Before I get into my take on the recent events following the passage of Obamacare, I wanted you guys to read a speech, a famous speech as a matter of fact by one of the most gifted and courageous men to ever live. That man was Patrick Henry, the original patriot and in my opinion the father of the American revolution. For it was his speech to the delegates at Saint John’s church in Richmond, Virginia that sparked the flames of rebellion and the call of liberty exploded from the bellies of simple men turned simple heroes. Here now is that speech:

“No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope that it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen, if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve.

This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty towards the majesty of heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren, till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation?

For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth — to know the worst and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided; and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years, to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House?

Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with these warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation — the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motives for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?

No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us; they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer on the subject? Nothing.

We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer.

Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament.

Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne. In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope.

If we wish to be free — if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending — if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained, we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!

They tell us, sir, that we are weak — unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance, by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot?

Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of the means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us.

The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable — and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come!

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, “Peace! Peace!” — but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

Patrick Henry – March 23, 1775

Fear not my friends, though they seek to drive us into the seas. We’ve been accused of everything from racism, to social unrest, to extremism by those who do not have a fundamental understanding of liberty, as simple as it may be, they know not its roots and how easily it can slip from the fingers tips of citizens. We don’t protest because we like to hear ourselves yell and carry about. We do so because we fear the prospects of tyranny more so the possibility that we might lose our job, or our health care, or our home. For, you can always buy a new home, get a new job, and shop for another health care provider, but liberty, I’m afraid often gets lost in the winds of oppression and government intervention. The founders didn’t refer to big government as the Nanny state, though their characteristics of a government master often resembles the smiling warm motherly appearance of the state. This I am certain of, a second American revolution is taking place in this rare moment in our history. The fathers knew freedom was as fragile and precious as the lives lost in her rescue two hundred some odd years ago, and now we must bare the awful result of their assumptions.

The words of the great patriot Patrick Henry still ring true, and never such a time as this. While I don’t encourage violence I wouldn’t reject the notion that the people have been driven to such measures. After all, when you pour gas on a flame it expands, keep pouring the gas and the flame becomes a fireball, eventually engulfing your home. The health care bill forced down the throats of the American majority that rejected it was the gasoline, and the fire’s starting to grow. Pretty soon we won’t be able to control what burns. Know this, we libertarians sympathize and stand by our conservative brothers who are in the midst of a struggle between them and the progressive elite. I used to shrug off the idea that one day in this great land my very freedoms would be under attack by my government, but perhaps I too became a victim of apathy and comfort. Now’s the time to get uncomfortable, both in what we say and what we do.

We all learned about “Cause and Effect” in grade school. For example if one is to go outside in the winter without a coat and gloves, they will get sick. This concept is quite simple yet out elected leaders in Washington scratch their heads and looked confused mood of the country as though they were asked to solve a math problem in sixty seconds with one hand tied behind their backs wearing a blindfold. In this case it’s hard for me to lend a sympathetic ear to members of Congress who feel threatened post-last Sunday afternoon when they passed health care.

You know, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is unique compared to other nations. Only a nation like ours could understand how valuable liberty is to its people. And yet, its still not enough. Our nation, isn’t good enough. We have too many poor people, even though our lower class would be considered middle class in even the top 15 richest nations of the world. We enjoy freedoms that people across the globe risk life and limb to share. Yet, it’s still not good enough because 12 million people can’t afford health insurance. When you dream of the Utopia, that dream is often accompanied by a series of nightmares. Throughout history the Utopia had been chased by men who eventually became consumed by power and greed. Was that a coincidence? I don’t think so, because it’s usually the malcontents who have a gripe with society and history who push their own rule on the idea of the Utopian society. Whether it was Hitler and his dream of a blond haired blue eyed Germany, or Chavez’s socialist Venezuela where every citizen has a house and the government gives them what their heart’s desire. No, it was not a coincidence that these men had to convince the people that in order to achieve this end they had to seize control on all fronts. Most malcontent leaders or groups of leaders have a bone to pick with tradition, or in the words of Democrats, “the status quo”.

Barack Obama represents many historical firsts for this country. Yes, the obvious one that comes to mind is that he’s the first African American president in our nation’s history. But one other first accompanies this man to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Barack Obama is in fact the first dictator this country has ever had, I mean ever. The difference between what we’re living now and that of our forefathers during the era of British rule is quite distinct, you almost long for the days of bold and fearless simple men, instead of simple men. Those simple yet bold and honest men of integrity stated and seen the obvious, which was an oppressive foreign empire trying to impose its will on the people of a colony in which that empire did not belong to. These days such men would be ridiculed and accused of racism and extremism, some of those charges would come from those who claim to represent conservatism.

Just listen to people like Joe Scarborough who make fun of Glen Beck because of Beck’s off the wall, albeit accurate and honest dissection of this administration’s  Marxist and progressive agenda. I could almost see the Joe Scarboroughs and David Brooks of the world back during the lead up to the revolution. I’m telling you they would be the ones who argued against the Boston Tea Party, they would have ridiculed Patrick Henry the original Glen Beck, and they would have argued against the revolutionary war because to them speaking out against this president is counterproductive, no matter how productive it is given poll after poll. You cannot trust men who would soon argue slavery over the fear of death or conviction. Men like these often find themselves buried alongside the dictators and evil regimes throughout our history.

