These are the Times that Try Men's Souls

I had hoped that my 300th post on this blog would be more positive than this, but things being what they are, it's taking every bit of resolve I have not to crumple into a fetal ball of flesh and pour my eyes out over the re-election of the most corrupt and dangerous president this country has ever had. I could beat around the bush and rationalize away the loss, but that wouldn't be fair to you, my readers, and it wouldn't be honest, either. I'm despairing right now. I'm truly afraid for the loss we suffered tonight. After the 2010 midterms it would appear that our side got over confident about our chances, which contributed to our loss tonight. Over the last few hours I've scoured the internet for even a sliver of a silver lining, but I've been as yet unable to find it. Sure, republicans are in control of the House, but that just means four more years of the status quo since we failed to capture the senate and the presidency, as was required in order to begin rolling back the progressive cancer that has been slowly infecting us for over a century. Alas, for whatever reason, it appears that's not the case, even though allegations of voter fraud are being clung to as a last hope for turning the election around.

Regardless of whether or not voter fraud helped win this election for Obama, it means little to nothing if Romney's team doesn't challenge these votes as illegitimate and take the case before the high courts, as Bush did in 2000. I doubt he'll do it. His concession speech, by all accounts, tells me that no, he will not contest the vote. He has already given up the ghost and will now go on to do whatever it is that failed presidential candidates do. Paul Ryan, at least, will be returning to his seat in the House, so someone with a voice of reason will be there, though he'll still have to deal with John Boehner, and that will be a trial in and of itself. This being the case, I have decided to accept the reality I see before me, and prepare for four more years with President Barack Obama in the White House.

That being said, I thought long and hard for these last hours about where to go from here, and I've decided to continue to, as I've said on occasion, fight the good fight. I wanted to give up. Wanted to believe that we were done. Both as a nation and as a voice for freedom and conservatism. I was ready to pack it up and call it a day, much as Hack Wilson has done. I thought for certain that there was nothing more to be done. The monster we know as Obamacare will now stand even less chance of being repealed, and electing a true conservative to the office in 2016 may be a pipe dream in the making. Yet what else can I do but fight on?

Which brings me to the title of this post. In the tumultuous days between 1776 and 1789, America was fighting a different, more conventional war. We were fighting against the largest military the world had ever seen, the best trained, and the best funded as well. Theirs was a battle of bayonets and bullets, yet it was no more or less trying than our battle being fought today, for our enemy was the same: Tyranny. The more brazen tyranny of King George was more prevalent, of course, but it was no less insidious. Another George was at the head of that fight on our side, one George Washington. And he was losing badly. So badly, in fact, that many among the Continental Army were feeling that desertion and reconciliation with Great Britain was the only route to saving their own lives. This continued for the majority of the first half of the war, until Washington and his men reached the frozen Hell of Valley Forge. Washington's army was broken and dispirited. His undisciplined rabble of farmers and craftsmen were on the verge of defeat. With nowhere else to go, Washington looked to the one being who could see them through: The Father Above.

The famous painting of Washington praying at Valley Forge has always been one of my favorites. It now has become a necessary reminder that we are not the first generation, nor the last, to face a tyrannical regime. These next four years will be long and hard, especially if Obama manages to dodge impeachment for Solyndra, Benghazi, and all the rest of the scandals that have plagued his administration. The one bright spot I see regarding Obama is the fact that he has now inherited HIS OWN mess rather than someone else's. Not that that will stop the Blame Bush crowd. Why should they quit? Obama asked for a mulligan and the American people gave it  to him. Now he has carte blanche to continue his statist agenda and only our Representatives in the House and the half of the country that didn't vote for Obama stand in the way. In light of these revelations, I have decided after serious thought to call this our Valley Forge Moment. We are at the precipice of defeat, but we haven't been beaten yet. We have to form ranks, ready muskets and bayonets, and charge once more into the field of battle. After all, as George S. Patton said, you're never beaten until you admit it.

These are the Times that Try Men's Souls

I had hoped that my 300th post on this blog would be more positive than this, but things being what they are, it's taking every bit of resolve I have not to crumple into a fetal ball of flesh and pour my eyes out over the re-election of the most corrupt and dangerous president this country has ever had. I could beat around the bush and rationalize away the loss, but that wouldn't be fair to you, my readers, and it wouldn't be honest, either. I'm despairing right now. I'm truly afraid for the loss we suffered tonight. After the 2010 midterms it would appear that our side got over confident about our chances, which contributed to our loss tonight. Over the last few hours I've scoured the internet for even a sliver of a silver lining, but I've been as yet unable to find it. Sure, republicans are in control of the House, but that just means four more years of the status quo since we failed to capture the senate and the presidency, as was required in order to begin rolling back the progressive cancer that has been slowly infecting us for over a century. Alas, for whatever reason, it appears that's not the case, even though allegations of voter fraud are being clung to as a last hope for turning the election around.

