our great ally to the north, its called math my dear friends. The equipment and research costs a lot of money because it finding tomorrow’s cure is an expensive task, but a noble and just one. Can you tell me, that taxing medical equipment and medical research will somehow maintain the highest and most advanced medical field in the world? Slap me, then pee on my leg and tell me a gust of wind blew my face and it started raining.

You stifle innovation when you make it difficult for small time medical research companies and larger companies to do their jobs. We ought to encourage our rising Health Care field, and grow it further, not tax it so we can pay for this mudslide to Universal health care. But this is where free marketeers like myself and Democrats part ways. They believe European style growth (0.2-2%) annually is good growth. While we believe China and India style growth (6-10%) annually is even better.

This, my dear conservative friends is where exceptionalism comes into play. Leftists don’t believe in exceptionalism, nor do they believe individual actually accounted for what this country is today. Even when history proves it so, they either distort that history, seek to change it, or deny it altogether. These people look to Europe and see the model, they look to Canada’s socialist system and see the model, the Canadian Finance Minister said so himself, that Obama looks to their model and sees an American model similar to that one in Canada.

So we know who and what we’re dealing with here. This isn’t change, nor are these new ideas, but instead the ideas are as old as time itself, the messenger just changed that’s all. These old pre-Thatcher Euro style economical policies are bad for America. So they’ll continue to lie and spin, and divert from the real issue of sustained, annual job creation and strong annual growth above 2-3%. They’ll say, look at the stock market, it hit the 10,00 mark! Yet in March when the stock market was at an all time low, Barack Obama and his allies said the market was a false indicator of economic activity. What changed?

These people don’t know what to do, and pretty soon hacks like Mark Zandi and other Obama economic advisers are going to ask for some cover in the form of real economic progress, instead of continuously spouting the talking points from the White House economic team. It reminds me of when Warren Buffet said the economy was in bad shape, and that Obama’s policies weren’t working, and in the same breath Buffet said we need to get behind those policies that aren’t working.

Yeah I know….the mental patients are officially running the psyche ward ladies and gentlemen.