With Obama, you have a man cut from the same cloth as the socialist leaders in South America. Namely such dictators as Chavez in Venezuela, Morales in Bolivia, Ortega in Nicaragua, and of course the originator, Castro of Cuba. Just listen to the language for it paints a clear picture. If you compare the speeches of Obama with that of Chavez or Evo Morales the similarities are fascinating and very deep. All three men spoke of transformational change to the system, they railed against what they saw as the status quo, which can be boiled down to any corporation or entity viewed in their eyes as a roadblock or heavy foot crushing the people in the name of profit and wealth. Just listen to Obama go in hard after the health care industry as if they were on trial for murder in the first degree. He pounds and he pounds to no end at these devils and their insidious profit making at the expense of poor people. All the while he breaks one area of society down while maintaining the pure gold wrapped warrior that is himself.

When Chavez rose to power he did so as a member of the Military. Like Chavez and others Obama marches to the drum beat of class warfare and social justice. To him, the real threat to liberty and prosperity is the private sector and Wall Street, not a government that has the emotionless capability to crush everything in its path. He has to create straw men and targets that unite the people, and what better target than health care providers and greedy Wall Street yuppies who received billions of taxpayers dollars to clean up a mess they were responsible for. But to the libertarian we see through this masquerade, because we know history all too well.

But I digress in my point because I would be considered a wingnut. If I were on Morning Joe or Hard-On with Chris Matthews and I explained my reason for saying Obama was America’s first dictator, no matter how concrete and substantive my arguments were, I would be ridiculed and accused of racism. Then again, in Venezuela Chavez had many new organizations and newspapers working for him and protecting his presidency I believe in the Soviet Union they called it Pravda. We all know who America’s Pravda is so I won’t go into much detail about that. But my point is this, the constitution no longer stands as the last defense between freedom and tyranny, nor do the principles of republicanism remain a component of this nation. The last fragments of Jeffersonian-republicanism is but the name of the minority party in America.

I never thought I’d see this day come to pass but we are here. And while I’m a passionate student of the great Thomas Jefferson who encouraged bloody rebellion, in his own words he said it was a good then every now and again, I myself would not call people to arms against the government. It has not gotten to that point just yet, although history doesn’t just pave the way for things anew, it also repeats itself. Were the founders radicals, perhaps in the eyes of today’s “pc” America, the founders would be seen as on the level of Al-Qaeda, believe it or not, the fathers were that radical, at least the majority of the anti-federalists certainly were. However sometimes when one is pushed to the brink, they react only the way a cornered snake would, they strike back because life and freedom is just too precious.

We have to accept the reality that Barack Obama is a dictator, all the evidence points to nothing otherwise. After all, what title would you give a man who passes his agenda through executive order, appoints his czars and creates task forces through executive order? It not a dictator than what? While not an absolute dictator he certainly is a benevolent one.

Can you take credit for a war you opposed? Not only that, can you take credit for a war in which you based your entire presidential campaign on your opposition to that war? What if you were running on a promise to end that war? Well Barack Obama did all of the above and now that the Iraq war is finally panning out the way the Bush administration thought it would, and the country seems to be going in the right direction after seven years of setbacks and new strategies, the Obama administration and the media refuses to give the man who risked his legacy, his presidency, and his leadership on the decision to invade the country in 2002 credit. George Bush was right about Iraq, Obama was wrong, but no one will ever know of this because the media is working hard to make this about the withdrawal, not the war in its entirety.

You see, if they can create a narrative based on the withdrawal then they can give Obama all the credit because he campaigned on a promise to end the war. History tells of a different tale but unfortunately history doesn’t factor into lies and distortions, especially when the left is against something. You heard Joe Biden a few Sundays ago talk about how Iraq will be one of the biggest successes of this administration. When I heard that I got angry because I felt they were so desperate for good news they were willing to find it anywhere, even if that good news had nothing to do with them. The fact is that the status of forces agreement was signed during Bush’s last year in office, the surge strategy was developed during Bush’s presidency, Sunni awakening happened during Bush’s presidency, and the war itself started during Bush’s presidency. Barack Obama wasn’t even in the US Senate when the war in Iraq happened in 2002 and yet everyone is ready to hang a “Victory” banner above his head on some aircraft carrier.

Aside from this notion that Obama is responsible for the success in Iraq being completely absurd and utterly delusional, it’s wrong and quite frankly there should be more outrage over this.I’m no fan of George W. Bush. In fact, I thought he was one of the worst economic presidents in American history and I still feel that way. But to rob him of the vindicating success of the past few months in Iraq is to take credit for sun coming up in the morning just because you opened your blinds. If Sarah Palin opposed the war in Afghanistan and ran for president on a promise to end that war had taken credit for any positive changes taking place in Afghanistan knowing Barack Obama was committed to that war during his presidency, then she too would be in the wrong and the media would be outraged, and rightfully so. But with Obama for someone reason he has this ability, almost like a magician to take responsibility for nothing, and yet take credit for everything. First it was saving the banks, which he attributed to his stimulus package when in reality the equally as unethical bank bailout of the Bush administration calm the waters for the financial sector. Now its the war in Iraq.