Regardless of whether or not voter fraud helped win this election for Obama, it means little to nothing if Romney's team doesn't challenge these votes as illegitimate and take the case before the high courts, as Bush did in 2000. I doubt he'll do it. His concession speech, by all accounts, tells me that no, he will not contest the vote. He has already given up the ghost and will now go on to do whatever it is that failed presidential candidates do. Paul Ryan, at least, will be returning to his seat in the House, so someone with a voice of reason will be there, though he'll still have to deal with John Boehner, and that will be a trial in and of itself. This being the case, I have decided to accept the reality I see before me, and prepare for four more years with President Barack Obama in the White House.

That being said, I thought long and hard for these last hours about where to go from here, and I've decided to continue to, as I've said on occasion, fight the good fight. I wanted to give up. Wanted to believe that we were done. Both as a nation and as a voice for freedom and conservatism. I was ready to pack it up and call it a day, much as Hack Wilson has done. I thought for certain that there was nothing more to be done. The monster we know as Obamacare will now stand even less chance of being repealed, and electing a true conservative to the office in 2016 may be a pipe dream in the making. Yet what else can I do but fight on?

Which brings me to the title of this post. In the tumultuous days between 1776 and 1789, America was fighting a different, more conventional war. We were fighting against the largest military the world had ever seen, the best trained, and the best funded as well. Theirs was a battle of bayonets and bullets, yet it was no more or less trying than our battle being fought today, for our enemy was the same: Tyranny. The more brazen tyranny of King George was more prevalent, of course, but it was no less insidious. Another George was at the head of that fight on our side, one George Washington. And he was losing badly. So badly, in fact, that many among the Continental Army were feeling that desertion and reconciliation with Great Britain was the only route to saving their own lives. This continued for the majority of the first half of the war, until Washington and his men reached the frozen Hell of Valley Forge. Washington's army was broken and dispirited. His undisciplined rabble of farmers and craftsmen were on the verge of defeat. With nowhere else to go, Washington looked to the one being who could see them through: The Father Above.

The famous painting of Washington praying at Valley Forge has always been one of my favorites. It now has become a necessary reminder that we are not the first generation, nor the last, to face a tyrannical regime. These next four years will be long and hard, especially if Obama manages to dodge impeachment for Solyndra, Benghazi, and all the rest of the scandals that have plagued his administration. The one bright spot I see regarding Obama is the fact that he has now inherited HIS OWN mess rather than someone else's. Not that that will stop the Blame Bush crowd. Why should they quit? Obama asked for a mulligan and the American people gave it  to him. Now he has carte blanche to continue his statist agenda and only our Representatives in the House and the half of the country that didn't vote for Obama stand in the way. In light of these revelations, I have decided after serious thought to call this our Valley Forge Moment. We are at the precipice of defeat, but we haven't been beaten yet. We have to form ranks, ready muskets and bayonets, and charge once more into the field of battle. After all, as George S. Patton said, you're never beaten until you admit it.

The Anti-Reykjavik: Obama's October Surprise not Really all That Surprising

Back in the 1980s, into Ronald Reagan's time as President of these United States of America, Ronaldus Maximus met with Premier Mikhail Gorbechev in Iceland for a nuclear proliferation summit. During that summit, it was revealed to The Great Communicator that he'd been swindled into almost negotiating away our only defense against Soviet nuclear aggression: The SDI Defense, which we all know now was just a bluff on our part to fool the Soviets into thinking we could shoot down their nuclear missiles with the touch of a button. It looks like we're not facing a similar situation here under the Obama administration with Iran playing the role of the Soviets. Ronald Reagan walked away. Obama intends to hear his own particular tyrant out. Here's why it won't work:

1. Too Little, Too Late:

The president appears to have played his trump card. Dick Morris predicted an October surprise coming up in a few days involving Iran and the United States negotiating a settlement regarding their nuclear program. Obama said once or twice during his campaign in 2008 that he would be more than happy to meet with Mahmud Ahmedenijad in order to avert the possibility of their gaining nuclear capability and thus having the power to wipe Israel off the map. Obama thought back then that his winning smile and not-so-killer good looks would be enough to make the mad Iranian Hitler wannabe back down, but all he did in response to Obama's appeasement was move further toward getting the very thing we didn't want them to get: nukes.

