If you have been listening recently to Rush Limbaugh's radio show, you know that an approval poll conducted by the Public Policy Polling group, about the radio talk show host, exposed a "Gender Gap" of -31 percent among female participants.

So, Rush conducted a Female Summit, modeled after the ineffective Economic Summit that President Obama held a few weeks ago, to find out why women dislike him in greater numbers than men.  Unfortunately, similar to Obama's conference, the results of Rush's Summit were lackluster.  This was through no fault of Limbaugh's.

Devoting time on his radio show, and only taking female callers, Rush reached out to the "gentler sex" for answers.  Most of the callers who liked Rush, expressed annoyance and impatience with women who dislike him (Amen, sister!).  Most of the callers who dislike Rush, expressed annoyance and impatience with what they called his "pomposity" and "self-conceit".  These, of course, are red herrings.

Instead, here is the one word that correctly answers the question:  Why do women hate Rush Limbaugh in greater numbers than men? 

Mediocrity.

The question then becomes:  Why do women accept mediocrity as their standard, more so than men?

The answer is simple again:  Feminism.

Feminism, like most groupthink mentalities designed by the Left, has conditioned society to accept women at lower standards than men.  In the workplace, in academic institutions, within marriage, and in the home.

There are very blatant signs of lower standards, such as the severely diminished physical capabilities required of women when they join the military.  But in the daily life of the average American woman, the acceptance of mediocrity as our standard is much more subtle but still as pervasive.  From our diminished role as partners within our marriages, to the "Nurse Ratchet" depiction of women on TV sitcoms (Think: Everybody Loves Raymond) and in commercials, lowering our standards and expectations becomes written in our subconscious.

These lower standards allow women to achieve success within our society by doing less and reasoning less than our male counterparts.

This creates subtle, but effective, strains of mediocrity within our own minds.  We then condition ourselves to accept our own successes and achievements through sub-standard performance.  And so we maintain this level of performance, because we have bought into the idea that mediocrity is all it takes to be successful women.  Not successful individuals. 

We stunt our own minds and our own ambition, by asking no more of ourselves.  We become complacent with our own status quo.

And acceptance of the status quo, in this case within the female mind, breeds contempt and envy of all men and women who display brilliance, and who strive for more.  What better symbol of brilliance and  rationality is there within the public realm, than Rush Limbaugh, the man who single-handedly breathed life into a dying medium of communication and achieved monumental success?

The unwillingness to acknowledge and respect Limbaugh's achievements is a sign that contempt and envy can cloud our judgment and provide resistance to clear reason and rationality within our minds. 

Because while it is true that in the reality of public policies, feminism seeks to punish men for their success, the real victims of feminism are those women who cannot recognize brilliance in anyone, most importantly within themselves. 

Feminism does not empower women because it does not acknowledge a woman's ability to succeed on her own merit.  It makes women slaves to our sex, slaves to lower expectations and slaves to a life of mediocrity.

On the other hand, women who choose to use reason and free will to guide their lives do not hate Rush for one simple reason.  He is a mirror for us.  We see rational, intellectual thought and analysis when we look into that mirror. 

If women who dislike Rush would remove the yolk of feminism, no matter how subtle or subconscious the strains are, and allow their own rational minds to empower their lives they would not dislike Rush Limbaugh.

Instead, they would "rush" to sip from the same grail of success.  They would find that they can achieve that success.  And they would be truly free women.

Side note:  Incidentally, feminism gave rise to the phenomenon of metrosexuals in our society, by inviting men to be mediocres as well.  These are men who, like groundhogs, are scared of their own shadows.  They are the height of mediocrity because they cannot perform the role of either sex well.  They are scared to allow themselves to fail at being "men" and unable/unwilling to physically become women.  Instead they are lost in a mindless purgatory of feminine beautification and masculine anatomy.  (I am assuming there are few metrosexuals who will also claim to be Dittoheads.  Can you blame them for recognizing in Rush the man they wish they had the courage to be?) 

I have been silent, thus far, on the issue of the multi-million dollar AIG bonuses that has upset the entire population, government and markets.

I have, from the beginning, felt that we should be upset.  We should be outraged.  Morally indignant.

But NOT because a few executives received retention bonuses.

We should be outraged that, in a society of free men who uphold the principles of liberty against tyranny, very few people have stood up to defend AIG employee's rights to have their bonuses.  It is a fundamental, constitutionally-protected right.

I am so uplifted and proud of Jake DeSantis, the Executive Vice-President at AIG's financial products unit.  He wrote a letter to his cowardice boss, Mr. Edward Liddy (CEO of AIG).  In this resignation letter, DeSantis excoriated Liddy's decision to throw his empoyees to the wolves in Congress by not defending the bonuses and fighting for his employees' rights to safety from government retribution. 

When the government and Leftists labeled successful men as "greedy bankers", the AIG CEO and others should have fought against that propaganda.  Aided by conservatives, and perhaps a few Republicans, AIG and the companies that have produced wealth for hundreds of millions of Americans should be arguing their case:  That it is precisely the Leftists and the government, who produce no wealth yet ALWAYS find ways to take it, who are greedy.

Who is greedy?  The man who works for his living, or steals for it?

But there are no effective protests or roadblocks to government tinkering in the lives of free men.  No outrage that the engines of our economy are under assault by the heavy hand of Leftists.  At the moment AIG accepted the government's "favors" through bailout funds, the ground below AIG's feet became quicksand.  It was only a matter of time before the government demanded more intervention in the company's affairs. 

And AIG happily stood in the quicksand.  And by association, AIG then pulled other companies into the same miserable existence.  Half free, watching their companies and their family's safety being swallowed by government intervention.  And AIG was half covered in slime, too dirty with the filth of political favoritism to be able to claw their way out.

In this new era of government dominance over every facet of our lives and every economic engine of our economy, the insurance, banking and mortgage industries, like AIG, are being asked to cannibalize themselves.  By accepting the government into your bed, you accept the cold hand of government bureaucrats like Barney Frank and Chuck Schumer.