George Bush isn’t speaking out like former vice president Dick Cheney and that’s understandable because Bush seems like a guy that likes to just go with the flow, and at times that got him into trouble during his presidency. But I wouldn’t be so polite as to allow my successor to take credit for something I did. Would Alexander Graham Bell allow for his neighbor to take credit for the invention of the telephone? This administration is so hungry for a win its getting to the point where they might start taking credit for the Cold War, and why stop there? They should take credit for the moon landing, and the revolutionary war, and the North’s victory in the Civil War, and the signing of the Emancipation Proclamation, I mean after all Obama likes to fancy himself after Lincoln. But why stop there I mean why not go for the jugular? Take credit for the Civil Rights Legislation of the 1960s and the New Deal of the 1930s Barack. You’re the smartest, toughest, most qualified president in American history, no one can top you, every president ought to be deemed a failure now that you’re in office. They all got it wrong but you’re always right, despite the fact that you always seem to get things wrong but who cares, you’re Barack Obama and according to the so called experts in the media you have the highest IQ of any president or man for that matter walking the face of god’s green earth.

If you sense a hint of resentment you’re correct. I resent the fact that this man and his administration take credit for the hard work and controversial decisions they aren’t willing to make. This is beyond the pale and unfortunately the American people at large might actually believe that Obama is responsible for the success in Iraq, and that’s the part of this entire administration that concerns me. The people out there are so gullible and so complacent at times they will accept anything as truth, even if its further from the word. We need to start nailing these guys on their bull or else they’ll win the argument.

Democrats are accusing Republicans of quote, “Standing in the way of democracy” However, I can argue, and with sufficient evidence that in fact health care itself is standing in the way of democracy and the will of the people. What say Washington when the majority oppose this health care plan? Well, Washington ignores the obvious. They scoff at the very notion that the will of people truly matters. After all, it matters when people vote, but when they object to this transformation of 1/6 of our economy, all of the sudden the will of the people isn’t their will at all, but merely a misguided act of citizen angst and ignorance because they know not the worth of this health care push by the Democrats.

And of course you have arrogance and selfishness. This is no longer about the people of America because the people overwhelmingly oppose health care overhaul in its current form. My conservative friends this is about saving face and what conservatives call the Holy grail of the progressive movement. You know, James Madison said: “In Republics, the great danger is, that the majority may not sufficiently respect the rights of the minority”. Well in this case the roles are reversed in that the minority doesn’t sufficiently respect the rights and the will of the majority. How did we get to a point in our history where some of us are pondering the real possibility of an America that is no longer free, or that our freedoms no longer come from the constitution but instead an elected body in the nation’s capital. I never realized how UN-American the Democrat party truly is until this president and this congress unleashed itself a year ago. When the right said the Democrats had all this pent up ambition for the past eight years boy were they dead on and then some. However I believe there is a solution and here’s some detail on that.

We can challenge them on the basis of the constitutionality of their entire agenda. Not just health care, but cap and trade, bank regulation, immigration, you name it. The Democrats like to accuse the GOP of trying to derail the democratic process, but perhaps they should look down at the hand that is committing the murder, instead of blaming the weapon.You can’t blame the Republicans for trying to stop democracy when they are simply adhering to the will of the people, which is a fundamental component to democracy itself. Would a restaurateur accuse the owner of the diner across the street of trying to suppress his or her business because that diner offers better food at a lower price? Would the same be true if customers preferred the diner over the high end restaurant? No, but in the world of Democrats democracy and the will of the people isn’t democracy at all. Let’s use the constitution as our defense against their platform and if she no longer holds light as the true foundation of this country, then bury her alongside her makers in the tomb of time.

As for James Madison he said something that I think is essential to this entire debate on health care. He said all men with power ought to be mistrusted. Today we’re being asked, no we’re being forced to place our trust in men who hold powerful positions in government. Would the founding fathers trust Barack Obama? Absolutely not, in fact the founders would try to overthrow this government, I’m convinced of that, I really am. I believe when Thomas Jefferson talked about a little bloody rebellion being good every now and again he was sincere. When George Washington talked about the dangers of government and how government is incapable of being compassionate and unbiased toward power and control I believe he was right. We can win the arguments based on the founders’ words alone, because the American majority still honor those men. As for the 20% progressive minority in America, well, we can always buy them plane tickets to western Europe. Since they’re so obsessed with bringing western Europe to the shores of the United States. Why not make their dreams come true without the majority suffering through the regressive welfare programs of the old empires of our ally continent.

One thing I will say about Europe is this, we must look to them for a peak into our potential future. The old empires I speak of fell due to a complacent attitude toward their own liberty. In fact, they were all too willing to place freedom on the blackjack table. If we become that bold as to gamble our own precious liberty for the prospects of the Utopia we will become the next great empire to fall into the oceans of history. Ben Franklin said America will be free so long as her people let it. At one point I believed in my heart when America voted to put Barack Obama in office I was convinced that the American people were willing to compromise on their freedom, but the great awakening changed my mind. I believe the American people are willing to compromise their lives for freedom, not the other way around. That my friends, in the words of Ronald Reagan would be a very American thing to do.