Now Obama has revealed this supposed trump card of his two weeks before the election. The timing alone is suspect, of course, but so is the motivation of both sides. Obama no doubt is using this as the usual "October Surprise" bit that usually comes out and turns the election around, or at the very least causes a hiccup in the opposing candidate's campaign efforts. It won't work this time for a  very simple reason. As stated above, it is simply too late to stop the Romney campaign's momentum with any   token gestures of effectiveness. With Romney up 6 in the latest Gallup poll (as of this writing) and only showing signs of further widening that lead (running positive ads in the swing states, Ryan campaigning in Western Pennsylvania, among others), the Obama campaign is looking more and more desperate with every stopgap measure they unveil. First it was Big Bird, then it was Binders Full of Women, and let's not even go into Tagg Romney supposedly wanting to punch the President in the face. As a certain comedian whose name escapes me at the moment said, "if he keeps this up, by next week he'll have to hurl actual sh!t."

2. We're on to him.

Tying into reason number one why this little October not surprise will only result in failure is reason number two. Quite simply, we the people are on to his little game of token gestures and class warfare, and there are too many of us who are now awake (or too many of those not awake who simply decided to vote for the other guy this time) to stem the tide. Obama can make all the diplomatic gestures he wants toward Iran, Saudi Arabia, and all those other countries, but he can't change the facts. Ambassador Chris Stevens is dead. Plain and simple. He was not only killed, but tortured before he was killed. This will stick in the minds of every reasonable American who knows about it. Obama can talk all he wants about how he'll divert a nuclear Iran from becoming a reality, but people like me know the real game being played here.

3. Dick Morris is Usually Right

Former Clinton advisor and Conservative  (former) Democrat Dick Morris told everyone that Obama had an October surprise up his sleeve that would involve Iran and negotiations with the U.S. to deal with their nuclear program. Just yesterday I found this piece from the New York Times as well as the video from Dick Morris himself explaining what he meant. Comparing the video and the NYT story, not to mention the several entries on this story at Hot Air, one can clearly see that Dick had this one right on the money. Not three days after he posted that video, this hits the front page of Hotair, along with this, and this, not to mention this from the New York Times. The second one of those is rather interesting to me, given that NO ONE is supposedly owning up to these talks when they come two weeks before election day? Makes me wonder if they're even really going to happen.

4. Glora Allred has her Own "October Surprise"...and it's a Year Old.

It's taken me a few days to actually get to a point where I can finish this post, so some of the above might have changed since then, but it's not likely. Still, one thing that DID come out was everyone's favorite ambulance chaser Gloria Allred announcing that she had another victim du jour under her hat that the  news sites all said she was planning on trotting out to try to put a stop to Romney's momentum. Apparently  when Romney was in his twenties (read thirty some years ago!) he vehemently tried to convince a woman not to have an abortion. No, you read that right. Glora Allred thinks that because Romney tried to convince a woman not to have an abortion because it wasn't in line with the tenants of his faith that he somehow is guilty of harassing said woman. I'm betting that if this does get trotted out for the news sites, it'll be an attempt to resurrect the "Romney is a Bully" narrative that they had going in the first weeks of the election. What Allred likely doesn't seem to realize is that the NYT reported on this story over a year ago. Someone needs to inform Allred just what the word "surprise" means. Snark about Allred aside, this is another reason Obama's Iran story won't work. If this hits the airwaves and people scoff at it (as I believe they will) then it won't make Obama's Iran story any more credible than it is, and may even detract from whatever credibility it does have.

So when all is said and done, The above mentioned stories are going to have zero positive effect for the Obama campaign, simply because these stories aren't going to sway the undecideds. These stories are meant for shoring up the base and getting the core supporters excited. I seem to remember another campaign in 2008 that tried doing the same thing. That is, ginning up support of the base when the election was almost here. But as we all know, that one didn't turn out too well for John McCain.