And now, with the government closing behind it, AIG will soon become a lifeless government entity.  Like Medicare.  Like Social Security.  It will become a problem that you and I, and our children's children, will pay for.  It will become a tool that corrupt government officials will use to line their own pockets.

Apart from the frothing frenzy that includes threats of death to children, the worst outcome of this sad satire is that AIG has allowed itself to be used as a tool to destroy capitalism.  Leftists are eager to proclaim the death of the only system that protects our personal freedom, and that can protect families from physical reprecussions of mob rule. 

AIG's lack of moral courage to stand against government intervention will eventually be used against all free men.  President Obama has just announced that he wants the power to dictate to all companies how and why and where they can pay their top executives.  Understand:  These are not companies that have accepted bailout money.  This dictate will address all financial firms and possibly other private-sector companies. 

All this because AIG and others refused to understand simple reason:  That it had a moral obligation to it's own existence and survival.  That in order to exist and survive, it must not entangle itself with the government.  Survival and existence can only happen under freedom. 

AIG refused to acknowledge that governments only destroy things.  They steal wealth and ambition and achievements from men, for their own power.  That governments only TALK of social equality, justice and safety nets for it's citizens.

Tell me:  With the American government suggesting suicide and Congress promoting piano-wire-inspired death threats against the children of AIG employees...do you think this is what the government means when it offers us justice and safety nets?

Or can we, as Americans, face the reality of our government and it's zombie-like followers and say: My God, we are out of control.  But it is not the fault of bonuses.  We are out of control because we have traded control of our lives and our pursuit of happiness for ignorance and passivity.  We do not want the knowledge of the threat, we do not want to be conscious of the consequences of government control.  It's easier to cope with the chains of slavery than to struggle to be free.

I applaud Mr. DeSantis, and I respect the employees at AIG who will not give in to mob rule.  Please, AIG employees, know that there are Americans who understand what is happening to your freedoms and your families.  There are some Americans who know that after the government comes after you, they will be coming after us.  I, for one, will pray that the Grace of God will protect you and give you the strength to survive the onslaught of the federal government.

And I shudder to think of what the Founding Fathers would think of our country's cowardice.

During Obama's recent press conference, he described in very clear terms what you must do to dig his Administration out of the mess he has created:  "We are all in this together.  We all have a responsibility to each other and to our country."

He wants you and I to pay for his Administration's destruction of capitalism, property rights and individual freedom.  He expects us to pay for the demise of our shining city on a hill!

No, Mr. Obama, we are not all in this together.  I will NOT be a party to the destruction of the country I love, the country that keeps me free, and the economy that allows me to succeed.

And I do NOT have a responsibility to anyone else.  I will NOT become a slave to my neighbor, so that  he can buy a new car, a new flat screen TV, or decide to vacation in Florida this summer.

The ONLY responsibility I have is to dig myself out of financial messes that I might make, to take care of my family and to take responsibility for my actions.  That is how my country survives and thrives.  And that is my neighbor's responsibility as well.  And if it means he has to live in an apartment, so be it...at least it's not a cramped little hut in Africa.

I am blessed with the gifts and talents that I have.  They are mine, not the federal government's to harness and exploit.  They were given to me by God.  Combined with the gift of free will, I have the opportunity to couple them with hard work.  And in a free market, based on individual liberty, I will succeed. 

I owe nothing to the federal government.  Mr. Obama, you consistently use the word country where you mean government, to invoke in us a sense of patriotism, in the hopes that we will easily give in to our own destruction. 

But in reality, Mr. President, you want no allegiance to the capitalist principles and liberty-enshrined ideals that created and sustained our civilization for two centuries.  Instead, you demand obedience to the heartless, mindless bureaucracy that has slowly suffocated our country in the last sixty years.

Obama continued his guile by saying, "When we all work together, when each of us looks beyond our own short-term interest to the set of wider obligations we have towards each other -- that's when we succeed." 

I have no obligation toward anyone but my family...to take care of them if they need it and to raise my children to be reasoning, reasonable human beings.  It's through my obligation to my family, through acting responsibly both morally and financially, that I am a patriot and a free woman.  By being self-sufficient, and through the self-interested use of my talents in the marketplace, I take care of myself so that no one else has to. 

It would be outrageously immoral of me to ask the federal government to grant me special rights that are unconstitutional and expressly forbidden by our Founding Fathers...to give me money that does not belong to me.  I empower the government as my own private ring of thieves when I take from them what they took from my neighbor. 

The federal government would love to take my "order":  Yes, I'll have one mortgage renegotiation, with a side of weatherproofing and how about one of those cable boxes to decode the new digital signal.  Can I ask, does that come with a side of car-purchase write-offs, or do I have to order that separately?  Yeah, and put it on my neighbor's tab, thanks.

But that is why Obama wants us all to buy into this bankrupt system of socialism...none of us will come out ahead...and we will all need his federal government to provide us with what little we may ask for.

Why would any rational, thinking, hard working human being want to be part of such a system?

There is so much more I could comment on, but I am tired.  I am tired of yelling in the canyon, only to hear my own voice echo back.  I am tired of fighting such evil, without political leaders who want to fight alongside me.  And I am tired of having to watch mind-numbing press conferences run by a socialist who shouldn't have been allowed to get near the controls of the most important country in the history of mankind.  Tomorrow is another day...

Why is it that a free people are willing to elect a President who constantly and consistently blames American success, for America's failure?

How can the American people be subjected to three years and ten more months of press conference after press conference of sixties-style radical delusions about our economy, our world and our purpose on Earth?

If you did not watch the Obama press conference, apart from being lucky that you didn't waste a boring hour of incoherent droning, you missed a perfect encapsulation of President Obama's shredded philosophy about your role in the economic recovery.

First, Obama spent most of his time blaming other people for the problems he has been busy creating in the last few months.  He blamed President Bush many times, he blamed Republicans in Congress and he complained that they don't have a budget alternative to his.  Most chilling, however, was the fact that he blamed AIG as a group of individuals who "brought us to our knees".  