Let them drop out. There, I solved the dropout rate. The president is giving a speech, that unfortunately I have to watch where he will outline a plan to quote, “intervene” and ultimately curtail the nation’s rising dropout rate. Of course he’s going to propose more funding and more government involvement in our already government run schools. But is the answer to our public school woes more cash, and more government? Well of course not silly but you try telling a leftist that and they’ll look at you as if you have five eyes and six set of lips. I know how to solve the dropout epidemic in this country.

All we have to do is continue, to do nothing. No more money, no more government, a lot more kids who hate traditional school and a traditional school curriculum dropping out. I know, I know that sounds really harsh and yes it sounds like I don’t love the children, I do, but I also see the big picture in all of this. It’s called process of elimination and it works not only in organized sports, it also works in our Military and our career world as well. I’m not saying we promote and encourage kids to dropout, I’m saying we provide them with alternative solutions rather than throwing good money after bad, all the while the kids who dropped out are standing on the corner, or selling drugs, or even getting involved with gangs and other illegal activity. We need to encourage those who have given up on high school to attend Job Corp, or some other trade school where they can learn to work with their hands doing things that might peak their interests. Sometimes a kid might dropout because he or she simply cannot do the work, so we have increase the number of shop and home economic classes in the middle and high school level. Unfortunately we’ve traded in our aprons and safety goggles for Green Peace t-shirts and ACORN brochures located next to the college applications in the student center.

I’m a young man, I’m 23 and I graduated high school in 2006, and even now I noticed in that short time frame the school system and the public school environment has changed dramatically. When I was a junior and a senior in high school my adviser made me fill out at least seven fast food job applications, I had to apply to at least four colleges, and in terms of what classes I was taking, I had to take shop class and home economics before I could graduate. At my old high school it was mandatory that each student take either one of those classes twice, or both in one year. Nowadays schools are too busy teaching our teenagers about tolerance and global warming, and social justice, among other things. My history teacher Mr. Webster taught us world history like it was some training course for a job in the aerospace field. When I took American history my teacher Mr. Haug went through the subject point by point and if we failed the American History exam at the end of the year we had to take it over our junior year and retake the same exam. See back then, in old 2006 we had standards and mandates. My senior principal was so tough she refused to give my friend is high school diploma and he had already completed two three years of college.

I reject this idea of paying students to learn. Paying them, what for? Paying them to do things they’re suppose to do? Are we parents or are we teachers? Why pay students to do something that will lead to an education that will lead to a job that pays them? If the student doesn’t want to learn then that’s on them. We need to hold the students accountable for a change. When I was in high school I never did my homework in Biology during my freshman year. So I had to take it my senior year and I was a 6’1 eighteen year old senior with a goatee in a freshman biology class with a bunch of fourteen and fifteen year old kids. They would always ask me if I was a student teacher. Evan Thomas is someone I hardly ever agree with, in fact the man is a downright Marxist but he was dead on when he said the problem is that we tell young people that they’re above average when they clearly aren’t. He also talked about how grade inflation was bad and I agree with him on that as well. We need to separate the achievers from the failures. And I know calling young people failures may sound harsh but it’s the truth. Like Pat Buchanan said “Not every young person is college material” So we need to stop souping these kids heads up by telling them that they can get into Princeton when at best they might crack into Flora Valley Community College with their 1.78 GPA.

We need to instead tell them that college isn’t the end all be all for a young person in America. I know plenty of people who didn’t go to college and made out fine. My dad is a prime example of a self made man who didn’t go to college. My brother didn’t go to college either and he’s doing fine. I chose to go to college because I wanted to piss off a bunch of leftist professors, but that’s another post for another time. So Obama can talk about more money for this, more control for that, but at the end of the day success depends on the student and the teacher, and the curriculum. No matter how dedicated the student is, if he or she is being indoctrinated on the subject of economic and social justice or social and cultural studies or women’s studies then all the money and hard work will be for not. You can’t get an honest paying job with a degree in “Women’ Studies in Today’s America” or “African American Studies in the 21st Century”. You could however use those credentials when applying to be a street agitator and a professor of sociology at NYU or Columbia. Hm, let me guess, that’s the whole point of the curriculum right?

Although, Barack Obama is the smartest man to ever become president. The smartest man to ever become president doesn’t know how to create jobs, he doesn’t understand the fundamentals of economics, he’s the smartest guy to ever have a cabinet full of people who are smarter and more experienced than he is, and he’s so smart he only has a press conference where he gives a speech but doesn’t take any questions afterward. You see where I’m going here? Apparently Chris Matthews the host of Hard On and Ron Reagan the dog show announcer with a failed radio program think Sarah Palin is just some dumb former governor turned celebutician with a “hot librarian” look. But I have yet to hear anyone challenge these two sad cases on this notion that Barack Obama is this smart, intellectual being. In fact if you really think about it, most people who have common sense (Palin) tend to be much more aware intellectually of the world than those who gained knowledge not from real world experiences but from years of manufactured college curriculum. Again, if Obama is the smartest man walking the earth as everyone throughout his life has told him, why were his transcripts from college sealed in the temple of doom never to be released to the public?

