While I might say, "I can't believe it," I completely do. It is not surprising to me that President Obama's White House is asking for Americans to inform on Americans. It is not surprising that his administration is interested in shutting down democratic dissent over his power grab policies. It is nothing new for the Democratic party to resort to name-calling and ad homonym attacks. Unfounded or simplistic slogans and demagoguery have been staples of the Democratic party since it sponsored slavery and segregation.

What really leaves me incredulous, however, is the appearance that many are so slow to realize the dangerous shift that happened when Barack Obama gained the White House. It baffled me that so many were so willingly blind to the fact that this man had nothing to recommend him outside of absurd boasts and a radical, government-funded, well organized grass-roots network. I don't doubt for a minute that the election would have been far closer if not for voter fraud that undoubtedly occurred and always favors the Democratic candidate. We in Minnesota know first hand how corrupt election officials and counties can skew results in favor of their candidate without batting an eye.

The playbook for the Democrats this time is no different than when President Clinton took office. Most may remember HillaryCare which went down in flames for the same reasons I hope ObamaCare will go down. These respective plans have nothing to do with the poor, downtrodden folks without healthcare. Rather, they are an effort to align power in a National Government steeped in Socialist principles.

In light of that fact, it does and it doesn't surprise me that Nancy Pelosi tried to say that opponents to the Healthcare take-over were carrying swastikas. It is absurd that one would compare free citizenry protesting a National Government power-grab with Nazis, but yet it makes sense, too. Psychologists call this projection. When someone is guilty of something, like say, having neighbors inform on other neighbors to create an enemy list or turning government's power against political opponents in ads that single out Conservatives by naming them as threats to the Homeland, he or she must project that obvious behavior on others.

The American people should take special notice of Obama and his cronies. The American people should remember the plans brought forward and the party that has tried to advance them. No one should think that they will benefit from these absurd government promises. The promises are nothing more than candy offered by a child molester: there is no real treat waiting for those who choose to accept it. 

The Obama Administration has done the absolute best job of living up to my expectations. Unlike the more charitable folks I hear on the radio and read in the press, I was not so willing to discount all the evidence of his radical upbringing to even entertain the thought that he would, as they liked to hope, govern from the center. He wouldn't and he isn't.

President Obama is following lock-step with the radical agenda that he had wanted all along: use the fear, crisis and turmoil to gin up enough confusion to expand a large, central government control on the country. While President Bush took the battle to the folks who wanted to do our country harm, Obama has become the enemy from within, turning his guns away from the terrorists and bad men and focusing the country he swore to serve.

The latest example, of course, is the decision to allow the former administration to be prosecuted regarding the enhanced interogation techniques. The Statist Left (also known as the Democrats) have given in-person apologies to the world for our strong stand against tyranny and our President just high-fived and brother-hand-gripped Hugo Chavez, a brutal dictator (who seems to be writing Obama's playbook for the years ahead). With the release of our supposed 'torture' memos, we've alerted our very real enemies that we do less than slap detainees. Where they chop off heads and desecrate bodies of the lucky ones they capture, we engage in psychological techniques like playing pop Christmas albums, books on tape, leave them in rooms with a catepillar, keep them awake for long periods of time (kind of like a college cram session, I'd say) or, in the most agregious cases (3) make them think they're drowning. Please note, pain is never an option. Unlike Jack Bauer of 24, we don't bust fingers off one by one, shoot detainees through the leg and then point the gun at the other knee-cap or even pretend to kill a person's family starting with the youngest. Also, our techniques are video-taped, documented, and reviewed to make sure they are not too harsh.

The only reason the enemy video-tapes the beheadings is to further their terrorist agenda and weaken our nation's resolve. Well, they can say mission accomplished. Our country, by hook or by crook, has elected a man who is unwilling or unable to stand up for one of the greatest countries of all time. He points the finger at our country, much like the pastor who was his 'spiritual mentor.' And in the process, he's shown our cards to the enemy.