It wasn't Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae who burst the bubble.  And it wasn't Congress who pushed the home mortgage industry to it's limits.  It wasn't Barney Frank or Chris Dodd, who lined their pockets with political contributions from these companies.  And it wasn't the trillions in spending, and thus over-whelming deficits, that the federal government just had to have...immediately.  And it certainly wasn't Obama himself, who was too busy laughing at our economic problems while single-handedly crushing our free market economy as we know it.

It could not have been those things that brought us to our knees, because those entities and people are government-based.  And government-based entities, according to Obama's incoherent ideology, are the ONLY answer to EVERY problem.  Period.  And according to Obama the private sector is always the cause of "bubble and bust" economic cycles.

Well, in a way he's right, I guess.  Since Obama seems completely unedg-u-mi-cated about simple economics, let me explain.  In capitalism, there are economic cycles.  We have growth, and contraction, and always in a free market economy, on the other side, we have more growth at potentially jaw-dropping rates.  

In socialism, however, we only EVER have contraction. Contraction of wealth.  Contraction of success. Contraction of ideas.  Contraction of skilled men and women.  Contraction of individual liberty.  Contractions of hard work and innovation. 

Most of the wealth, success, ideas, skilled workers and individual liberty dissipate.  Some of it emigrates to freer countries.  And some of it lands in the laps of the cold, calculating government bureaucrats.  But none of it makes it into your lap.  Not wealth.  Not success.  Not education, or skills.  And most certainly not liberty and freedom.

Obama is trying to use a necessary, healthy and intrinsic characteristic of capitalism, the presence of economic cycles, to argue against the free market system.  Central control, which sees no cycles because there is no growth in a socialist/communist economy, is Obama's answer.

Afterall, wouldn't it be easier to just accept a static existence of socialist poverty, than to experience the peaks and valleys of free-market success and, yes, sometimes contraction?  To answer this question, take a look at what you put on your dinner table every evening...even in this, the worst economy since the dawn of man.  And consider what North Koreans are eating for dinner tonight.  I'd say contracting your dinner menu to Hamburger Helper a few nights a week is better than serving your children cardboard and grass, which is what North Korean parents are forced to feed their children on a regular basis.

The problem with static existence under socialism and communism is that your economic graphs look like the worst possible readout from a heart monitoring station.  It flat-lines at the level of poverty, and the economy is never resuscitated.

The liberal assertion that the desire to see Barack Obama fail is equivalent to wanting the American economy to fail, is a calculating lie.  Rush Limbaugh no more wants the American economy to fail than you or I do.  Because like you and I, Rush's fortunes and successes will rise and fall with the economy.  Each of us is a product of capitalism, and our successes can only be achieved in a free market system.

But Barack Obama is not a product of capitalism.  Nor are his constituencies.  Obama is a product of socialism, as well as it's articulate advocate.

And he is using that advocacy to drown us under a rapid succession of socialist policies designed to wipe out the last vestiges of self-sufficiency and American virtue. 

Barack Obama is water-boarding capitalism. 

He is suffocating the American people with trillions of dollars in spending, regulation and government programs designed to replace entire sectors of private industry. In doing so, he is holding our heads and this economy underwater until we are ready to give up and relinquish our businesses and our economic freedom to his government bureaucrats.  We have to hope we don't pass out before we are saved. 

This is where Rush comes in.  Rush Limbaugh is our Jack Bauer.  The government doesn't like his methods, but when he kicks in the door, you know his plan will save this economy and conservatism from the submerged torture that Obama is practicing.

So, rather than asking whether Rush Limbaugh wants Obama to fail, let's ask the more important question:  Why does Obama want capitalism to fail?  Why are the only ideas coming out of the White House centered around government takeover or the supplanting of free markets? 

Barack Obama and his Democrat Congress have only discussed their direct control of banks, 401k accounts, auto companies, the energy industry, oil companies, charities, parts of the media, the home mortgage industry, the health care system and even the "deadly carbon emissions" from cow farts.

Opting for government control, which is the definition of socialism, has ensured that there is not a single idea or comment from Barack Obama involving moving our economy towards freer markets, individual wealth and a return to individual freedom. 

Make no mistake, there is no "in-between".  Either the private sector controls a market.  Or the government controls a market. 

Knowing that capitalism and socialism, by their nature, cannot coexist, ask yourself again why Obama does not want the private sector and free markets to succeed.

Well, the feeling is mutual, because there are millions of Americans who do not want Obama to succeed.  More than 58 million, to be more precise.  We didn't want Obama to succeed, so we voted for John McCain.

And no one should be ashamed that we wanted a socialist to fail at winning the Presidency.  We should be even less ashamed that we want his socialist policies to fail at destroying our freedoms and our free markets. 

However, those people who voted for Barack Obama should be ashamed of their vote.  They are useful idiots who have participated in economic rendition, against American capitalism, because they believed that successful Americans owed them. 

We've come quite a long way from pledging to each other our lives and our sacred honor, haven't we?  The new pledge has now become, "You must pledge to me YOUR sacred fortune, so I can take what's left of your honor."

Water-boarding has not stopped under the Obama Administration, it's just used against the successful in our economy.  Shame on YOU, Obama supporters, for participating in the torture of your fellow Americans.

During President B. Hussein Obama's State of the Economy speech last week, I listened in wonder at the audacity of his words.  Words, to our President, don't have any value, weight or meaning.

He uses the words of his opponents to paint a pretty picture of American virtue that he does not believe in.  Obama ignites the optimism that is part of the American psyche, while directing it toward un-American goals.

It's akin to using honey to catch flies.

To have the audacity to say things such as "Not because I believe in bigger government -- I don't." And yet in the very same speech, announce trillions of dollars in new government spending.  Only a socialist would consider selling the virtue of small government through a monumental increase in big government.

So what would happen if we took some of the visionary lines from Obama's speech and replace euphemisms like "America", "USA", "nation" and "private sector" with the word "government"?  And what if we replaced the word "government" with "America"?