We all found out that Palin transferred from school to school finally ended up at the University of Idaho. The media did their job and rightfully so, we’re supposed to know everything short of personal information about our presidents and potential presidents. It’s called an open society, but when it comes to Obama for some reason the smartest man in the world can’t actually prove it. That’s like someone saying they can run faster than a cheetah, and every time you want to see them race a cheetah they say their leg is hurting. I don’t understand this running gag inside the beltway that Palin is dumb because she’s plain spoken and went to a state university, yet Obama is smart because he went to Harvard, and yet no one has ever seen his grades. Or maybe they have and he ain’t as smart as they say he is. What makes Palin smarter and more aware than Obama is the fact that she openly admits her ups and downs as a college student and how she is willing to learn more as a potential political figure. With Obama, he doesn’t have to learn about anything, he already knows everything.

I have some words of wisdom for our genius in chief: You better start wanting to learn more or you’ll get your hat handed to you like you did at the Health Care Summit. The fact is Mr. President you looked out debated, out smarted, and the likes of Paul Ryan who I believe is ten times the intellectual you’ll ever be, or pretend to be will run circles around you in future debates. By the way I know this might make many of you uncomfortable but I’m going to say this: Ron Reagan is a real disgrace. The guy is a complete fool who spends his time every other year talking about dogs. His radio show is an utter failure and I believe Ronald Reagan appreciated the relationship he had with Mike Reagan more than the one he had with Ron, and I think when people bring that up it cuts Ron deep because he knows its true. Ronald Reagan would be disappointed in that failed radio show hack. By the way, it’s never a good thing when the son looks like the mother….Never good.

I watched all seven hours of the Health Care Summit yesterday and I was shocked. I was shocked at the level of fight and coherence on the part of the Republicans who not only came prepared, they came prepared prepared. They won that debate and it was clear to everyone on both sides. You know how I know they won? When asked by Diane Sawyer on ABC World News who wont he debate George Stephanoupolus said it was a draw. In other words, at least he’s objective enough to not give the “win” to Barack Obama and the Democrats, but he’s too bias to give the GOP all the credit, though they cleaned Obama and his doolies’ clock like it was first, second, and third nature. Obama’s attempt at making the Republicans look like the big bad wolf backfired like a 1976 Brougham.

All throughout the summit the cameras were on Obama and you could read the frustration and annoyance on his face. He was annoyed not because the Republicans were using these flat, unrelated arguments or emotional story lines like say, the Democrats were, but he was annoyed because the GOP was destroying he and his party’s arguments point by point. For every insurance company horror story and sob tale of young Timmy and his one leg or his half a face due to an accident in a coal mine, the Republicans offered reasonable, well thought out counterpoints that threw the Democrats off guard. By the way, who knew so many Democrats worked for or had ties to so many insurance companies.

I think Obama will reconsider next time he tries to pull a fast one over on the GOP and the American people. You know, all one hundred of us that actually took seven hours out of our lives to watch. Someone needs to let the president know that having summits and televised debates during the day isn’t exactly the best idea because most Americans who still have jobs are working, and the ones who aren’t are out looking for work.

One last thing, did anyone catch Obama eying Paul Ryan? Ryan was on his game and I think Obama is intimidated by people who are smarter than he is, or I should more learned in the issues. I think for most of his life Obama was told he was the smartest guy walking the earth and that he was the smartest guy to ever run for president, and that he was the smartest guy to ever become president. Well, I don’t know Paul Ryan, but I think Paul Ryan showed that he was much smarter than Barack Obama. I think Obama feels the same way I do. People who have gone through life taking in every kiss up remark and every manufactured compliment tend to inflate not only their very existence, but they tend to believe they’re smarter, prettier, and more talented than the rest of us. Without the teleprompter and the hand picked audience and the manufactured letters from little girls or the focus group applause lines, Obama is left with nothing to carry him to the finish line. It’s like the whole Ryan Leaf/Peyton Manning debate before the 1998 NFL draft. I don’t know if any of you remember Ryan Leaf but, the consensus around the NFL and the sports media world was that Ryan Leaf was the better quarterback. They thought Peyton was the smarter of the two, but Ryan had the natural ability, or so they thought. And I’ve always compared Obama to Ryan Leaf. Everyone said that Obama would make a better president than Hillary Clinton because he had the natural ability to bring about the changes needed to get Washington and the country back on track. Unfortunately what we see is a man who’s poll numbers have taken a dramatic dive and continue to do so, his agenda is failing across the board and the only way he’s been able to pass bits and pieces of his overall agenda is through executive order.

Once again I was compelled by a lack of historical knowledge and appreciation on the part of Joan Walsh and Chris Matthews. They were arguing what they called the “updates” of our constitution based on the changing dynamics of the country. They were also equating the Tea Party movement’s support of adhering to the original intent of the constitution to support for bringing back slavery and the denial of women’s basic freedoms and rights to vote, school segregation, and of course Matthews’ favorite topic:secession. For some reason our lush over at MSNBC has it in his brain that Tea Party folks want to their respected states to secede from the union. When sheriff Richard Mack was on his show he clearly stated and with accuracy that the federal government cannot control states nor has the power to usurp the sovereignty of the states by which the bill of rights clearly points out. Chris Matthews should read his history perhaps, because one of the chief components to the drafting and eventual ratification of the constitution was the bill of rights, which many anti-Federalists pushed out of fear of the newly established central government and what they saw as an eventual imposition by that government. Earth to Chris Matthews, the constitution is the rule of the game, the central government was the game, the bill of rights was the referee.

