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?

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?

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 

I have long called Barack Hussein Obama a socialist.  I have also called him a fascist, a liberal, a communist and a Nazi.  Like most egotistical leaders, he has chosen to take a little bit of "what works" from each of these ideologies.

It has become increasingly clear in the last few days that the pitting of racial groups against each other to keep and maintain power will be the calling card of the Obama Administration.  A mix of fascism and socialism, peppered with a liberal dose of racism.  It makes for a very "hopeful" serving of what I call RACIALISM.

There is another charismatic leader I can think of, who used a mixture of socialism and racism to attain his dreams for his country.  Adolf Hitler used Nazism to take control of the German economy, create an all-powerful domestic militia and wreak havoc on the race he saw as "guilty" of bringing his country to it's knees.

Now, I won't say that Obama is Hitler, or that in three months America will look like Nazi Germany.  However, there are certainly some interesting parallels to be drawn.

In the years after World War I, Germany was in extreme turmoil.  Shame and disgust, publicly and internationally admitted by the German government, made their people hang their heads.  Their spirit was broken, and their situation felt hopeless. 

Fast forward to today:  We've been battered and bruised and beaten over the head with the "shame" stick for daring to defend ourselves and the world from terrorists.  Liberals have taken every opportunity to make Americans feel shameful of our country and hopelessness in our ability to fight and win a war against evil aggressors.  This is why Obama's message of "hope" seems to be so desperately swallowed, even by some conservatives and Rush Limbaugh listeners.

After World War I, the German economy was almost non-existent.  German citizens were forced to pay other nations for the suffering caused by the war.  And they paid alright.  Through massive taxes, that starved and destroyed their economy, their culture and their people.

Fast Forward to today:  We are constantly told that we are not "doing our part".  We give trillions of dollars to foreign countries for food and medical programs.  We fight wars for their independence.  And yet we are told that we must be more "patriotic" and pay an ever-higher tax rate.  Each of us, but especially those of us who have been successful in achieving the American Dream, will be asked to give that up, pay higher taxes and facilitate the transfer of wealth from one group or race to another, both domestically and internationally.  As evidenced in his Inauguration Address, Obama has said, "And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it."

For decades before World War I, many Germans came to feel that they were of a special, superior race of people, destined for great things.  These Aryans provided the backbone to the racism/anti-semitism that pervaded Germany in the years leading up to World War II.  And Hitler used racial groups to create victims, create "oppressors" and thus create a group of guaranteed followers, beholden to Hitler for their livelihood and the resurrection of the State.

Fast Forward to Today:  Obama's political playbook is filled with one promise after another to each race and group of democrat voters.  Taking from one group to give to another has long been the key to Democrats holding power.  The Inaugural Benediction layed out the strategy well, that "brown would stick around,” that the “yellow would be mellow,” that the “red man would get ahead, man,” and that the “white would embrace the right.”  Pile on the white guy, who will never do what's right, because as for now, the white guy is in the majority.  And every good racialist needs a race to scapegoat.

And as for the idea of a superior race?  How about superior ideology, because it is very clearly a liberal's idea of their own position in the world.  For, as Helen Thomas recently stated, "I'm a liberal, I was born a liberal, I'll be one 'til I die, what else should a reporter be when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth?"  So, once you see the "truth", there's just no other option, but to be a liberal.  What else can you expect from one with such great privilege?  The rest of us out here, we're slobbering fools waiting for the table scraps of truth that Helen tosses our way.  And of conservatives?  She says, "You're not asking people not to think not to care are you?"  Superior ideology...no, I'm sure that never crossed Helen's mind!

Out of the desperation of the economic turmoil and international humiliation, Hitler rose to prominence.  Creating a force for change, using his charismatic speaking style and the perennially-hated Jews as a scapegoat, Hitler organized his party's followers.  His iconic stature and passionate prose that captivated throngs with his visions of what Germany could become.  Hitler became the embodiment of the rebuilding of Germany and the dreams of her citizens. 