Now we will live with two grave results, which are not even inclusive of the notion of criminalizing former administrations over interpretations of the law. What we have done is to let terrorists know that we will treat them better than our own citizens get treated in the average office cublicle culture (which is rife with psychological discomfort and pressure games). We've put them on notice that we might simply ask them what they intend to do to us, but then settle for offering them tea and crumpets if they won't tell. Second, we've put those charged with keeping us safe, the intelligence community and various law enforcement personnel on notice that if they do what they need to do to get vital information to protect innocent civilians, they might just get their jobs and/or livelihood handed to them for the trouble.

President Obama is Jimmy Carter 2.0. He's weak or deluded on foreign policy and national defense. He's either a central planner in denial of the obvious effects on any economy or he's devious and simply wants to grab more power for himself like a despot leader. He's indifferent to the country that has treated him well enough to elect him President. I'm not sure what is the greatest flaw in the whole mess that we have before us. My prayer is that, despite Obama's machinations with the economy, the natural industry of the American people will override the destruction he's heaping on us. We've done it before, we can do it again.

According to the EPA, carbon dioxide is now a pollutant. I'm waiting for the agricultural society to sue on this one since plants everywhere will be starved if the EPA succeeds in regulating their food supply. Seriously, though, this has been coming. It is one of those things that slips by unnoticed by the populace at large.

For many, the goofy halogen light bulbs seemed to be a lower energy bulb that would just last longer, another product in a country of choices. Most don't know that the prices didn't magically come down on those bulbs, but rather were subsidized by our tax dollars to create the illusion that they're cost effective. Many don't know those bulbs need to be disposed of by a HAZMAT team. Many believe global warming is occurring, and that all these little things we can do to 'go green' will prevent some catastrophe from happening in the future. Most people don't get bogged down by asking themselves the obvious question of why the winters seem colder lately, or why the seasons continue year after year with no dramatic change. They don't stop to think why folks who are unable to give a reliable 7-day forecast think they'll be better at 100 or 1,000 year forecasts. They simply accept what the men in the white coats (for they certainly are not scientists) tell them is happening.

So, while people slumber to the noise on TV, radio and the millions of sources of propaganda and entertainment sources, a silent coup has been stealing ground. In the same manner that we surrendered our religious freedom in our public life and let the ludicrous idea that if someone is uncomfortable with the Ten Commandments they must be unconstitutional, we've allowed ourselves to be brainwashed with the implausible notion that we're going to heat up the planet and extinct ourselves. Just the idea of that is so silly. It would be akin to strangling yourself. If, indeed, we could heat up the planet by the number of people using cars, as they died, there would be less of the greenhouse gasses and the temperature would logically decline, right? I can speculate on this since, to enter the Global Warming debate you don't need a degree of any kind. Of course, I'm not truly allowed into the debate since, for one, it is over, according to Al Gore, and two, I have something the Global Warming advocates hate: common sense.

With society so fully accepting of the ideas of a future catastrophe that we can neither detect or predict through any semblance of real, observable science, those who drive this movement of power have declared that our exhale is bad and must be regulated. Let's just think for a moment how that might be regulated. Will we be required to hold our breath? No, more than likely a national system of letting the elderly die will be implemented (something that will go hand in hand with the health care rationing that will come with the government health care). Abortion will play into this as well. In the name of saving the planet the government will dictate first that child tax credits will be cut off for more than two children. Free abortions will be available for those on Welfare. Then, forced abortions for anyone wanting to have more than two children, followed by a reduction to one child.

I might be wrong about the Welfare recipients. The people who look for power want dependent children raised in the slums they create. Those are future voters. They will more than likely deem children of middle-class families a threat and force them down to two or one.

Many might see this blog as extremist, but it is coming. They've outlawed breathing. The only way to regulate is reduce the number of people breaking the law.

Since liberals are so anxious to label the 80s the "Decade of Greed" and so forth, it seems appropriate to give them a label that is, perhaps, a bit too real: the 08 election year could be the "Year of Fraud." Obama has defrauded the American people, either by omission or commission. He has possibly concealed a birth certificate that might invalidate him for his position. After having run as a radical in the primaries he did the most spectacular tack to the right to appear as a centrist for the general election, so much so that he hoodwinked so-called conservatives who really should have known better. All that qualifies for fraud, either of the soft variety, or the crook in the striped pajamas type.