We would force the truth out into the light of day, proving that the honey he uses as bait is filled with a kind of poison, meant to destroy American capitalism and the freedom of men.

Would Americans support Obama if he had said this:  (Replacement words appear in [brackets].)

With the word "government" used, instead of "America", these statements become true and factual.  The bloated government budget Obama recently announced proves that it is government power, government jobs and an increase in the role of government within our economy that is his vision for our future.

Isn't it a shame that America's own President doesn't have the vision to see the real culprits in the crisis he is manipulating.  Government bureaucrats and government policies, used to coerce and control the private sector, have led us to the brink of an economic Depression.

Instead, Obama attacked the faceless "banker" -- those architects of evil that socialists and communists love to demonize.  It would be refreshing, during a speech that was marketed to the masses as "Reaganesque", to have placed blame at the foot of the government.

So let's replace the word "banks" with the word "government" during the blame-capitalism portion of Obama's speech, to find out what Reagan would have said, had he been speaking to the American people last week:

         "So I know how unpopular it is to be seen as helping [government] right now,
         especially when everyone is suffering in part from their bad decisions.
         I promise you –- I get it."

Reagan would have spoken to us about the true causes of this economic crisis.  He would not have promised to grow the government and place private industry under it's control.  Reagan would have declared that the federal government is the problem.  He would have pledged to roll back the government, which always strengthens the individual, the economy and the country.

But a socialist believes in spreading government, not opportunity.  In empowering government, not individuals.  Therefore, it would have been fitting for Obama to end his speech with this:

          "Thank you, God bless you, and may God bless the [government]."

Barack Obama's address to the nation this evening was, in a word, dissolute.  Full of enticement and charm, but short on American virtue.

And it most certainly wasn't a State of the Union, it was a campaign speech.  In all fairness, he could not have given a State of the Union tonight.  Because though we are tied together through the bonds of government, spiritually Americans are not in union with each other.  We are a country divided.

Those of us who did not vote for Barack Obama, but will bear the cost of his policies and the strangle-hold of his government, are not in union with the beggars in the Democrat Party who cannot find hope within themselves.  By his own hand, Barack Obama has used the power of his office to concentrate the country into two camps:  the "doers" who must continue to work and pay our own mortgages; and those who are "beggars",  who will take from us what we work for, to pay for their mortgages. 

And so, this evening's speech was meant to lull middle-class Americans like you and I into a drowsy nostalgia.  We'd been told before the speech that it would be "Reagan-esque", so that we would accept without question the flowery prose that Obama read from his teleprompter.

But make no mistake, using some imagery and words that Reagan used does not make Obama a man with a vision of freedom and opportunity. 

It makes him a liar, a cheat and a charlatan.

Obama began his speech by asking us to take responsibility for our future.  Who among you, reading now, has begged the government for a car, a kitchen, a bathroom and a job because you are not able to take care of yourself? 

It is with immense nerve and hypocrisy that Obama lectures us about our individual financial responsibility just days after signing his own newly-minted $1 Trillion deficit.   He is the Thief of Washington, using his office to take money out of your pocket in order to throw it at his voters...ensuring that the only economic future we will all share is one of beggary at the hand of his all-powerful government bureaucracy.

He revealed our collective future of misery during his speech, when he accused the Bush tax cuts of "transfer[ing] wealth to the wealthy".  Mr. President, where do you think wealth originates?  It is not possible for a government to create wealth, only to take it.  And the "poor" don't have wealth...that's why they are called poor.

Swallow your daily dose of socialism by understanding that Obama does not view your money as your own.  He believes that the money in your pocket, no matter how rich or poor you are, is not a result of your hard work.  It rests with you only temporarily, through his grace and mercy.  Because he believes that he is the steward of the common good, while you are but a steward of money that belongs to the common good.  And after demanding trillions of dollars in new government spending, how long do you think it will be before the "common good" comes knocking on your door?

Yet, since the days of the Boston Tea Party, Americans have never believed that their money belonged to any government or tyrant, foreign or domestic.  No American (unless you are Barack Obama, Son of Saul Alinsky and Karl Marx) believes that what you work for today, belongs to the government tomorrow.

As for those of us who recognize in Obama the ambition and desire to change our Founding Principles and bastardize the meaning of fairness, hope and opportunity - we reject the notion that government lays the "foundation for common prosperity".  We reject the notion that we must pay for the folly of others, punish Americans who have succeeded or "force necessary adjustments" in our economy through the heavy hand of government.

Tonight, those of us who make America work, were given a kiss on the cheek and a stab in the back.  Americans usually call that betrayal.  Obama calls that "upholding our values".

And finally, the last rhetorical flourishes of Obama's speech were aimed at Congressional Republicans.  Using words of a unifier, he tried to play on the decency of gentlemen, hoping that this bunch of Republicans acts more like the country club blue-bloods of the 1980s than the Principled Conservatives of the 1990s.  He is counting on the Country Clubbers to compromise with him, thus marginalizing Principled Republicans.

Instead, let Governor Bobby Jindal's idea that, "we look for hope in different places" be the mantra of the Republican Principled Opposition from this day forward.  Jindal's message of self-reliance, especially in troubling times, will not be embraced by all, overnight.  And Republicans have proven in the past to be skittish when faced with powerful Democrat Leadership.

So it is up to Conservatives to continue to be leaders in the Party and in their Communities.  Show your friends and family where to find hope.  Not in Barack Obama.  Not in the government.  Not from a bureaucrat.  Find hope within your own talents and abilities, within your own family and within your own faith.  It is not an easy message to sell, but it's a message that must be heard.  Because it is the only, last, best hope for America and her people.

In an age when politicians rush to take power from the people, the people seem willing to give it.

Freely give it.  Without hesitation.

It begins with the idea that the pursuit of your happiness is at odds with society.  As a free citizen of the United States, should you go to work everyday, in order to take care of your family?  Should you work hard for a successful career?  Should you want more for yourself and your family?  Should you choose honest means to pursue your happiness?  Of course -- that is the only moral choice for free men and women.  And it is your right, granted by God, and fervently acknowledged in the Declaration of Independence.