Fast Forward to Today:  Barack Obama and his liberal action network have been pushed to the forefront of American politics.  Many times through the theft of elections (see:  Minnesota Senate Race), and often times through community organization, Obama has inculcated millions of followers with socialist propaganda, promising to take care of the needs of the "working class" and "hard working families".  Visions of Barack's color-blocked face dance everywhere, through sports telelcasts and even at your local library.  And as for a scapegoat, well there are lots of those to be found in Obama's New America:  the rich, the successful, the faithful, the conservative, the Christian...oh, and white men...let's not leave them out.  As Robert Reich so fanatically pointed out when talking about the distribution of Obama's economic "stimulus" plan, "I am concerned, as I’m sure many of you are, that these jobs not simply go to high-skilled people who are already professionals or to white male construction workers."

In Hitler's Germany, the youth were educated with lies about history.  Newspapers printed the propaganda of the Nazis without question and without fail, eagerly anticipating the dream of a rebuilt and powerful Germany, one they wanted to be a part of.

Fast forward to today:  Songs and marches about Obama, performed by young kids, fill the YouTube airwaves.  Even elementary children have been told that Obama's Inauguration is the most important day in their lives.  And as for the media?  They are responsible for the rise of Obama and his brand of racialism.  They felt their legs tingle when he spoke.  They ignored Obama's past and refused to ask questions about his policy proposals.  And it's a good thing they aren't interested in asking tough questions, as most recently it was reported by Politico that Obama has refused to answer a question from the media about his latest staff selection of a defense industry lobbyist. 

And while the world was supposed to be rejoicing and coming together to celebrate Obama's Inauguration, the media even enjoyed an up-yours moment.  "Take this. You know?" was Tom Brokaw's professional comment to "bigots and rednecks" upon the Inauculation of Obama.  (Why are rednecks automatically associated with bigots?  We all know who rednecks are.  According to the left, they are white, religious, conservative families who watch racing and talk with a southern accent...but that doesn't make them bigots!  There goes that superior ideology complex creeping up again.)

The parallels between Nazism and Obama's Racialism are stark, and many.  It remains to be seen whether Obama's policies, such as the new domestic militia he plans to construct, will resemble the Brownshirts of Hitler's creation.  But one thing is for sure, some Americans have accepted the premise that their lives and America's renewal lie in the person that is Barack Hussein Obama.  We no longer work towards our shining city on a hill...we must put away our childish ideals and work for Obama's vision of the world as it should be.  For it is Obama's vision and Obama's party of racialism that is now in control.  In the words of Adolf Hitler, "the Party has now become the State."

Socialists are always full of contradictions, and no more so than when they are full of pomp and circumstance...eagerly sculpting their own "history" out of the country's foundation.

Barack Hussein Obama's Inauguration was the rule today, and not the exception.  His crown of thorns sitting firmly on his head, the political messiah tried hard to wrap himself in premature martyrdom, inflated crisis and a new-found war on terrorism.  And at the same time, Obama used all the floral and fauna in the English language to deliver the message that he, himself, is the Light and the way to salvation and hope.

According to Obama, principles cannot save us.  The Constitution cannot save us.  Free markets and capitalism cannot save us.  Only one man, with a plan to change our system of government, can save us from the, "nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights."

And what is the "price of citizenship"?  What must we sacrifice on the alter of socialism to be saved?  Well for one, Obama asks us to give up our ideals, saying that we suffer from, "worn out dogmas, that for far too long have strangled our politics".  Dogma is another word for principles, ideals, the things you believe in.  Give them up, because those are things that will stop Obama's success.

And what do we do when we have left behind the things we cherish and believe in?  According to Obama, the goal is, "Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America."  With nationalization of industry and "spreading the wealth", Obama will remake America in the image of Karl Marx's socialism.