Then we have Minnesota. The state of Mid-West values, right? You betcha! We get election results that show Senator Norm Coleman with a 700 vote margin of victory only to watch the creative math on the part of the election board and other appointed and/or elected (Democrat) officials re-work the results to favor the sad satirist Al Franken by a 1,000 vote swing.

I'm not a huge fan of Norm Coleman, though I did vote for him. But I do hope he appeals this travesty up to the Supreme Court, if necessary, so this type of theivery does not go unchecked.

I hope this sort of ACORN activism will show the need for I.D. requirements at the voting precints. Voting is a priviledge, not a right, and we should all get exactly one vote, not three, not four. And the candidates should be bound by the same rules for all votes, without the silly re-counting of rejected ballots, discovery of lost ballots, etc. If this doesn't go unchecked, we may end up with a Hugo Chaves leader in as little as 4 years.

I read a disturbing story that showed advancement of the "well funded" civilian security force that candidate Barak Obama promised, and President Obama appears to deliver. The bill is passing under the guise of "volunteer" work, but would be mandatory. The bill stipulates that middle-school children would be required 50 hours per year, high schoolers 100 hours per year, and so on through college. The program included uniforms that the children will wear. I ask, why not ad a spiffy arm band with, perhaps the Obama emblem for good measure. This program will also enlist adults on up to seniors. They will go to camps, which are re-named campuses in order to be trained, or re-educated as the case may be.

This bill has been touted as some form of commemoration of 9/11, a day of volunteer work to commemorate the tragedy of that day.

Someone needs to remind Barak Obama and the Socialists, I mean Democrats, that this is America, the land of the FREE. We do not serve our State. The government is of the people, by the people and for the people. In other words, the government WORKS FOR US.

Recently, we've seen the manufactured outrage at bonuses for executives of AIG. How terrible that executives who gave up salaries took some contractual bonuses. How dare they? This surprise coming from folks who embezzle and cheat on a daily basis. Then, Democrats have the bold-facedness to come out and tell us what they'd really like to do to all of us someday, tax us individually as punishment for making a paycheck. Who are these goons we have allegedly "representing" us? Since when does Congress have the right to indict, prosecute and penalize private industry or citizens? And most people, like zombies, responded to the outrage like they were reading from a teleprompter (we know of at least one person who actually WAS doing that).

Where does this end? It ends with our country being policed from within by radicals subscribing to a charismatic leader and following along, lock-step, controlled by mindblock ideology. We'll have money that is worth more in our fireplace to heat us (because we won't be able to afford energy with the Cap and Steal policy) and we'll have our children indoctrinated in Education Centers and incentivized to be informants on anyone who might dissent from Obama's thug regime.

Today Parade Magazine had the Top Ten Dictators listed. Interestingly, many of them have programs identical to what Obama proposes. I suppose, allowing a few years, Parade might be able to add Barak Obama to the list.

We are never too long from hearing how President Obama has inherited the economy he now must fix. What has become abundantly clear in record time is that Barak has spent his inheritance faster than the prodigal son. In fact, I dare say, he's become Bush II in regard to the economy that crashed around us all in 2008. When President Bush came forward with bailout after bailout for companies that were deemed "too big to fail" I opposed it. I saw a grim hand writing terrible omens against America at that time. After all, if the Conservatives are espousing Socialist solutions, then what are the Liberals going to do?

I am very grateful for President Bush and the work he did in office. I admire him as a man of integrity and humility and grace. While he certainly had any number of critics with much harsher words than Rush Limbaugh has ever leveled against Mr. Obama, he never answered them back. In his eight years, George Bush showed gave us the security that a government can provide--safety from our foes. He was, perhaps, singularly focused on that task, much to the detriment of our economy.

While Mr. Bush's critics state that the war in Iraq was the source of our economic doom, that just doesn't make sense. Sure, we spent money there, but it was ultimately securing our safety and financial ruin that would follow if we failed. Unlike, say, volcano eruption research that is allegedly so iminent a threat we needed it put into our Emergency Stimulus Package.

What W did not do enough of was to get tough on the domestic terrorists like Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi. He operated in a live and let live manner and a grace that allowed him to reach out to folks like Ted Kennedy who would rather cut off his hand. While he recognized the wolves howling at our shores, he chose to ignore the ones wearing sheep's clothing in our Congress. And this allowed them to sow the seeds of financial ruin around him.