The Three Dumbest Non-Issues of This Campaign Season

Boy, what a difference a campaign makes. Just a few months ago I was lamenting over Newt Gingrich's loss to Mitt Romney in the Republican primary, sure that, even though I was willing to hold my nose and vote for the RINO we'd been stuck with, I was sure we'd be saddled with another four years of Barack Obama, and I'd be witnessing the end of the Republic as we know it because of Barack having "more flexibility" with his cronies both here and abroad. Now? I'm practically salivating to vote for Mitt. Not only because all the signs point to his eventual victory in November, but because there was simply more to the Mitt-ster than met the eye on first glance. Where I thought he was simply the flip flopper everyone tried to make him, from his Republican challengers to the leftist smear machine, it turned out that the candidate we ended up with would actually be more than qualified for the job of President of the United States. This has become more and more apparent with Romney's rise in the polls, his trouncing of Obama in both debates, and now, most obviously, from the fact that the Left is absolutely reeking with the same scent of desperation that permeated from John McCain's presidential campaign in 2008. By this time in that year, the McCain camp had pretty much folded, ceding Michigan, a state that had been in play up until the moment they'd pulled out, from my understanding. Well, now it's the left's turn to panic, and panic they are. Here are the three most hilariously stupid ways that their fear is showing:

3. Big Bird

We all know Big Bird. He is the nine foot yellow Muppet that talked to other multicolored Muppets at his address of 123 Sesame Street, and still does so to this day, to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars annually. Making children love learning seems to be quite the lucrative profession for these guys, given that they've been on the air for several decades. I have a special place in my heart for the Sesame Street gang, and I always will. But to the Left, apparently, Big Bird is the be all and end all of everything everywhere ever in the history of all time, because when Mitt Romney mentioned during the debate that he was planning on cutting the public funding for PBS, the nut jobs on the other side of the river thought that a sign of the Apocalypse had been discovered, due to the wailing and gnashing of teeth in the media. The Huffington Post made hay about the governor's "Big Bird Problem", another website made no qualms and said that Romney wanted to "kill Big Bird", and the Washington Post also had no issues with baldly stating that Big Bird would "haunt Mitt Romney".

What the bleeding heck!? All these issues to talk about and your first attempt to stomp all over your opponent is BIG BIRD!? Seriously? You really think, lefties, that the election hinges on whether or not the tax payers are still handing over their hard earned money so that Big Bird and the Muppets can continue to teach kids to count to 12? Got news for you, kiddies. Those same moms? The ones with kids to feed and cars to fill with gas, as well as most likely paychecks that get deprived of take home pay to supply Big Bird with HIS paycheck? They're probably more concerned with filling those gas tanks and ensuring that those kids have food to eat more so than whether or not a fictional character is still on TV. Also, moonbats, taxpayers only pay a small fraction of Big Bird's paycheck. The rest comes from private citizens in the form of charitable donations. I don't think Big Bird is in any danger of being homeless or being taken off the boob tube any time soon.


2. Binders Full of Women

This was the one I'd only heard about during the last debate. Apparently, during his tenure as governor of the Bay State, Romney went out of his way to offer flexible hours to women who worked in his cabinet because they wanted to make sure they could get home in time to make dinner for their kids. When Romney made this point in his defense of his record during said debate, apparently women everywhere were outraged. How dare this unwitting representative of the non-existent Patriarchy offer FLEXIBLE HOURS to WOMEN to MAKE THEIR LIVES A LITTLE EASIER!? Lynch that bastard right now! He's obviously a sexist pig who wants to keep women barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen! *snark function off*. Never mind of course, that women made up half of the governor's cabinet while he was in office. Never mind that one of his former employees absolutely GUSHED over how great a boss Mitt Romney was, and never mind that Romney went out of his way to hire women because he thought there weren't enough women working in his administration. He was probably doing all that just to cover up his natural woman-hating Republican meanness!

Yeah, right. Oh, and I guess I lied about the snark being off.

The Left even went so far as to say that Mitt using the term "binders full of women" was a sexist dog whistle, because apparently they've run out of words to use to blame him for being a racist. Does no one on the left realize that he meant RESUMES!? Resumes that are kept in BINDERS so that they're on hand for review?

Please, someone put some chlorine in the gene pool. For the good of humanity!


1. Mitt's Son Tagg Totally Wants to Punch the President in the Face

This has got to be by far the stupidest non-issue I've seen so far, but there are still three weeks left to go before Obama gets his pink slip,  so there could very well be more. Until then, this is in my top spot, and there it shall stay. Legal Insurrection brought this to my attention this morning, which was what inspired me to write this entire post, actually. So thank you, Professor Jacobson, for being the muse I needed to start blogging again. The story goes a little something like this: Apparently Tagg Romney was being interviewed by the LSM at some point, and they asked him how he felt when he saw that the left was ruthlessly attacking his father using untruths and slander. He replied to them that it made him what to "jump out of the chair" and "punch the President in the face." Well, that was the end of the story right there for the Left, who immediately tried to make Tagg sound like a terrorist for daring to use such words as "punch",  "face" and "president" in the same breath. But as usual, there was a whole other side to the story that they either did not pursue out of negligence or did not pursue out of complete idiocy. I like the idea that it was both.