To those of us who do question his plans, and who refuse to give up our ideals and set aside our conscience, Obama acknowledges our worst fears: "Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions - who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans."  He is correct in the articulation of our fears.  We know that our economic system cannot tolerate Obama's plans.  But it is not the size of the plans, but the scope. 

From his own lips, Obama declares that scope to be vast and far-reaching, "The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works - whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified."  A government so large, that it can take care of your every need.  Juxtaposed with Thomas Jefferson, it is a stark reminder that Obama is asking us to forget our nation's founding principles.  For as Jefferson so rightly said, "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."

As for the free markets, Obama is quick to relegate it to the ash heap of rewritten history, by arguing for government interference...that it is only through Obama's own control of the markets that we will find prosperity and opportunity.  Obama concludes that he will use the markets to take us down the road to a "common good", a term used frequently by socialists, communists, fascists and liberals to twist the engine of a nation's economy to their own purpose.  

As for our military, Obama cherry-picked the events that led to our nation's birth, to satisfy his own quest for "peace" at any cost.  "As for our common defense, we reject as false the choice between our safety and our ideals. Our Founding Fathers, faced with perils we can scarcely imagine, drafted a charter to assure the rule of law and the rights of man, a charter expanded by the blood of generations."  But Obama has ignored the very thing that gave us a nation, that gave us a home and that gave us the opportunity to preserve peace and prosperity. 

And that was war. 

The Founding Fathers did indeed draft charters.  But that alone did not give birth to our great nation.  They waged bloody battle to give rise to our Independence, our safety and our eventual peace. 

As for Obama's foreign policy, it is safe to assume that what we have happily and willingly given to the world is not enough.  We will surely be forced to give more: "And to those nations like ours that enjoy relative plenty, we say we can no longer afford indifference to suffering outside our borders; nor can we consume the world's resources without regard to effect. For the world has changed, and we must change with it."

To accuse indifference, and lecture apathy, where there is none, is heartless.  America is the most charitable, most giving nation that the world has ever seen.  From our early beginnings, we have struggled to share opportunity, freedom and peace with the world.    We have given billions of dollars to the world, so that their hospitals and schools and libraries could be built.  We have given food and medicine to impoverished countries, so that people would not starve.  We have sacrificed the lives of our young men, so that the world would be free. 

And yet, among those nations that Obama would have us help, Iraq appears not to be on that list.  He promised today that we will leave Iraq, no matter the outcome that abandonment will induce.  Because Obama's sympathy for the world is not truly about charity to other nations, but about your "responsibility" to give up the pursuit of your happiness, for the betterment of the world around you.  It's about the demand he makes on you, to give up your comfort, give up your dreams...and replace them with his.

For, as he so boldly stated, "This is the price and the promise of citizenship".  It is true that freedom is not free.  And neither is Obama's plans for America.  Are you willing to pay the price?

Since Election Night, there has been immense pressure foisted onto the shoulders of conservatives.  Republicans have blamed conservatives for their election losses.  Democrats have blamed conservatives for not being "patriotic" by joining in the throngs of devout followers and the $170 million ascension to the throne that takes place tomorrow.  The media continues to blame conservatives for everything under the sun, from the Bush presidency to the "divisive" nature of American politics.

And now, conservatives are blaming other conservatives for not "wishing Obama well" and for not "hoping" that Obama is successful.  I am not sure what we are supposed to hope Obama achieves.  Should we be hoping for a premature departure from Iraq?  Should we be hoping for another multi-trillion dollar bailout?  Maybe we should be hoping for universal health care.  Or maybe we should be praying for the nationalization of the auto industry.  Ooooo!  I know, I think tomorrow I should hope for the murder of babies who's mothers have decided that they are "unwanted".  I can "hope" that these aborted-yet-born-alive babies are left to suffocate in a bassinet in the hallway of some hospital somewhere.

Is that really what the world wants conservatives to hope for?  If so, let them hold their breath.  Conservatives who believe in, and adhere to, their principles will hardly be chanting "yes we can".