But not to those who covet power and want more.

Whether you call them socialists, communists, statists, collectivists or fascists -- they will tell you that your happiness is at odds with the good of society.  They will call it consumerism.  They will tell you it is not good for the environment.  They will tell you it is selfish to want things for your family and to enjoy the items you choose to buy.  They begin to make us feel guilt and greed for our successes.

And slowly they cherry-pick segments of the population to parade before the public.

To ridicule and deride.

They find what is useful for them, within the human imagination, and they use it.  Greed and jealousy become a sort of twisted public relations campaign against successful, talented people.

How?

They distort the idea that you have a right to work hard and attain what makes you happy, into their right to take from others to make you happy.  It is a system of orderly theft.  It encourages looting.

And it begins when free men accept the premise that it is immoral to have.  Whether its the SUV in your driveway, the lightbulb in your lamp or your corporate jet.  They use your dreams to turn you into useful idiots.

It's how the recent Congressional hearings played.

CEOs who accept the premise that their companies exist to create jobs, to have compassion for the public or to create wealth for the government are joining a collective suicide pact.  During the Congressional Inquisition, Citibank CEO Vikram Pandit explained his decision to cancel the delivery of a corporate jet they had ordered:

He has chosen to give up his right to demand that the government, Constitutionally, has absolutely no role to play in deciding whether a company should or should not buy a jet.  Instead, in a moment of abject recklessness, the CEOs of major companies everywhere are releasing their rights as free men, in favor of the premise that Congress can exercise it's "power of persuasion" to harass CEOs into making this kind of decision.

Remember, socialists in the government now have outrage and indignation on their side.  Businesses have compromised with the idea that they exist for the common good.  They have now agreed to the principle that they should exist to create a job for you.  Therefore, if a business is not creating a job for the common good, it is immoral.  And certainly then, being immoral and harmful to society...must atone for it's sin. 

Businessesmen who dare to go to work each day and build innovative, successful companies must not be allowed to make money, right?  Businesses that do make money for their employees cannot be trusted then.  So the government must take control, to ensure that the "common good" is sufficiently represented in the decisions that are made by such unjust companies.

It's why there was outrage that oil companies dared to make a profit, while gas consumers were forced to pay high gas prices.  It's why there was outrage that Starbucks bought a corporate jet, while announcing lay-offs of granola-eating baristas.  It's why there was outrage that auto CEOs would fly on private jets to Washington, while their companies were involved in financial crisis.  It's why there was outrage that financial firms are re-decorating their offices, while investors are losing money in the stock market. 

Because socialists have convinced the public -- and these amoebic CEOs -- that our wants, even our needs, supercede the rights of others to determine their own destiny.  They. Do. Not.

Where does the road of compromise end for these businesses that accept salary caps for CEOs, ditch their corporate jets, and allow politicians to paint them as immoral and greedy?  Compromising principles leads to surrender.  For oil companies, they can look forward to a government take over, as articulated by Congresswoman Maxine Waters.  For bank CEOs, they can look forward to being replaced by the government's own hand-picked chiefs, as articulated by Terry Moran of ABC News.  For automakers, they will be told by the government which cars they can, and can't, make. 

And Republicans who compromise with socialism...what is their fate?  Terry Moran made this comment to Obama: "I wonder, in coming into the presidency, maybe you were too nice. If I'm a Republican senator or a Republican Congress, I think you're a very nice guy but I don't have enough reason to fear you..."  Fear the President?  Republicans will only fear the President if they give away their rights as men of integrity, in exchange for compromise and pragmatism.  If they stand up for the rights of free individuals and stem the tide of government control that threatens every aspect of our lives, Republicans will not need to fear the President.  Because they will defeat him in the arena of ideas.

But the fight has just begun. 

Socialists have plucked businesses from the tree of liberty, and chosen to excite the public with immoral indignation at the free choices these companies have made.  It's a sign that mob mentality is easily frothed.

Dare to guess who will be the next "sinners" plucked from that tree?  Christians?  SUV drivers?  Global warming deniers?  Radio talk show hosts?  Homeschoolers?  Doctors?  Conservatives?  You?

When the Pied Piper plays his tune -- the rats are eager to dance.  And when Obama plays the tune of socialism -- it is Arlen Specter, Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins who are eager to dance the jig of compulsory moral perversion.

What is moral perversion?  It's the idea that compromising the rights of citizens in order to increase the power of the government is enlightened and imperative.  It's using a crisis to rob American's of their God-given right to liberty.

And moral perversion explains the devastating state of Arlen Specter’s character and honor.  Because they are absent from his person completely.  He is enslaved by the Democrat’s idea of usefulness and compromise.  Having no concept of the interests of free men, he is the lead rat that follows the pied piper out of the city. 

And with any luck, out of the Senate.

Why is compromise morally perverse?  Because the "enlightened" idea of "caution and compromise" advances the political and moral argument leftward, forcing the country to accept the Leftist's premise that the needs of some supersede the rights of others.

In this case, that premise comes in the form of the socialization and nationalization of our economy and our medicine.  That the government has a RIGHT to take from you, and give it to someone else, in the name of the common good.  It's the premise that you MUST work, so others don't have to.

What happened to the three Senators who chose to dance for Obama? 

Without the principles of individual rights and capitalism, the three Republican Senators accepted the premise that the bailout as written was good and necessary.  Needing their dose of importance, they chose to object, not to the sale of our country to socialism, but to the price tag.

The argument of the "Republican Three" allowed the Leftists to take the moral high ground, even though the majority of the public was, and remains, clearly against their bailout plan.  The premise that socialism is the only way out of this crisis became the "moral" and "just" position.