The reality, of course, as Professor Jacobson rightly points out, is that the clip was doctored in the media to be cut off immediately after the word "face" was spoken. In reality, Tagg said of the president that he would LIKE to punch the guy in the face sometimes, but because of the Secret Service and the fact that this whole mudslinging thing is par for the course, that you just have to roll with the punches. Sounds like a pretty reasonable stance on issues to me, no? not if you're a lefty, it would seem.

In conclusion: Let the stupidity and desperation continue. Honestly, they  can only get worse from here on out, as the polls continue to surge in Romney's favor and Obama continues to stumble his way through the debate process. I'll be nearby popping popcorn and getting ready to watch Monday's debate, and to watch the third and final time that Mitt scores a victory over the Boy King.

Here's  hopin' gang.

Mirror Mirror, on the Wall...

I believe, dear readers, that we have been thrown into a parallel universe. I know most of you think we were thrown into one in 2008 when Obama was elected and began his assault on our freedoms, but I say you nay. It is only now that we've been forced to face the mirror images of those who inhabit the so-called Mirror Universe. I haven't been following the news as much as in the past recently, but I've still been keeping up with Hot Air, so I've got a semblance of what's going on. I've been keeping track of Teh Wun's reelectability (is that even a word?) for the last few months, and the signs don't look too good for him, despite Michelle Baachman's recent gaffe regarding Gardasil, and Perry's scandal from umpteen million years ago coming to light. His reelect numbers keep dropping at a steady pace even in Smurf states. Don't believe me? Check this out. Yep. You read that right, fellow crusaders. DWS, the new airhead of the DNC, has the audacity to claim that New York District 9 is a difficult district for Democrats despite the fact that a Republican hasn't held that seat since the COOLIDGE ADMINISTRATION!!!! I would laugh if it wasn't so sad.

But that is not the meat and potatoes of what I have for you today, dear readers. What I have for you today will astound, amaze, shock and stupify: Apparently Der Commissar is having a bit of trouble passing his nonexistent jobs bill due to the obstructionist efforts of the..Democrats?!

It seems yet again, I must ask the question:

Wait Wait Wait...

I am a regular listener of Sean Hannity's radio program, as well as an occasional viewer of his Fox News opinion show. The reason for this is because Hannity has a way of placing certain events into a neat little box of perspective that enables me to understand most of what's really going on with various news stories around the country and/or the world. Tonight was no exception. As I was working alone in the production center at my place of employment tonight, I flipped on his show promptly at seven so that I could remain apprised of world events, and get his take on those same events before posting a blog entry like this one.


When he brought up Libya again, I had to roll my eyes. More of the same? Really? We already know that Gaddafi is winning his civil war thus far, and that the UN has authorized a no-fly-zone over the country, effectively grounding the tin-pot dictator's piss poor air force. We also know that people are rightly up in arms over Obama waiting for the UN to give the okay before we decided to take military action, as well as Obama being raked over the coals for not going to Congress before authorizing the missile strikes on Lybian soil. All this ran through my head in a scant few seconds at the mention of the word Lybia. Then...something caught my attention.

More bureaucratic nonsense doesn't usually hold my attention the way it used to, but this one was unique. Apparently, there is a struggle to find out just who exactly is in charge of our little jaunt into Col. Gaddafi's back yard. Such confusion has erupted from recent events that some sort of political committee has been formed to lead military efforts. The ones who proposed the idea? The French.

I'll wait for you to stop hyperventilating.

What the hell are the French doing leading this thing? These nimrods haven't won a war in recent memory. The one that comes to mind is the Hundred Years War, and even then they were losing handily before divine intervention turned things around in the form of Mademoiselle Joan of Arc and her voices from Heaven. That being said, in my opinion this bunch of cheese-eating surrender monkeys couldn't lead a fish to water, much less lead troops into battle and expect to actually win.

One big mess. That's what this whole thing in Lybia has turned into. Our president can't even decide whether or not he's in the fight, since he keeps paying lip service to ousting Gaddafi while at the same time sitting on his hands hoping Col. G will just realize the error of his ways and step down of his own free will like a good little citizen of the world.

Yeah...and maybe a moistened bint at the bottom of a lake will hand me a shiny sword and I'll be proclaimed the Once and Future King...