But maybe, during the course of the next four years, we should take a cue from liberals.  Perhaps we should model our behavior on theirs.

When President Bush asked a nation to pray and come together, after the 9-11 attacks, Democrats accused the President of reading to children while the Towers and the Pentagon burned.  Was that giving President Bush the benefit of the doubt?

When President Bush asked for cooperation and secrecy from media outlets in regard to the federal financial terrorist tracking program, the New York Times plastered the details on their front page...warning the terrorists and allowing them to protect their assets.  Did the media hope for the success of the country, much less the President?

When Bush stumbled over words, every liberal to be found called the President dumb, stupid and ignorant, no matter how inarticulate those liberals were themselves.  Was that giving Bush the benefit of the doubt?

When the country was at the height of the War On Terrorism, fighting Islamo-fascists abroad, Hollywood produced a constant stream of movies depicting American soldiers as evil, naive and stupid.  John Kerry "hoped" for an education for all young Americans, so that they wouldn't get stuck in Iraq, and Harry Reid announced that we lost the war.  Were those well wishes for America?  Or maybe that was patriotism on display?

When the President was in the midst of overseeing the Wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, there were movies and books created, depicting and relishing the assassination of President Bush.  Is that a liberal's idea of wanting Bush to succeed?

Everything that has ever gone wrong in this universe, liberals have blamed on Bush.  From Hurricane Katrina to climate change to a rise in unhappy marriages...there is nothing that liberals and their media pups haven't blamed on the President.  Maybe conservatives should give Obama the same treatment that he and others continue to give to Bush.

The economic crisis...tomorrow at noon...if a miracle hasn't occurred, and we are still in a spiraling economy, it's Obama's fault.  Global warming...if he can't change the course of climate change...he will be blamed for every hurricane, fire and flood.  And if he can't get rid of those "uhs" and "ummmmms" that pervade his every sentence...we will call him out as an inarticulate idiot.

If I can't pay more mortgage, have patience with my children or lose those final fifteen pounds...it's clearly Obama's fault.

There is only one catch to this strategy...the media.  I have heard the question asked on many talk radio shows, "What will happen when Obama's followers become disillusioned with him, and realize that he can't deliver on most of the things he promised?"  The answer is simple...we will never know.

You won't be told that his policies aren't working.  Tropical depressions will never become hurricanes.  Global warming will see a turn-around, and human kind will be saved.  Events will be spun and transcripts will be scrubbed.  As miserable as your life may become (with increased taxes, sky-high oil prices, a one year wait to see a doctor and a continuing decline in your child's education)...you'll be told that America is a better, fairer and more equitable place...so you should be happy.  H-A-P-P-Y.  Happy.

It will take work to find the truth about the state of the union during an Obama Administration.  The media is invested in his success because they are invested in his brand of governance.  The media believes in government control, as long as they help to control it, and so they will. 

There will be very little talk of failure, no matter what happens.  Because like the auto industry and the banking industry and mortgage lenders...Obama is too BIG to fail.

Plucked from the obscurity of a win-less election cycle, a bunch of Republican opine-ers were recently chosen to dine with the President-elect.

These Republicans, who sometimes consider themselves conservative, were charmed and enchanted by the prowess that is Barack Obama.  Like lifeless bodies floating in the sea of Obama-charisma, they popped up to the surface to tell the tale of how honored they were to be in the PEOTUS's presence.

When asked to describe his experience with Obama, CNBC's token Republican Larry Kudlow explained his first impression of the man: "He is charming, he is terribly smart, bright, well-informed, he has a great sense of humor."

Gushing further, Kudlow said that, "Interesting thing. This is just generally speaking, he is so well-informed, and he loves to deal with both sides of an issue, and I'm not going to divulge what was said there and I'm not going to go into any of the specifics, but he enjoys the back and forth, and he is not, you know, tough, mean, insulting, snarling, none of that stuff, and we weren't either."