At that point it was only a matter of time before a "compromise" was reached.  Afterall, the Republican Senators only objected to the total cost of the bill.  So the Democrats, smelling a rat and a victory, agreed to a few menial cuts.  A few million dollars were easy to trade for absolute, unconditional surrender to the Leftist's radical changes.  But the poisonous provisions stayed intact.  Because the Republican Senators forfeited the moral imperative that each individual is responsible for himself and accountable to no governmental entity or tyrant.

And if conservatives refuse to maintain their, "stand of moral self-confidence, on clear-cut, consistent principles," as described by Ayn Rand in a speech she gave in 1963, the public will have nowhere to turn.

So, slowly, they will be forced by their government, the media lapdogs and by history books to capitulate to the idea that socialism is our only option.

Beware of where conservatism turns from here.  We must understand that it is incumbent upon us to stand and fight for individual rights.  In fact, it is our moral obligation given our understanding of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, to demand that the government and it's socialists step back from the deep collectivist abyss that we now face.

Conservatives must understand that ideas matter.  Principles are important.  And freedom is vital to our lives.

Conservatives must refuse to play to the tune of appeasing socialism.  Americans, a true majority of them, are counting on us.

The Socialist stimulus bill currently being fine-tuned by Congressional Democrats is a direct affront to your unalienable rights as an American.  When this bill becomes law, it will move America from a country based on individual rights, called democratic individualism, to an America based on majority mob rule, called democratic socialism.

What is the difference?  Obama summed it up in two words, when he was “negotiating” with Republicans about the current stimulus bill: “We Won.”

A politician elected by a majority of the public is not given total power over the government, the country and her citizens.  A President, by his elected status, does not have the power to change our way of life and create his own socialist utopia.  Our President is morally bankrupt when he decides to take unlimited power from the American people.  In this country he is only given limited power, which, no matter how many votes he receives, Constitutionally CANNOT infringe upon your individual rights.

Yet he is.

Because the “we won” mentality doesn’t recognize your individual rights.  The “we won” mentality only recognizes the rights of the majority and their interests, over yours and over your family’s interests.

Socialism/Collectivism only has one weapon that it uses to fight free people: altruism.  As Ayn Rand explained in 1963:  “Altruism claims that man has no right to exist for his own sake and that self-sacrificial service to others is the only moral justification of his existence.”

In other words, you work your entire life for the benefit of others, to make yourself feel better.  Isn’t that why you go to work?  In order to give your paycheck to your neighbor?

Look at the beneficiaries of altruism, who used Obama’s Florida townhall meeting to beg the government for a handout. 

Julio asks for more benefits.  Henrietta wants the government to give her a car, a kitchen and a bathroom.

By asking for help from the federal government these people have given up their individual rights, given up their motivation to take care of themselves and their families.  They would rather that Barack Obama determine how much they will be paid, through unemployment payments, or what kind of house they will live in, through government housing.  They have traded their humanity for the dishonorable life of a parasite.  They have traded the pursuit of their own happiness for the bonds of slavery.

But it is not their freedom or our freedom alone, that we are risking, by accepting the terms of the stimulus package.  When we take something from the government, we are putting our hands in our neighbor's pockets.  Because the government has to take from someone else, to give to us.  Not having the money available to pay for this bailout, the government will be taking from our children.

Julio, by printing more money at the Treasury, and giving it to you, the government is telling your children that they will have to pay for your handout.  You are asking the government to enslave all our children because the government will have to raise their taxes to pay for the deficits you are demanding that we generate today.

What would you call parents who willingly sell their children into slavery?  I call them mad, and evil.  And I refuse to be one of them.

Recently, Conservatives have been asking the question, "What is Obama's end game?"  Where exactly is the Boy-Who-Would-Be-King going with this stimulus?

Obama says that the stimulus is desperately needed...that we may not survive without it.  He says that our economy would collapse if Congress doesn't push the bill through. 

Yet, as free-market capitalists, we all know that our economy will collapse under the weight of the $800+ billion government plan.  There is no way that America's economy can thrive with this pork-infested yolk around our necks. We are the ones who have to pick up the tab.

So what does Barack Obama plan to do when the economy tanks even further?  When private-sector jobs aren't created and when banks and private businesses continue to go under?  What happens when this stimulus bill doesn't work?

Ah, well, there's the rub.  Conservatives are missing the point entirely if they analyze the situation from the premise that this bill won't work...because it will work.  It's designed to work exactly the way Barack Obama wants it to.

The stimulus bill will work to stimulate our ever-growing reliance on socialism.  It will work by further promoting the necessity of the American people to be given our economic portion from the government. No matter the size of our portion or the appetite of our motivation, socialism works for the benefit of the government and not for the satisfaction of the people.

And when we dare to ask for more from our government?  Our fate will mirror that of the starved and orphaned Oliver Twist when he was still hungry after his first bowl of gruel and said, "Please, sir, I want some more."  Be prepared for a fat, well-dressed bureaucrat who looks like Joe Biden and talks like Ted Kennedy to bash you in the head and pronounce that you will "be hung".

Make no mistake, each bank that is taken over, each industry that suckles itself on the government, each CEO who trades his honor to sit at the feet of the Democrats, are part of Obama's plan for change.  Each jobs report that announces more layoffs are received with pleasure by Obama and his band of merry men.  As Rahm Emanuel so openly admitted, "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste. And what I mean by that is an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before."

How else could Nancy Pelosi defend the idea that government subsidies of contraceptives will stimulate the economy?  How else could Obama justify funneling billions of dollars to ACORN, in the hopes of stealing more elections?  How else could Obama justify spending hundreds of millions to help cable-watchers convert their ancient TVs to digital?  So that you rely on the government for your health care needs and your ability to watch TV.

Even the President's tax provisions in the stimulus bill are aimed at forcing you to rely on the government.  Stimulus checks are a bad idea because they divorce the American worker from his or her money unnecessarily.  You pay your taxes in April, and in May, the government turns around and hands you some of the money back.  Why not let us keep the money through a tax rate cut and save everyone the trouble?  Two reasons.  First, Obama wants to decide which non-tax-payer will get the taxes you paid.  And second, Obama wants you to thank the government for getting your own money back.  That way, there isn't any misunderstanding about who runs things in this country.