Euthanasia by Any Other Name...

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. Well, that appears to be exactly what some in the Obama administration are doing concerning the much crowed about "end of life" provision that was stripped from the original monster we call a "bill" named Obamacare. Well, boys and girls, it looks like they're going to try to slip it in. Via memeorandum:

Under the new policy, outlined in a Medicare regulation, the government will pay doctors who advise patients on options for end-of-life care, which may include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment.

Sounds great, doesn't it? Sounds like we're getting more choices with out healthcare, doesn't it? Well, keep on reading, true believers:

While the new law does not mention advance care planning, the Obama administration has been able to achieve its policy goal through the regulation-writing process, a strategy that could become more prevalent in the next two years as the president deals with a strengthened Republican opposition in Congress.

Regulation process, huh? Isn't that the same as legislation by fiat? Also, interesting little factoid for those who don't know: It's not just Republicans who are opposed to this bill, and this end of life provision. The whole bill had bipartisan opponents from all walks of life. Not to mention, the Republicans of the 111th Congress were about as able to stop Obama as a wall of paper was to stop bullets from a rail gun.

Things will change, hopefully, with the initiation of the 112th Congress, which they say will begin with a reading of a little document we like to call the Constitution of the United States of America. Hopefully they can kill this damned end of life provision while they're at it, since that was one of their principal election platforms in the midterms. If they don't, I'm sure there'll be hell to pay. From me at least if from no one else.

Oh, sure. The article starts out innocently enough, seemingly telling each of the readers that it will only incentivize doctors to council patients about what kind of treatment they want. Really? I don't buy it. Reason being because the article states that the government will specifically subsidize those doctors who recommend end of life care for their patients. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this provision already in the original bill and taken out because of a major hooplah that was caused by the bill's opponents? Mark Billing, who was subbing for Rush today on his show, confirms that yes, indeed, that was the case. Not only that, but according to him the language is even stronger now than it was in its original form. And its original form was specifically labeled "indefensible". Well, if this provision was indefensible then, what makes them think its defensible now?

The answer, dear readers, is that it is not. Obama has, using the rule making authority given to him by the passage of this 2000 page paperweight to recraft Obamacare into exactly what he wanted it to be before the town hall meetings of 2009 forced him to make promises that he had no intention of keeping.

God help us all in these trying times, and may the new Congress keep their heads and listen to those who gave them their consent just one short month ago.

Update: Left Coast Rebel beat me to posting this first, so here's some of his take on the issue:

Some Basics:

• Think of end-of-life counseling from the Obama White House as carrots dangled in front of doctors, financial "incentives" for doctors to discuss “options” for end-of-life care. As stated in the NYT, that may "include advance directives to forgo aggressive life-sustaining treatment," or a continuance of Obama's "take this pill and go home" solution to medical costs.
  
• Under this new regulatory regime, doctors could ostensibly be the pawns of cost-curve-bending bureaucrats. To put this into perspective, ponder a Greece-like meltdown of our financial system/government in the future and the way then that these rules would be implemented. Better yet, think of this amount of power held in the wrong hands. How would the elderly be "counseled" during a time of national crisis? Moral hazard? Who determines that doctors have pure motives, instead of purely financial motives as they counsel in end-of-life situations?
  
• Team Obama (has again) done a complete 180 degree turn on the American people, going behind the back of both the American public and the Democrat-controlled Congress that took the death panel language out the legislation due to public outcry.
  
• Obama has been able to insert the death panel regulations due to the ambiguous "the Secretary shall determine" language that appears five times in the final 2000 page Senate version of Obamacare giving the "Secretary" (in this case, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius) the ability to implement (at their discretion) such a rule. The end-of-life regulation was finalized in November, brought to light the day after Christmas, and takes effect January 1, 2011. How's that for transparency, hope and change?
• The regulation is yet another example that Obamacare is simply the skeleton template of socialized, government-run health care. As Professor Jacobson at Legal Insurrection states, "Obamacare simply is the infrastructure. The details and the demons will be worked out in regulations." The end-of-life regulation is such a detail and demon.

Continuing to Fight the Good Fight.

By Design? Sure Starting to Look That Way

Wow. The lies just keep on coming. Apparently one of Obama's own advisors, one Steven Brooks, has decided to report that Obama knew A YEAR AGO that the idea of a "shovel ready project" was a crock of bull.

We all knew that before he was even in office. For those interested, the story comes from Michelle Malkin.