Well, that paints just the picture we are looking for.  They didn't snarl at each other...they cuddled up with each other.  There was some wining, some dining, perhaps some petting.  Look out Barack...I think Larry wants an invitation to the Lincoln Bedroom.  And he may be jealous if he isn't your first...visitor to the White House, that is.

Washington hasn’t seen a love affair like this since Paul Begala’s crush on Slick Willie.  (If only Adolf Hitler had wined and dined FDR, maybe they could have just skipped that silly little war and gone straight to some very engaging discussion, over foie gras, about their mutual dislike of Stalin and what to do with all those pesky Jews who kept running amok.)

So that's what it takes to beat us?  It takes one dinner, one hand shake, one pretty face to win over conservatives and put an end to thoughtful opposition?

Giddy as a school boy, Kudlow finishes his rehash of the Breaking of the Bread with the Anointed One Obama by saying, "This was a good conservative group and we just had a great back and forth, and he wants to keep the dialogue going with conservatives. I would say I am honored to be at that dinner. I was honored to meet him. He is a very impressive man, and I wish him all the luck in the world because we've got some issues to deal with."

Well of course he wants to keep the dialogue going with you, you idiot!  The longer you flap your jaws, the longer he has to fiddle while Rome burns.

I am so worn out by these feckless followers of the doctrine of "The More We Get Together, the Happier We'll Be".  That may work for Kindergartners, but it doesn't work when you are trying to stave off the murder of Capitalism and the snarling liberal dogs at the gates.

With only a few days to go before Obama's coronation, the drive-by media has been engorged with the praises and talents of Obama's Cabinet Nominations. 

And, oh (feign surprise) Republicans in the Senate have been just as accommodating to the nominees and their records of "service".  Republicans can't seem to say enough about how wonderful Obama is, and how well-qualified his army of fascists are.  His army will be the best, the brightest, and the most accomplished in the history of Presidential Cabinets...but accomplished in what?

Notwithstanding the bloated Republican Senators and their lifeless party, the audacity of Barack's nominations are breath-taking.

Attorney General, Eric Holder -- Who should Barack choose to uphold the law of the land and fight for justice in the name of the American people?  Why, a man who made his name pardoning terrorists, of course! 

Eric Holder is the man who helped Bill Clinton pardon unrepentant FALN terrorists who killed New York City Police Officers and bombed more than 100 sites; the man who helped Clinton pardon Marc Rich, who made millions by doing business with Iran, while Iran held Americans hostage; the man who purposefully hid these pardons from the Justice Department, US Attorneys and the victims' families.  Read this excellent submitted testimony by Debra Burlingame, sister of one of the American Airlines pilots murdered on 9-11, for more shocking details.

Treasury Secretary, Timothy Geithner -- Who should head up the Treasury Department and oversee the IRS during this time of economic instability?  Why, a tax-evader, of course!

A few years ago, it has been discovered, Geithner decided he wasn't going to pay his "fair share" of taxes to the IRS.  He signed a paper from his employer, the IMF, stating that he knew he would have to file his own taxes on the salary he received.  He also took the $34,000 for owed-taxes from the IMF, that should have gone to the IRS, and then refused to hand it over to Uncle Sam.  Geithner's explanation is that it was all a little tiny mistake.  So, it's a good thing that we are puting trillions of dollars into the hands of a man who couldn't figure out what it would take me 90 seconds to figure out using Turbo Tax...right?  The truth is, he isn't even smart enough to get away with tax evasion.

Now, I'm sure we'd all love to refuse to pay our taxes...especially in this economy.  But I seem to remember a pompous, bald, deleterious sort of man wagging his finger at us and telling all of us that it's "patriotic" to pay our taxes and that we all have to do our fair share.  Could it be that Joe Biden finds Geithner unpatriotic?  No.  Of course not.  Because when Geithner gives the finger to the IRS...he wins an appointment to oversee it.  When you or I give the finger to the IRS...we win an appointment to oversee an audit and a jail cell.  Read this article, if you feel like retching after you learn about the "loyal opposition" Republicans who just can't wait to affirm his nomination.