To the extent that folks are trying to say that the poor folks living in tents are living in Bushville (after Hooverville of the 1930s), I say they are living in Reidville or Pelosiville and now Obamaville. The Marxist ideology and Humanist leanings of Barak Obama will lead to the destruction of the good character of America. I don't for a second wish for Obama to fail, as is the bait that liberals enjoy tossing out. I know for certain that he IS failing. His policies are tailor-fit to destroy the free market in favor of a corrupt government central system. His reversal on stem-cell research funding is merely the shot across the bow from a man who favored a facecious answer to when life begins over giving his true belief that life doesn't matter, it's merely a financial cost or burden on the environment, society, whatever. He has made good on every negative ad that John McCain put on the air.

During the campaign, the media skewered anyone who would claim Obama wished to do so many liberal things to our country. In fact, he did want to, and his past was a glaring reminder of the sort of things he'd want to do, if given the chance. After the election, many who should have known better let Mr. Hope and Change cloud them into thinking he might actually govern from the "center." What was true was that he was going to govern from the center of the Communist Manifesto.

It would be interesting if they do finally release Barak Obama's sealed and secret birth certificate. It may reveal his middle name is actually 'Castro."

Governor Bobby Jindal faced a daunting task in responding to the folly of President Barak Obama. How can someone respond to a rookie who steps up and makes excuses for himself by looking back and being snarky at a man who filled the office for eight years and kept America safe from another terror attack and presided over a booming economy seven of those eight years. At the very least Obama was disingenuous about the deficit he "inherited." He took over a budget defecit and quadupled it in his first two months of office. He took our national deficit from 1.5 trillion to over 2 trillion in as little time. And he promises more.

It is also hard to argue with someone who proclaims the "ravages of climate change" as if it is some well-defined, terrible thing. This from the president who wants to bring "science" back to government. Aparently, in an effort to do that he forgot to bring common sense or logic. As Mr. Jindal pointed out, the "stimulus package" included 140 million for volcano observation.

Dutifully, the main stream media came to Obama's defense, outlining how "scientific" Obama is in wanting this funding, which, of course, the likes of Sarah Palin or George W. Bush would simply deride. They note in their spirited defense that such research would save lives and costs due to catastrophic volcano eruptions. Aparently, the thought of Mt. St. Helen's eruption in the 1980s looms as a graver concern to President Obama than the risk of terrorist being released from Guantanamo Bay and attacking us again. The reporters note that America is third in the number of active volcanoes in the world, with most active ones on an island in Hawaii, not in some populated city. So, as I understand it, President Obama is smarter for spending this critical money to stimulate the economy on a preemptive strike against the next volcanic eruption on U.S. soil. I'm sure that 140 million of debt couldn't possibly have been spent more efficiently by the private sector.

President Obama may be ambitious to cure cancer and eliminate trade with Canada, but he will be judged not on his spin, but on how well his pork plays in the market. So far it doesn't look like it will work too well.

President Obama recently made it his objective to cut the federal deficit in half. Interestingly, he failed to give notice of that intent prior to ballooning the deficit with his massive socialist overhaul of our economy in the name of doing something. But now, after saddling our budgets for years to come with increased spending that will not stimulate the economy, he vows to cut the deficit in half.

This position is akin to the high-priced retailers that hike their prices by 200% and then give a 75% "sale" for "this weekend only." President Obama may be in over his head with the job of Commander In Chief, and he may be an overall dummy when it comes to history or any other true intellectual persuit (logic, economics, basic math). But he is not stupid. He is an expert politician. Which is to say he is a smooth operator. He knows the words to say to get people thinking good things about him. For instance, when he declared about the terrorists that we "won't apologize for our way of life" and that "we will outlast you" and "we will defeat you." With what? Our limp wrists and jelly spines? Will we start reading them their rights (that they don't have) and start apologizing for having made some of them feel uncomfortable in order to save innocent American lives? How will we not apologize for our way of life? After we adopt the inefficient, costly, oppressive standard of living enjoyed by the Europeans where only the high ranking politicians get to keep, say, their Oval Office at tropic temperatures?