The Obama Presidency in Less than 3 minutes

Heard about this vid on O'Reilly tonight. Had to check it out, since I'm a huge Gilbert and Sullivan fan. Enjoy:

Is the Democrat Party Facing the Same Fate as the Whigs?

For those of you who attended public school indoctrination centers, the Whigs were a political party that existed from the founding of the nation in 1789 to just prior to the beginnings of the Civil War. The Whig party, originally a party based in many principals which are today called conservative, fell out of favor with the American people in the 1880s, and faded into obscurity with the rise of the anti-slavery Republicans, who elected the illustrious Abraham Lincoln to office just in time to lead the nation in a time of great crisis and division.

Does any of that above sound a little familiar? It does to me. We all know the political climate these days is anything but calm, with unemployment sky high, with a POTUS who acts more like Louis the 14th and a First Lady who acts more like Marie Antoinette. Let's count down the similarities, shall we?

1. National discontent and division. Obama has done more to divide this nation than any other president since James Buchanan refused to acknowledge or address the secession of the southern states during his term in office. The difference is that Obama has been dividing us on ideological lines rather than geographical, by silencing any opposition to his statist agenda, or at least attempting to.

2. National uncertainty. While there is always a certain degree of uncertainty in the nation at any given time, now it is at an all time high thanks to the recession, which is fast becoming a depression, and other disputes, such as the insecurity of the southern border with Mexico, is leading many to question as never before the relationship between the people and the government who is supposed to serve there interests above all others.

3. A new political movement rising. the TEA party coming to be has given me much to think about in terms of a potential third party. While historically third party candidates lose big (even Teddy Roosevelt lost his bid for a third term, despite his popularity at the time), when the republican party rose in the 1800s, there was already so much discontent with the Whigs that many former Whigs became Republicans, the Whigs themselves having become nothing more than "me-too" Democrats, which brings us to...

4. No discernable difference between the parties. There does not seem to be, up until recently at least, any discernable difference between the current Democratic and Republican Parties. Many Republicans simply go along with, or worse, actually subscribe to, today's Democratic Party and their socialistic principals. If you don't believe me, look at Linsday Graham-nesty or Olympia Snow Job. Not exactly standard bearers for the Conservative point of view.

So back to the original point: Is the Democratic Party facing the same fate as the Whigs? They may be, is my assessment. Many of the same crises that the Whigs faced, the Democrats are now facing. Admittedly, the Dems aren't facing slavery as an issue, but they are having to carry the weight of Obamacare on their backs, which essentially confines the nation and its people to debt slavery, so in a way I suppose they ARE dealing with it after all. Also, illegal immigration has been compared to slavery by Glenn Beck, in that they're "doing the jobs Americans won't do", just as slaves were "doing the jobs that white men wouldn't do."

They say history repeats itself, and we may in fact be repeating several eras at once, the Civil War era only one amongst many.

Continuing to fight the Good Fight

Some Thoughts on Videos about the Commissar

Here's a list of interesting videos I found today while surfing at the library:

1. I am Israel, courtesy of Moonbattery:




2. A few videos from a site known as JoeDanMedia.com. First on the list, Parasite:



3. Next from Joe Dan Media, Freedom is Color Blind:



Our message is out, fellow-tin-foil-hat wearers. Let's keep it out there and keep it LOUD AND PROUD!!!!

Read all About it: Government Officials Discover That Governing is...Hard.

Well, at least we're getting some truth out of Washington for a change. My usual informants on conservative talk radio have today informed me, your humble crusader for constitutional justice, that the Obama administration and its cronies are for lack of a better term, giving up.

Don't believe me? Consider these words from DHS Secretary Janite Napolitano, via ABC News:

"The notion that you’re going to somehow seal the border and only at that point will you discuss immigration reform – that is not an answer to the problem,” she said. “The border is as secure now as it’s ever been, but we know we can always do more and that will always be the case,” she said. “It’s a big border. It is 1,960 miles across that southwest border. It’s some of the roughest toughest geographical terrain in the world across that border… You’re never going to totally seal the border."

Ummm...Madame Secretary, we're not asking you to SEAL anything. We want the border SECURE. You know, you're the head of the Department of Homeland SECURITY, so a little bit of that on the border with ol' Meh-he-co would go a long way toward reestablishing your long since lost credibility. Though I doubt you'll do so, considering that, as a government official, your common sense has long since gone bye-bye. After all, we still remember your asinine comment about the system "working" in the aftermath of the Underwear Bomber incident.