Government decides where your money should go and how it should be spent.  Government decides which portion you should keep, and whether you are entitled to a second helping.  As Ronald Reagan once said, "What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property?...[The Founding Fathers] knew that governments don't control things. A government can't control the economy without controlling people."

Socialists like Barack Obama and his Chief-of-Staff Rahm Emanuel recognize the opportunity to take control of many things in our lives.  Uncle Sam's become quite a fan of Karl Marx, hasn't he?

Recently on Politico.com, John Feehery, former Director of Communication for House Speaker Denny Hastert and part of the "walking-dead" staff of the Republican Leadership in the House of Representatives, called out Rush Limbaugh for being a Conservative.

Yes, that's right, if you read John's masterfully written little letter to Rush, you'll find not a dose of principled objection in it.  And not an ounce of common sense or a modicum of originality.

John parrot's the Left's disdain for us simple-minded Conservatives. 

So, let's set John straight about a few things:

-- Rush is not the head of the Republican Party.  He is a leader of the Conservative Movement.  We Conservatives have had to distance ourselves from Republicans like you, John, because you are spineless in the face of socialism and brainless in your ability to govern with common sense.  Your party has appeased spenders, elevated appeasers and sunk yourselves into deep centrism.  You went to Washington and allowed the parasite of bureaucracy to eat your party from within.  And that has left you neutered and ineffective...so your brilliant strategy is to attack Conservatives.  (Now I remember why your kind isn't in power any longer!)

-- Rush in no way needs to "restore" the Republican Party to greatness.  That is the job of Republican elected officials.  That was your job in the late '90's and early this century, when our Republican leaders (the men you worked for) chose to spend like drunken sailors and wallow in political degradation.  It's thanks to you and your former bosses that Republicans can't exactly oppose the stimulus spending bill with any credibility.  Let's face it, if you and your kind were still in charge, you'd be passing a similar bill, wouldn't you?

-- If you had the brains of a Conservative, and not a Jackass, you'd realize that vote-buying is not what Conservatives, and should not be what Republicans, are all about.  We do not view the American public as a smorgasbord of ethnic, racial and gender groups, willing to be eaten by the first political wolf who happens along.  Earth to John: WE ARE NOT LIBERALS.  It is liberals who believe that you can buy Hispanic votes with amnesty ( By the way, try asking John McCain how well that works).  It is liberals who believe that women will only vote for a candidate who wears boxers not briefs.  How dare you ask a Conservative to segregate races or the sexes in order to practice groupthink and class envy.

John, if you'd like a plan for the border, here's one:  fence it up so Americans will no longer be harassed, kidnapped, beheaded and killed by rogue Mexican gangs and drug smugglers along the Rio Grande.  John, if you'd like a plan for women, here's one:  convince your fellow bureaucrat friends to get out of our lives, out of our children's lives, out of their education and out of our homes. 

John, if you'd like a plan for blacks, Latinos, women, or any other group you'd like to splice-and-dice, here's one:  follow the Ronald Reagan plan of less government, lower taxes and rugged individualism, which you should have done when you had the power to affect change. 

John, here's some news that politicians like you need to know:  Black people aren't any different than you or I.  And neither are Latinos.  And to think differently is to buy into the Liberal Racialism that pervades the Democrat Party...the idea that we can be divided, conquered and then oppressed by the heavy hand of government.

John:  you, and people like you, had your chance.  Your kind of limp-wristed politician, who too often clogs up the Beltway, destroyed the Republican Party from within, vanquished any goodwill you had with your own voters, nominated a fellow limp-wrister to the top of the ticket, and then proceeded to lose an election to the greenest rookie to ever try his hand at a national election.  Your pitiful track record demands that you go sit in the corner and take a time-out 

And one more premise of John's that I need to correct:  The Conservatives don't want to move the Republican Party or the American people to the "Right".  We ARE the American people.  We make this country work.  We raise our families and provide for each ensuing generation. 

And we want to be represented by men and women like Rush Limbaugh.  Because we are sick and tired of boys like you rolling over and begging for table scraps from liberals, socialists and worse. And we are tired of being represented by losers, who are constantly being out-maneuvered and out-played by dyed-in-the-wool socialists.

Men like Rush Limbaugh don't roll over, they aren't losers, and they don't beg for table scraps.  Certain parts of their anatomy won't allow them to do that.  It's what Reagan called living lives that are a statement, and not an apology.

But, John, silly boys like you wouldn't understand.  You are the same kind of staff infection who ridiculed Sarah Palin.  You are the same kind of staff infection that ruins perfectly good Governing Majorities, and then blames Conservatives.  Luckily, Rush Limbaugh and the hundreds of millions of Conservatives in this country are just what the doctor ordered to cure the Republican Party of it's staff infection.  It's time for some "Rush Penicillin".  It's time to put on our scrubs and prepare for some precision surgery in the Republican Party.   Starting with John Feehery.

Zzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

That is the sound of America falling asleep during President B. Hussein Obama's recent press conference. 

And I was so intent to listen and analyze it.  But I found myself cutting my fingernails, flossing and making funny faces in the mirror...in an effort to stay awake and stay entertained.

Yah, flossing was actually more interesting than Obama droning on about mid-level talks with Iran, whether I should spend or save my tax cut, and the illegibility of doctors' handwriting (ie, the reason why we should roll over and accept government-monitored, socialized medicine.  Huh?).

But there was one interesting point out of the 3,600 second press conference.  Drum roll, please.  Low and behold, in just three short weeks of Obama's reign...Iraq is a thriving and successful democracy. 

Four weeks ago, Iraq was a hot-bed of terrorism, bombings and oppression.  The politicians in Iraq had no viable strategy to keep and maintain their fragile democracy.  Our soldiers were failures and our generals were liars and traitors.  Four weeks ago, Iraq was a quagmire...just like Vietnam.

But as soon as Obama became President, he sent some envoys and some bureaucrats over to Iraq.  And they have done a marvelous job. 