I want to go back to the point of this article. The founders were aware of the contradiction between the constitution, the declaration that preceded it, the bill of rights and slavery. Namely Thomas Jefferson who was a slave owner himself often spoke out in private through letters and in public about the issue of slavery and whether or not the founders could legitimately justify their own freedom from the British Empire, all the while continuing to keep men as slaves. Furthermore, the issue of women’s rights would also clash with the constitution. You have to understand, the constitution grants freedom and liberty to all men, by men meaning all people. The founders weren’t racists nor were they against women’s rights. We libertarians and our conservative brothers utterly reject the segregation movement in the south during the 1960s. We see the Civil Rights era as an unconstitutional event, in that black people had no business being treated like second class citizens, in a country that had so outlined liberty years prior.

We libertarians and conservatives believe in ordered liberty, we don’t subscribe to the idea that adhering to the constitution calls for a prevention of all men of all colors and backgrounds from having freedom. The problem with the left is that they believe in the living and breathing constitution. They believe the constitution is not necessarily a concrete set of guidelines and principles, therefore they can add, deleted, twist, and interpret parts of the document according to their own political world view, according to how the world is at the time. Joan Walsh and Chris Matthews cited Social Security and Medicare as an example, and Matthews in a foolish attempt to win an argument stated that if we go back to the original intent of the Constitution, we wouldn’t have airplanes or an air force. But what the fool Matthews didn’t understand is that the constitution clearly states: “To Provide For The Common Defense” Yes Chris, that would include the Military, ie an Air Force, and thus war with Barbary pirates compelled Thomas Jefferson to establish a new US navy. The constitution doesn’t prohibit the federal government from establishing a Military or policemen, or firemen because they provide for the common defense of states, cities, towns, and the country at large.

I tell you I learned more truth in how progressive liberals view the constitution in that 13 minute clip from MSNBC.com than I have ever heard in a discussion in all my history classes the first two years in high school and the first two years in college. I now have confirmed evidence in what I have long suspected ever since I turned my back on the progressive philosophy, and it is this: They do not believe in the constitution. And one other thing, I don’t know a single conservative or libertarian who supports a return to a pre-Civil Rights America or a return to slavery. It’s philosophically impossible and contradictory to on one hand support liberty and the constitution and then turn around and call for limited freedoms for black, women, and other minorities.

I’m not one to support the idea of policing speech or, political correctness. So whenever I have the chance to level a highly vulgar or controversial assessment of the state of my country or the culture I never balk at such an opportunity, after all we never know when that right will fast fade into memory. But I have to stand on the side of innocence and integrity. I have to oppose this Family Guy episode in which Chris, the older brother takes a girl with down syndrome out on a date. In the scene the girl tells him about herself and she says quote, “My mom used to be the governor of Alaska” or something to that effect, I’m paraphrasing mind you. Nonetheless it strikes me as gutless when a forty something year old man goes after a little baby. But it really highlights the lack of balls when a forty something year old man goes after a little baby with down syndrome. Now, I heard the Hollywood left defend MacFarlane and I don’t buy the argument. This wasn’t Sarah Palin’s fault and yet they tried to make it seem like her criticism of Rahm Emanuel’s use of the word retard and her excusing Rush Limbaugh when he used to word opened the doors for attacks on her son Trig.

And again, so what if Sarah Palin did open the door, what does her son have to do with anything? However, this isn’t some uncommon theme when it comes to all things Sarah Palin. A liberal blogger made a comment stating that quote, “Sarah Palin is responsible for increasing the population of retarded people.” I don’t know what it is about this woman that gets them so upset and so unhinged but apparently she makes them so angry they feel the need to attack her child. But that boy can’t defend himself and I’m not trying to paint him as some helpless nothing but the fact is he can’t. And when I see Sarah Palin on Fox having to defend herself and her family against these attacks I can read the pain and sadness on her face. I don’t blame her either, no one would invite such harsh smears against their family, especially their children. When Barack Obama said clearly: “My wife is off limits” the media didn’t blink twice, they obeyed. But Sarah Palin can forget about it, her family are not only fair game, their used as a way to hurt her twice as much.

There’s this venom, an extra dose of venom that goes into each attack leveled at her and it stuns me it really does. I honestly in my young years growing up in this media age and personality age have never seen a person that draws such pure disdain and malcontent vitriol as Sarah Palin. And for what? Again, she strikes me as a nice person who reminds me of a room mom or a teacher I had in high school. I can imagine Sarah Palin teaching biology or gym, but I could very much imagine Michele Obama as one of the smug administrators or assistant principle. Maybe I’m naive, or in the words of Three Doors Down, maybe I’m just blind. I don’t understand the hatred for this woman, I really don’t.