As our Mr. President was fond of saying, they're just words, just speaches. But he's smooth. He had many conservative commentators giving him props for saying what he did. My thought was, nice words, nice speech, now let's see with your actions, Mr. Obama. And so we have.

So, this promise of fiscal responsibility in light of his massive, rushed spending spree seems like another jolt to my senses. Will anyone believe this bafoon with such a bold-faced statement? Of course people will. There are many folks who bought, and continue to buy what Bill Clinton has said or is saying. Those same people believe George W. is a 'liar.' Mr. Bush should take that as a compliment in a backward sort of way.

Barak Obama, however, promises he'll accomplish this silly thing of cutting his extravigant debt that he made by 'scaling back' spending in Iraq, taxing the 'wealthiest' Americans (those poor saps), and, my favorite, streamlinging government. Now that he's enacted policy to make government a gorilla in the proverbial China shop, he's promised to attach a leash? And in an economy that cries out for increased opportunity, he's going to punish the achievers who would increase opportunity for the workers? And his plans for Iraq are like the newlywed couple who plans on having all sorts of extra money once the car payment is done, but forget that by that time they'll have car repairs, a child on the way, and possibly a change in insurance premiums and, ironically, tax increases. In other words, he's planning all other costs to remain as they are and simply reduce the spending in Iraq. Right. I'm sure it looks good on paper, with his crayon, perhaps, but it doesn't work in the real world. It doesn't work when one is trying to govern the most powerful country in the free world.

But, to his credit, since the bulk of the deficit is by his own design, he very well could make good on his promise. He could simply cut his own stimulus bill and say Mission Accomplished. Perhaps on an aircraft carrier, or something.

A climatologist, also known as soothsayer or mystic, has declared that the global warming warnings are 'conservative' and that the threat we face is more dire than anyone thought. His whole assessment is based on the erroneous idea that CO2 (a natural gas that our plants breathe) is the culprit for global rise in temperatures (which has halted and reversed itself in the recent year and appears to be on a cooling trend). In fact, there is no consensus on the idea of CO2 being a 'pollutant' or that it is related to rising temperature on a global basis. In fact, many studies are showing that it is the opposite: CO2 increases after rising temperature as a byproduct. So, with falling temperatures, we'll see falling CO2 levels.

This sort of junk science is further evidence that we need to put the mainstream media out of business. The collective of media broadcasters and publishers seem to be in the business of fear mongering and propagandizing rather than reporting news.

I grow tired of hearing pundits declare that President Obama has erred in being too lax in regard to the 'stimulus' bill that he is now marking as a major milestone. Yes, he allowed Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to write the bill. Yes, he apparently was more concerned with PR regarding the bill than defending it on substance. But, make no mistake, he is not opposed to any of the content that he has expertly attempted to keep hidden from the American people. He has vociferously defended Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid as proudly as one could in using the English language. He is in lock-step with them in regard to their socialist agenda, and this shouldn't surprise us.

I heard one pundit declare that the bill, had it been written by President Obama, would have looked much different. In what way? It has his 'tax cut' welfare program for the zero-tax liability working folks. It socializes medicine. It subsidizes illigitimacy through manditory welfare increases. It re-distributes wealth. Am I missing something here? Was there a campaign promise that he didn't fulfill in this scare-by-number bill?

President Obama is as radical as his associates. He endorsed this bill. He should not be given the benefit of the doubt. He's not held hostage by Nancy Pelosi et al. We are.

I am stunned by the vigor with which Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and others have attacked the woman who gave unnatural birth to eight babies. In principle, I agree that the woman is guilty of a lot of things, namely tampering with God's design and order. But she's not alone in her guilt. The doctors are guilty, too. And that argument has nothing to do with the fact that she has 14 babies in a small apartment. It would be as valid an argument if a woman had one child and had plenty of money and other worldly ideas of security to back up her desire to raise a child.

There are two issues that are astounding here: One, the idea that a child is doomed if he or she is born into poverty or difficult conditions, and two, that the crime here is the number of children the woman birthed.