CIA Director, Leon Panetta -- Who should run Obama's Intelligence Agency...perhaps the most important post in Obama's Cabinet during a time of war?  Who among us should be chosen to be ever-vigilant with foresight and experience with the risks to our national security?  Why, someone with no experience and no interest in American strength, now that the Soviet Union is gone, of course!

Leon Panetta is a staffer.  He worked hard in his little office, during the Clinton years, to be sure that i's were dotted and t's were crossed on every Presidential budget.  But there must be more to his resume.  It's got to be here somewhere...that intelligence experience that is so critical at this juncture in our fight against Islamo-terrorists.  Hmmm...not on the Board of Directors for Bread for the World.  Maybe it's here...no...not as an "ocean reformer" and advocate for the Monterrey Bay Aquarium.  Did he get his intelligence experience from all those years preventing oil drilling off the coast of California?  No.  Oh, I know...here it is...here is his intelligence experience...he was once a Second Lieutenant in the Army, for two years, back in the 60's.  Oh, and he is a professor who sat on the Iraq Study Group, which wrote pages upon pages of recommendations and facts about the Iraq War.  And I'm sure that having yet another group of past-their-prime politicians littering the streets with their informed opinions about the war was very helpful to the President and to the Military Community.

And what does Panetta think about our defense budget, and the importance of maintaining strength in our defenses, so that we may enjoy peace?  In an interview with the Institute of International Studies at UC Berkeley in May 2000, he talked about his views and his attitude during budget talks with Republicans in the mid-1990s, "Wait a minute, we don't need the kind of defense expenditures that you're talking about. We can find some savings in this area. It is not going to jeopardize our national security."

Oh, I don't know Leon...after two holes in Manhattan, a burned out Pentagon, a listing USS Cole, wreckage in a field in Pennsylvania, two bombed-out embassies in Africa and thousands of dead Americans...I'd say that our national security was actually jeopardized during your stay at the White House.  And we are still struggling to recover from the gutting of the CIA and Pentagon that you helped oversee.

Commerce Secretary, Bill Richardson -- Who should run Obama's Commerce Department?  Who should be given the power to dole out millions of dollars to US businesses to help boost their "bottom line"?  Why, the man who took $100,000 in political contributions from a company, in exchange for sending them $1.5 million in government contracts, of course! 

Just because Bill Richardson used New Mexico's commerce department to funnel taxpayer dollars to some of his crony friends in "big business" doesn't mean that he would do the same if given the chance to serve in Washington, right?  Well, I guess we will never know, since Richardson withdrew his name from the nomination process.  Read more about Richardson and his Blago-like money games.

And then there was Hillary.  Look, I could write 15 posts about the reasons why she shouldn't become our Secretary of State, not the least of which is the fact that she peddled her influence as a Senator to enrich her own finances and help Bill out with some of his overseas lobbying activities.  But everyone knows the story of the Clintons.  They are as corrupt as the day is long...and the day just doesn't seem to want to end.

So...there is your Cabinet America.  The men and women who are anxious to line their own pockets and let the terrorists have free reign at home and abroad.

And just like the first bailout bill...we are told that it is imperative that these nominees receive fair and expedited treatment.  We are told that Obama's ascension must be quick, painless and absolutely, positively without objection from our side.

So everyone in Washington is running around like chickens without their heads, desperate to seem relevant, desperate to feel useful and desperate to put their rubber stamp on the foreheads of these nominees.

Are they the Knights of the Round Table, gallant and brave?  No.  Are they the Members of the Continental Congress, wise and conscientious?  No.  They are part of a freak show that has just arrived in DC.  Step right up, folks, and see the unnatural and the bizarre...criminals to run our justice department, tax-evaders to run the IRS and Treasury Department, a staffer to run our Intelligence operation and the boy who would be king, to sit in the Oval Office.

Like what you read? Read more at http://www.conservatease.com.