Or, how about this little gem from Vice President Joe "Bite Me" Biden on June 24th, via CBS News:


Vice President Joe Biden gave a stark assessment of the economy today, telling an audience of supporters, "there's no possibility to restore 8 million jobs lost in the Great Recession."

No possibility? Really? What about the trillion dollars us taxpayers forked over for all of those shovel-ready projects? Wasn't that supposed to CREATE 8 million jobs? Apparently not, since the best you can do is "create or save" jobs in mythical districts and shove money down the throats of car companies and states that didn't want the funds in the first place. Great job there, Skippy.

Add on top of this Obama pushing a so-called "recovery summer" in which a whopping 260 jobs per state (according to Rush Limbaugh) were created this month. Great. A whole 260 jobs. Now I can go out and get the extra income I need to pay off my credit cards....NOT! Obama, I've said it before and I'll say it again, you suck as president and I can't wait until you and your cronies are out in November.

Not Much at all, in Fact

Sometimes I wonder how much time Obama's other detractors have on their hands. I've seen some pretty bizarre videos on Youtube deriding Der Commissar and his agenda, but this one takes the bloody cake by far. With apologies to Toby Keith. Severe, long and drawn out apologies:

Let the Dog and Pony Show Commence

I sit here wondering just why I'm watching this joke of a healthcare summit, even as I listen to Der Commissar and his goons go on and on about how they want to reduce healthcare costs and reduce the deficit blah blah blah...

State run healthcare DOES NOT WORK! Look at Massachussetts. They have it. They don't like it. They elected Scott Brown because he promised to be the 41st vote against healthcare. Massachussetts premiums have gone up steadily every year since Romneycare was invented and put into practice.

This is what they want to do to the nation? Group doctor visits? higher premiums?

I came in listening to the Commissar-in-Chief yak about how great his bill is, but whenever someone else was speaking, he looked like he wanted to be anywhere else than where he was. He's speaking currently, yakking about how the Republicans' ideas have been included in the bill, even though they aren't in the bill. I'm sure if they were, someone somewhere would have reported on it in the media, be it in the LSM or somewhere on the internet.

Senator Alexander seems to be a voice of reason in this joke of a summit, and even just now called out the president for not letting other members of congress present speak.

Tom Coburn just started speaking, and he's really taking it to them. Specifically even mentioning that most of the healthcare cost roadblocks were because of government regulation!

Too bad I'm not going to be able to stick around longer to see how much more the Republicans rip the democrats to shreds. Gotta go to work and pay for Nancy's Botox injections.

Mister Obama, TEAR UP THIS BILL!

I've been thumbing through a book my fiance gave me recently, called "The Wit and Wisdom of Ronald Reagan." The book contains quotes, witty remarks, zingers, and speeches from the Great Communicator, as well as opinions of what those who knew him and worked with him thought about our 40th president.

That being said, I believe Ronald Reagan would have had many choice words for our 44th president, who has now joined the healthcare debate in full by writing his own Frankenstein's monster of a bill. Well, I, though certainly no Ronald Reagan, I believe a variation on his famous "Tear Down This Wall" remark would be appropriate. Here goes:

President Barack Hussein Obama, if you seek bipartisanship, if you seek prosperity for the people of the United States of America, listen to those people. Mister Obama, TEAR UP THIS BILL!

For the Great Communicator's own words on socialized medicine, watch the video below:

Bipartisan Shmipartisan

It's official. Via Memeorandum the dems are now on record as saying that they will in fact go it alone if the Republicans dare try to filibuster the monstrosity that they and the American people have soundly rejected by a 2/3 margin.

Those silly silly Liberals dare to think that this will fly in this political climate? But then, maybe they don't care. Maybe they're willing to kamikaze themselves to get this passed because it means that once Healthcare is in the hands of the government, there will be nothing stopping the supposed fundamental transformation of America into the U.S.S.A once and for all. We've fought them to a stand-still and now they're desperate. is

This can be used to our advantage, however. As Napoleon once said, "never interrupt your enemy while he is making a mistake." The Dems are making a HUGE mistake in underestimating the people of this country. November will be a bloodbath for them and any RINOs that dare show their false colors during the midterms. Massachusetts, it seems, wasn't as big a wake up call as we would have liked it to be, though I doubt a rock to the face would wake these morons up now. Still, might be worth a shot...

Anyway, this just proves what we've all been grousing about for the last year. The dems don't want bipartisanship. they want the repubs to sit down and shut up, same as they want with the American people. Well, that, much like an eagle with only one wing, isn't gonna fly.