First, as a Christian, I do not believe that someone's financial situation should dictate whether or not they should answer the call of our Creator to be fruitful and multiply. Plenty of loving families grew up on poverty, mine being one of them. Despite living below the poverty line, we ate food grown in our garden, pears grown in the back yard and pancakes on Saturday mornings--sometimes with hot dogs in lieu of sausage. Amazingly, I grew up and paid my own way through private college and am rising up the corporate ladder. My determination to succeed is perhaps driven by the fact that I didn't have priviledge and opportunity. Those 14 children are not doomed to lives of crime and villainy simply because of the sins of their mother. That should remain an argument of the social warfare left, not God-fearing conservatives.

Second, the problem we face is one where life is merely an experiment that we have the power to control. If someone isn't married or has trouble concieving, we simply manipulate cells and voila, we have a baby--and a number of frozen life-forms in storage. We've reduced humanity to seedlings that we can simply discard when they're no longer convenient or wanted. The design in which God made us where two will become one flesh in an intimate way that will allow them to produce offspring is all but destroyed. Sex has been turned into something like a personal drug to which some are adicted. Through science we've eliminated the chance for life, making sexual activity a simple choice of recreation with no fear of responsibility. Drugs allow men to remain 'in the game' long after  nature has taken their sexual stamina. Personal satisfaction is prime in our society while intimate oneness is shunned.

In this culture we shouldn't raise our eyebrows at the fact that in our government's current 'stimulus' package contraception is proposed to 'contain costs.' Yes, children are merely financial burdens that we should kill off if at all possible, or prevent while frolicking away in whatever lustful manner we please. And should we want a child, why, we can simply grow a few from the frozen bank of babies we have in sterile rooms.

What should strike fear in our hearts is the degree to which our society has grown cold in love for one another. Women are at war with men over so-called equality and men long for a time when their roles were revered. In the midsts of this conflict are children who have become burdens to bestow on day care centers and after school programs. Our divorce rate is an alarming 50% while children grow up jaded and cynical, committing suicide at the highest rate in history.

In such a bleak society we might argue that it is a crime to bring more children into the world. But that argument has been used for generations upon generations. On the contrary, we desperately need good men and women to rear large numbers of children to offset the darkness that threatens to smother our world. We need beacons of light to show goodness when our culture's values prove vile. And for this reason we need to celebrate life because it comes from God. We can condemn our culture's tampering with God's handiwork, but He allowed those eight children to live. We can trust God will work his purpose in their life, no matter how wacky the mother may or may not be.

I shouldn't be, but I'm astounded at the unabashed propagandizing Don Shelby and the folks at WCCO manage to air day in and day out. The most irritating is their "Fact Check" which should be called "Spin Zone." Not too long ago they had such a segment on President Obama's lavish inauguration, twisting the figures to conclude that his celebration was less costly than President Bush's in 2004.

As far as reporting the news, Don Shelby, the anchorman for the nightly broadcast, uses shameless vocal inflection and facial expressions to convey what his partisan copy might fail to do on its own. The ham-handed delivery of each night's 'news' would be comic if it didn't come as a reportedly reputable broadcast devoid of satire.

I realize that most of the media is 'in the tank' for the liberal establishment, but some do a better job of feigning objectivity. If the Un-Fairness Doctrine is revived, I'll be getting petitions signed to have Rush Limbaugh on WCCO for every minute of air time Don Shelby occupies.

President Obama is fond of saying he has included 'tax cuts' in his pork-barrel 'stimulus' bill. The problem with his statement is that it is for working families and individuals who have no federal tax liability. That category includes me. I make a decent salary and have a large family. I own a house (with a mortgage that I have never failed to pay). And because of my itemized deductions and child tax credits, I get paid a check after I have not paid a cent through federal withholding. The first time I noticed this I did my taxes over and checked them again. I realized that I was, in fact, on welfare. Though I work hard and provide for my family, through various tax credits, I consistently earn a check from the government. It is a misnomer to call it a 'refund.' Yet this system of allowing for bigger refunds to the zero-tax-liability workers of this country seems to be an uncontested form of tax-cut in today's parlance.

And in a way, it is. What President Obama is doing is the sort of thing President Bush did in forming his doctrine of the pre-emptive strike. The only difference is that President Bush did so in an effort to protect Americans. The Obama Doctrine, if you will, is simply a bone tossed to those who have not had the good fortune of getting soaked by the New Deal.