I do know one thing, the left is on borrowed time. And in the words of Danny Glover from Lethal Weapon 4: “You can’t beat the clock Riggs.”

I have for you two accounts of bitter partisan ranker throughout our history. Keep in mine we’re a relatively young nation so these examples are few and far between, but they more than cover the gist of my overall point.

Example #1:

The election of 1800. This was the round two between Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Adams was running as a member of the Federalist Party, and Jefferson as a member of the Democratic-Republican party. Now, before I go any further let’s remember what the beltway is saying about the so called bitter divide and gridlock in Washington. It’s important that we not only provide concrete historical perspective to dispel this argument coming from these pantie waste scotch breath elites, but we also provide a silver lining and back up the argument on why partisanship and bitter political battles are a good thing.

Now, back to the election 0f 1800. The Jeffersonian-Republicans hated John Adams. I’ll talking about pure hatred and they were the first of their kind when it came to political smears. They invented what we now refer to as “Swift boating”. They spread lie after lie about Adams to the point where it not only cost him the election but it set the stage for partisan warfare in later years. John Adams hated Jefferson for years after this election. I can’t say that I blame him, the Jeffersonian-Republicans never liked the Federalists to begin with. But they were the only ones talking political trash. The Federalists accused the Democratic-Republicans of burning churches and murdering people. And get this, they accused the D-R’s of trying to destroy the country. Hmm, where have we heard that before? Nowadays if you say Barack Obama or any media friendly candidate in both parties of trying to destroy America they call you a partisan, racist, or a nut who hates change.

Example #2:

This is by far the most famous and historical example of partisan street fighting gone array. The duel between Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton. Now, Burr hated Hamilton from the start because he was bitter over the fact that Hamilton and members of his own party opposed his run for governor of New York. You see, Aaron Burr was a Federalist who didn’t really trust other Federalists, namely Alexander Hamilton. Today we hear things like “radical” or “wing nut”. Back then our founders would level insults wrapped in wit. Anyway one night at a party Hamilton embarrassed Burr to the point of no return. Burr was so miffed he challenged Hamilton to a duel under the code duello rules. We all know how the duel ended with both Burr and Hamilton mortality wounded and both men eventually died as a result of their injuries from that famous gun fight.

My point is simply this: Partisanship is neither uncommon nor at a dangerously high level. If you study history, especially during the Constitutional Conventions where Federalists were beaten and hung by Anti-Federalists over the very ideas of how government should be established, our two party squabbles seem like two little boys fighting over the same robot toy with fast action grip compared to what went on during the late 1700s to early 1800s. I think people need to relax and let democracy take its natural course. That’s something I never could figure out about the centrists and progressives. Why do they insist on interfering with the stages of the republican process. Why are they so easily jolted by two parties fighting over the issues. George Will said it best after all when he said that the Republican Party is suppose to oppose the Democrat Party, that’s what a two power system is all about.

Republicans aren’t suppose to just drop their principles out of fear of looking like the bad guy or obstructionists. Quite the contrary, when you have a progressive president with a progressive congress trying to forcefully pass a progressive agenda, one in which the people overwhelming oppose, obstructionism is like chlorine to tainted pool water. The idea of bipartisanship in the minds of the progressives in Washington and their media safety net is Republicans relinquishing their ideas and blindly appeasing the president. It’s bipartisanship when Republicans jump on board to any old policy, it’s patriotic when Democrats stonewalled George Bush for two years, it’s racism and anti-change when Republicans try to stonewall Barack Obama. The difference here is majority. Obama has a majority in the House at least, and he had one int he Senate so he could have passed all his progressive wet dream policies without any measures from the GOP that would have been strong enough to stop him. He used his executive order measure more than any president in history and is planning to do so in order to override GOP defenses, which is perfectly fine. Just know that we’ll try to stop you and we’ll come even stronger.

This call for reason is a call for surrender wrapped in golden lace with a crimson bow. The Democrats aren’t really interested in working across the isle, they just want Republicans to sit there, nod and agree. Some are doing just that, one example has been Mark Kirk, Lindsey Graham, and Joseph Cao. But history is on the side of the Republicans if they understand the message history is trying to relay. Obstructionism is the most patriotic and the most democratic thing you can do. If Thomas Jefferson or James Madison were alive and were in the House or the Senate and the health care bill came across their path, or cap and trade, or some of these measures taken by government, would they try to appease or lessen the blow of the forceful hand of government? Or would they fight to strike the measures down because they know it would damage the republic. And by the way we’re not a democracy, we’re a republic and if I hear one more progressive say we’re a democracy I’m going to beat them senseless. James Madison was weary of democracy, at least blind democracy because he feared it could be twisted and shaped in its name by those who do not have the people’s interest at heart. That’s why he stressed the need of a constitution. You see the constitution is the referee, it calls the game, keeps politicians in check, and throws the yellow whenever a politician commits a penalty.

So what have we learned today? Partisanship good, bipartisanship in measured form can also serve for a positive outcome. The Constitutional Convention was a prime example of two groups (Federalists and Anti-Federalists) working together for a common purpose. That would have been the only case of bipartisan effort I would have signed onto. Today these manufactured tandems like McCain/Feingold or McCain/Kennedy have done more harm to the republic than good. Perhaps our elected officials aren’t as learned in the subject of honor and reason as were our founders.