Barack Obama has said so himself.  Iraq is now apparently a successful democracy. 

Well, gee, thank you Barack Obama.  The Army, the Air Force, the Marines and the Navy, not to mention the Iraqi Army and Police Force, just couldn't have done it without you. 

Mission Accomplished?!?

Great pivotal moments arise in our country, not out of hatred or fear, but out of determination.  When those of us who believe that freedom and liberty are more important than comfort and peace, we are determined to stand up.  We are determined to choose, not the easiest course, but the only course for a free people.

Just as Ronald Reagan believed that the ‘60s and ‘70s were key to the survival of the American Republic, so too are the next few years.  We are quickly approaching our time for choosing.

In his Liberal playbook Rules for Radicals, Saul Alinsky wrote that between the “Haves” and the “Have-Nots”, are the “Have a Little, Want Mores”.  These people make up the middle class, he said, and they are schizophrenic: “Torn between upholding the status quo to protect the little they have, yet wanting change so they can get more, they become split personalities.”

Alinsky describes this American middle class as being inert.  Afraid to move, afraid to rock the boat, afraid of drastic change and revolution.  And from that fear comes the willingness of the middle class to go along with change when it appears inevitable and easy.

This becomes our choice.  To allow radical changes to take place within our borders under the threat of crisis.  Or to remember the faith that our Founding Fathers had in us, and to keep that faith.

Barack Obama and the socialists within the Democrat party are no longer relying on the pretense that you and I, given a chance to be free from government interference, can resuscitate the American economy.  These socialists do not believe in us and our talents and our dreams.  They believe in themselves, and the exercise of their power through their constricting governmental monopoly.

During his weekly radio address, Obama demanded action on his multi-billion dollar stimulus bill saying, “Americans across this country are struggling, and they are watching to see if we're equal to the task before us. Let's show them that we are. And let's do whatever it takes to keep the promise of America alive in our time.”

The promise of America does not reside in Barack Obama.  Nor does it reside in Congress or a government program.  America’s promise is not that government will ensure that your salary will match your neighbors, or that you will own as many cars as your friends.  No government grant or welfare program can keep the promise of America.

That promise resides in you and me, and in our freedom.  It is our pursuit of our own happiness, without the interference of the government, that gauges the health of the American promise. 

And our Founding Fathers placed that promise in our hands, not in Barack Obama’s hands, when John Quincy Adams said, “Posterity -- you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.”

From hundreds of years ago come the voices of men who pledged their lives, their wealth and their sacred honor so that we would be free.  So that when our generations were faced with a choice…that we would choose liberty. 

Those voices warn us of the road we are choosing to travel: “I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them.”  Thomas Jefferson understood the siren’s song of comfort that socialists use to coddle free people into an obliging acceptance.

Contrast Obama’s call to his fellow bureaucrats for “help” -- in the way of more spending, more government, more transfer of wealth from you to your neighbor -- with the wisdom of James Madison: “There are more instances of the abridgment of the freedom of the people by the gradual and silent encroachment of those in power, than by violent and sudden usurpation.”

These men lived under tyranny and understood injustice.  Yet they were determined to be free, and so they chose to resist the bonds of government. 

Barack Obama made his choice when he decided that government programs, the rights of terrorists and the redistribution of wealth are more important than your freedom and your rights. 

America is reaching a pivotal point when our time to choose will come.  Let us be determined to preserve the gift of freedom.  Let us be determined to resist the march to socialism, and not to be the inert middle class.  Let us choose to take control of our own lives and our own destiny, and to never trade a handout from the government for the safety of our liberty.

Like what you read?  Check out more at: http://www.ConservaTease.com 

The difference between hopes and goals are enormously huge, and play a large role in the schism between Americans versus people who voted for Barack Obama.

Barack Obama offered his followers a warm, squishy feeling when he offered them "hope".  But there is a very real reason why he offered America the inspiration for a feeling, and not inspiration toward action. 

Hopes take away the need for action from you.  You wait for change.  You hope for change.  Like a lamb hopes not to be slaughtered.

Passivity and acceptance are key to the success of an Obama Administration, because they are the keys to a peaceful transition to socialism.  The people must be passive, if the government is to take action.  And this becomes a transition from your freedom to act and pursue your happiness, to the government's power to act against you and to pursue you.  

Yet every American who has made this country work, since the days of General George Washington, has had goals.  Washington did not hope that the British Army got back into their ships and left our land.  And he did not hope that the Congress would send him the right battle plan or enough money to clothe and feed his troops.  He made it his goal to ensure that the British were defeated, that his troops were victorious and that America was free from tyranny.  And then he did it. 

Goals mean a list of objectives and a plan of action.  Goals mean a small business man can wake up in the morning, knowing that he has the tools to make his business a success that day.  Goals mean a homeschooling mom, like me, can ensure that my children receive the best education.  And that they don't eventually become "hopers", but instead "doers".

The hordes of Barack Obama followers are passengers on this journey, hoping that their ride on the Obama Express is a pleasant one.  It is a truly selfish choice to make.  Because they have decided our fate.  In this eocnomic turmoil.  In this dangerous world.  The "hopers" have decided that we should all sit back and wait for Obama to provide us with success, and a better economy, and a safer world. 

They miss the uniqueness of this country's success and vitality, when the "hopers" wait for change.  Free markets are only successful when the American people act.  Not when the government commands.

So conservatives have a patriotic duty to continue to make their lives a success.  To work hard and be vigilant, despite President Obama's attempt to silence our vigilance. 

Conservatives like us, and like Rush Limbaugh and Mark Levin, don't hope that the President and his plunge toward socialism will fail.  He will do that on his own, because his ideas don't work.  It's our goal to point out those failures, and to put the country back together when they do.  Like Ronald Reagan did after the utter and contemptible failure of Jimmy Carter.

That's patriotic.  That's the exercise of our freedom and our right to dissent.  Now that, is change we can believe in. 

Like what you read?  Check out my blog at http://www.ConservaTease.com