See, President Obama has worked in pre-emptive tax cuts for those who haven't earned enough to be demonized. These tax cuts come in the form of a check for future taxes those persons may eventually have to pay. In other words, when they earn too much to be getting these hand-outs, their tax cuts will have just come early. It's like getting the rebate on a product before you buy it, then paying double the price later on.  Does this make sense? It does for those who think the solution to our problems is more government.

The Great Unifier... well, that was George W. Bush, and we can't use the same title over again, can we? The Post-Partisan Post-Racial Post-Capitalist President of the country formerly known as the United States of America has repeated a phrase that is interesting: He states that he doesn't believe any political party has cornered the market on wisdom or good ideas. In the next breath he summarily dismisses all dissent from his Big Government Coup by saying we cannot rely on "tired old arguments and partisan politics." He also derides "cable chatter" that he feels is a mere distraction from accomplishing the only thing that will save us from certain economic catastrophe. In his address to House Democrats he followed that remark with the astounding declaration that, in paraphrase, Democrats won and nah-nah-nah-nah boo-boo. He likened his supposed mandate to change course with veering a car away from a cliff.

There are many, many problems with President Obama's arrogant demeanor, but I'll try to remain focused. First, we've heard this economic doom tale before. As I recall it came from that evil George W. Bush who warned that failure to act and act big would result in a total meltdown of our very way of life. Of course, their action has proven to have no affect at all. That might have something to do with the fact that government is wholly inadequate for any task that requires focus, timeliness and limits. The first plan, in its conception was going to be somewhat focused, timely and limited. That lasted for about two days. Now they squandered millions or billions (who's counting) of dollars with no accountability. But THIS time it is essential that we act quickly! If we don't, well, frisbee fields and fleets of cars and other shopaholic items for Nancy Pelosi will never get passed. To quote Sting from his Regan era song, this is a lie we don't believe anymore.

President Obama also likes to appear humble by stating he doesn't believe any one party has the corner on the market of wisdom. And he underscores that fact by showing how little wisdom he or his fellow democrats have. He stood there on my TV screen shaking his head and making childish remarks deriding his critics while addressing none of their concerns. If his Presidency will be judged by his response to the economic crisis that he claims he inherited, he, above all should be deeply concerned at the apparent opportunistic vigor that his fellow democrats have launched in this so-called stimulus bill. Rather than defending the bill and lauding Nancy Pelosi as such a great, visionary leader, and far from stating that we shouldn't make "perfection the enemy of progress," he should demand perfection based on the grave seriousness of his purpose. If he is so adamant of the dire consequences of innaction, he should be equally adamant about the quality of the solution.

Rather, President Obama creates the impression he is simply winging it at best. He has shown no leadership in outlining what he wants in the bill and how he hopes to save or create jobs. He appears to have given the reigns to Nancy Pelosi and the other Euro-socialists that currently masquarade as representatives of Americans and now rushes to a hasty televised speech to turn the tide against the critics of his cohort's bill. To do this, he claims the "crisis" is seen by numerous unnamed economists (from both sides, mind you). And while debate is good, he claims, it appears blind support of this pork-ridden bill is better.

During his speech I didn't hear one logical defense of the bill. He claims buying a whole fleet of flex fuel vehicles for government workers will keep the auto makers in business and lower energy costs. Lowering energy costs for the government, however, is the least of their concerns. We might also cut congressional pay rather than hike it and reap more instant savings. And besides, what's good for the goose is good for the gander: Why not buy all Americans with old, gas guzzling vehicles these new cars? Wouldn't that be in the size and scope of a massive stimulus?

President Obama is simply out of his league. The propagandist news media carried him over the finish line and will, no doubt, hope to keep him afloat for as long as they can. Unfortunately, we the people don't want terrorists in our backyard. We don't want rabbid liberals fulfilling their fantasies on the backs of our economic woes. We don't want empty rhetoric and snarky remarks from our Commander In Chief when he's faced with a serious debate over a bill. We don't want a Chief Executive who gives us a new memo and tells us that our concerns are tired old arguments and partisan politics. 