Today Senator Evan Bayh announced his retirement from the Senate. I was surprised although I can’t say that I blame the Senator, the road to reelection is paved with spike strips, land mines, IEDs, and those worms from the movie ‘Tremors’. But it was the speech that caught my attention as Bayh asailed against his Democrat Party colleagues in the Congress. To quote him, “I don’t love Congress”  And as Bayh tries to play the disgusted righteous Senator from the great state of Indiana who in his own words “fought for the people of Indiana” I have one parting question for Senator Bayh: “Where were you when health care was being planned forcefully behind the backs of not only the people in your state but people all over the country?” “Where were you when your Democrat Party colleagues were calling senior citizens and Iraq war vets Nazis and racists for standing for their liberty at town halls during the summer months?” “Where were you when the Democrats passed the phony slimeulus package last February?” It’s funny, Evan Bayh was beneath the surface when the Democrats were trying to push the majority of their unpopular and radical agenda late last year.

I find him, unfortunately to be a tad bit arrogant and political. He has the nerve to reject everything he had no interest nor desire to fight against only a few months ago. How can you turn a blind eye to reckless spending and socialism, bitter partisanship at the hand of your own party, and then turn around and make like your the George Washington of the United States Senate. “Evan Bayh: Man of Principle and Modest Integrity” How about Evan Bayh: Man of political posturing and low poll numbers in Indiana” I’d say the latter is more accurate. What say you?

Joe Klein’s assessment of Sarah Palin’s vision for America points to one of despair and stasis, according to the Time magazine journalist. Hers is of course in Klein’s words the opposite of Barack Obama’s vision of hope and change, or “hopey changey”. But I’m confused because I can’t seem to find one example of hope or change. Maybe I’m wrong, maybe I’m bias, but 9.7% unemployment (17% real unemployment), suicidal deficits and debt, a stagnant economy, and an inept administration, coupled with unease throughout the country isn’t exactly the characteristics of a hopeful nation ready and willing to embrace dramatic change.

Klein says Palin paints a picture of fear and gloom. I could argue that yes, her outlook, no I take that back, her take on the state of the union is very dark and scary. America has become a very fragile and less free, thus a very terrifying place under Barack Obama and the Democrats. You can’t accuse Sarah Palin or anyone else of trying to stir up fear and angst when you have Barack Obama and his minions doing so with their policies. What Klein and the rest of the aloof elite media complex inside the beltway have yet to understand, perhaps as a result of denial is that Barack Obama may not be the one who can actually govern this country as president. Did they ever think that some people just aren’t cut out to be president? I mean, there are people out there who are smart I’m sure, and are nice people but that doesn’t mean they will make good presidents, or should even run for president.

I used to think a good president was something given to this nation by chance, but then I realized that most good presidents often possess the one thing that separates them from mediocre and bad presidents: Principle and reason. From the most principled of them all: George Washington, to the most expedient: Bill Clinton, most presidents recognize their own political mortality and change course. It’s different with Obama, it seems as though he has a problem with admission. It’s not his fault health care reform is so unpopular, he just has to explain it better so we dumb Podunk folk in fly over country can understand it. I mean, we ain’t much on that fancy book learnin’ and them big wordses. It’s not his fault for spending so much money, George Bush left the economy in dire straits. Of course, I have to ask: Did Grant blame the late Lincoln for having to finish the Re-Construction post-Civil War? Did Hoover blame Calvin Coolidge for the Great Depression or at least the beginning stages of the Depression in the late 20s?

Blaming your predecessor for all your problems isn’t leadership, for from it in fact. But the world according to Joe Klein and others who have invested their dignity and credibility as….journalists? Defend Obama’s overuse of the “Blame Bush” card. To them the problems facing the country are George Bush’s fault. Still I channel my own confusion, I thought because Barack Obama was president all the things plaguing the world would disappear? I thought the clouds would break and rainbows would sprout after the thunderstorm. I thought our enemies would lay down their hatred for us, and our allies would tend to our every need. At least that’s what we were told…over and over again.

No Joe, you can’t swipe at Palin with these backhanded comments because she was too critical of Obama for your liking. She speaks truth and that both hurts and benefits her. You can’t argue 9.7% unemployment and say “Well, you know it could have been a lot worse”. That’s the running line in the media: “It could have been a lot worse”. Sounds like the Democrats 2010 campaign slogan if you ask me. I’m serious that’s all we heard from the talking heads in scotch scented suits: “Well, Obama’s not succeeding on the economy but you know it could have been a lot worse.” That’s like your doctor saying, “You know Mr. so and so you have advanced stage colon cancer and you only have 5 months to live. But I mean, you know it could of been a lot worse, you could only have 3 months to live.” Yes, yes indeed, it could have been a lot worse for America. We could have 10% unemployment, multi-trillion dollar deficits, our AAA status could be in danger, and our bankers could have been communists whose economy is growing faster than ours at a rate much faster than we could ever imagine right now (China’s GDP is projected to grow 10.7% this year). Oh wait, that’s been our reality for some time now.

….But ya know, it could have been a lot worse.

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.