We live in dark times, economically and socially. This crisis, however, has been a gathering storm front that conservatives should not have missed. The insidious undermining of our societal fabric was being unraveled just as we elected Ronald Reagan and felt a conservative tide that appeared unstoppable. During this time, so-called educators like domestic terrorist William Ayres and other such radicals were busy infiltrating an already weakened public education system.

The fissures formed in the wake of the silly notion that students should not be invoking God in the classroom. With ever-increasing power, the atheist religion has gained power as a State-sponsored dogma. Evolution became fact. Prayer was forbidden. Bibles were banned. Students no longer learned the pledge of allegiance to the American Flag. By the late 1960s it was vogue to despise America, but it wasn't wide-spread. Most Americans still felt unashamedly patriotic. This was largely the result of educators who had yet to be replaced by the radicals at the school walls.

During the 1970s, rock bands railed against the 'establishment' only to have their peers become the establishment with a new set of priorities.

But the opportunity they seized was hardly a new one. It had been coming since the time C.S. Lewis wrote The Abolition Of Man. He noticed the way textbooks were teaching 'debunking' as literary criticism. This debunking has grown into what Mr. Lewis saw as a dangerous social experiment to abolish self-evident values. One might debunk someone's feelings of virtue by saying something just makes them feel abstract emotions that they describe as virtue. In other words, there is no such thing as virtue or right or wrong, simply a feeling one derives.

We now live in the world where man is abolished. Our society has evolved to make all things subjective and debunk truth as ones personal perspective. Our generations X, Y and Z have been progressively influenced by the education of politics rather than value. They learn that they are highly evolved animals who must follow their instinct, which, as pointed out by C. S. Lewis, is the only basis for doing anything in the new society. Instincts for survival or pleasure drive us to achieve success or settle for find a particular vocation. An inherent value of taking care of parents or children or concern for posterity is simply cultural. To the extent that our instinct drives us to preserve society for our personal survival, we look out for others in some semblance of common good. We certainly don't do something because we might be responsible to a higher power or because there is an inherent Right versus an inherent Wrong.

Since our public education system has become a propaganda machine for secular thought and atheist religion, our children grow up with no sense of direction, no instruction on a solid Way that is true.

Parents have been subject to this attack as well. Parents have been lured into the deception of the Women's movment, which told countless women that they were not using their full potential if they stayed at home raising children. Thus we spawned a society that has abandoned kids to centers that simply manage the basic needs but provide none of the moral nurturing children crave. In the process, women have been broken. While they are told they can be as effective in the business world men, they are not. While the elite of society claim that there are no inherent differences between men and women, there are.

Together, the abolition of values in our schools and the luring away of parents from children, our society has reached a point of moral despair. Americans have drank the wine of an idea that we are not responsible to God or to eachother. We have allowed ideas to arive that everyone's desire is a value that should be given as a right, thus the housing fiasco. Legislators have passed off a utopian ideal that flies in the face of traditional values, stating that everyone should have everything from a quality education to a nice house without having to earn either one. In short, they have set the young generations up for failure and disappointment. For no matter what government funding can give, it can't hide poor students and bad loan risks.

Our education in America is in crisis. Our children are being passed through grades with high scores in self-esteem and liberal dogma, but with no sense of right and wrong and lacking any intellectual discipline.

Our economy is in crisis. Too many feel entitled to housing they cannot yet afford. Rather than work several jobs and save up for a downpayment, they look to Government to bail them out.

It is my hope that the current crisis will continue to prove impervious to the bailout strategy and reveal itself for what it is, the check due for putting our faith in the secular socialist mentality. While that realization is crucial for our economy, it must be accompanied by a resurgence of conservatives involved in education. If we hope to turn this country around we need to abolish the National Education Association. We need to break up the monopoly of thought that the radicals have in our schools. We need to eliminate public funing for schools and force them to compete for dollars based on their educational merits. We need to eliminate government money in our colleges and allow only those who work hard achieve entrance. This will foster true competition in our colleges and put higher education back where it belongs.

But most important, we need to stand up for traditional values and teach our children that there is an objective right and an objective wrong. We are not animals and should never behave as such.