Joy Behar on The View, October 22, 2008

I thought it would be appropriate to include an example of the ridiculous (hence the title of this column) prior to eviscerating my fellow New Yorker, given the transcendent level of stupidity evidenced by Ms. Behar’s Limbaugh statement.

The irresponsible, inflammatory and, to be blunt, brainless remarks Joy Behar makes on a regular basis underscore what The View co-host is: An archetype of the insular, ignorant, supercilious far Left elite. As an escapee from the Fetid Apple, I find the phenomenon of folks who may be widely traveled but who never leave New York fascinating. The typical “Ugly American,” so to speak, their small-minded, narrow views remain with them no matter where they go.

Thus, such an individual thinks nothing (literally) of reflexively babbling such inane things as “Rush Limbaugh is a terrorist.” Terrorists blow things up and kill people. Thus far, I’m not aware of Limbaugh ever having engaged in such activity, unlike a friend (Bill Ayers) of Behar’s probable presidential pick (Sen. Barack Obama).

Unfortunately, as we know, The View is a widely watched program. To Americans whose only fault is spending a little too much time in front of the television and who would likely label Behar as merely “spirited,” such an attitude – and depth of stupidity – become acceptable.

Behar is an entertainer, and as this columnist has pointed out on numerous occasions, entertainers, particularly when they’re relatively young or wildly successful, have as inaccurate an overview of real life as is possible to possess. In the entertainment industry, it takes an exceptional level of emotional health to circumvent the pitfalls of sycophantism, narcissism, and elitism that are endemic to that business.

Simply put, few people are that emotionally healthy.

Behar is obviously coarse and somewhat repellent; whether she’s just mouthy and thoroughly indoctrinated or indeed a blithering idiot, I do not know. Certainly the business she’s in provides for the massive success of select dull-normals. The point is that no informed person (granted, a tall order these days) in their right mind would take to heart anything said by entertainers on weighty issues and would be doubly wary of those who are particularly vocal regarding their sociopolitical views.

So, should Americans stop watching The View? Certainly not. Discernment, which so few of us have in this day and age, is the key. I can watch The 700 Club and laugh cynically when Pat Robertson says something I believe is a tad dogmatic for general consumption – but I understand where he’s coming from, so it’s no big deal. One simply needs to be aware that, save for one, The View is hosted by far Left-dwelling, elitist mudheads.

So, I’ve addressed the stupid. As far as the “fat commie” component goes: Although the media and Internet are plastered with her flattering publicity photos, it’s evident that Behar has porked up of late. The comparison between her photos and recent segments of The View is actually quite shocking. She (or The View’s wardrobe people) know how to use clothing to conceal it, but the astute viewer can tell she’s becoming a fatty boombalatty, as the Italian kids I grew up with used to say. Now, I don’t allow my children to make fun of people who are overweight, but if Ms. Behar is going to use her celebrity to infect Americans with her idiocy and relish doing so, she’s going to have to take the heat – wherever it comes from. Behar’s politics – judging from her commentary – pay deference to everything Marxist. It is clear that she is ignorant enough to believe her bankroll will protect her when the rest of us are riding bicycles and eating “Little Friskies.” I’ve indicated before that this practice of taking people at their word rather than their actions pertaining to their beliefs has got to stop. If it walks like a duck, etcetera, it probably is, and Behar looks, walks and quacks appropriately…

If all this sounds a bit harsh, just bear in mind that to a recovering New Yorker, portly, aging, strident Italian women are not that unique. Let’s just say I’ve got her number…

The American people are being handed a bill of goods, that we will be living in a “Road Warrior” scenario within a short march of weeks if the government (read “American taxpayers”) does not come to the table with some form of economic aid to the ever-growing list of failed investment banks and related institutions in the U.S.

“Wall Street greed” is the catch phrase being used by the establishment press, half of Congress and the Bush administration to explain the implosion of the subprime mortgage industry and subsequent mass bank failures in the U.S. This is “the lie that is being told so often it is becoming the truth,” and readily accepted in the climate of class envy fostered by the far Left. What is particularly shameful is that so many in government are in so deep in this (in terms of culpability) that they are happy to deflect the blame.

Forget that Fannie and Freddie became the adopted brainchildren of congressional Democrats and the Clinton White House. Forget their quasi-Marxist social engineering that extended credit to millions of people who couldn’t afford it. Forget former White House Budget Director Franklin Raines raking in over $90 million running Fannie as it failed, Jamie Gorelick taking $30 million, Senator (and Democrat presidential nominee Barack) Obama staffer Jim Johnson taking millions from Fannie Mae, as well as several others who collectively pocketed tens of millions as well. Given the failures of these entities, there isn’t even the argument of stellar performance to justify these payouts.

Yet, Americans aren’t calling for their heads.

And forget that all of these people are Democrats. Let’s focus on the fear factor (should this not get addressed, and quickly) and in blaming Wall Street, and perhaps no one will notice the commonalities between the villains in this comic tragedy.

Perhaps it’s just jadedness, but the first thing that occurred to this columnist when talk of a “bailout package” came to the fore was all of the crooks that were going to line up and attempt to capitalize on the stupidity, shortsightedness and greed of our office holders and all of the taxpayer dollars that were going to be stolen in the process. Yes, those who caused the problem in the first place now presume our trust in finding a remedy for the situation, and the only ones asking questions or balking are those who have no credibility with the aforementioned lawmakers and the media. Thus, the American people remain ever ignorant and complacent.

Then there are the relationships between some of the principals responsible for this mess and a certain Democrat presidential nominee, and how these relationships are – big surprise here – going unreported by the establishment press.

As many a reader (but so few Americans at large) are aware by now, Obama was second among recipients of campaign dollars from Freddie and Fannie, despite the fact that he has only been in the Senate for four years. Does this smell of something? Of course, but we as a nation are too propagandized to notice or too apathetic to care. The big guys will steal; little mopes like us just get to suck it up. In the meantime, we still have to elect one of them.

For one thing, how are donations to political candidates by a government sponsored enterprise (GSE) legitimized in the first place? Though Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were publicly-traded, the brazen partiality toward left-leaning politicians and the monstrous transfers of capital to individuals from a GSE might have been questioned in an environment in which accountability existed.

Alas, no such luck.

Thirty years ago, Sen. Obama would be withdrawing from the presidential race right about now, so great would be the public shame of his connection to this debacle. But not a peep have we heard from Obama, save for his citing the greed of Wall Street. In fact, he seems hard-pressed to be forthcoming with anything substantial to say on the issue at all. Why? Once again, the establishment press, which is manipulating this election process, is shielding Obama from accountability. His silence merely speaks to his liability.

ACORN: Tip of the Iceberg

As if Sen. Obama’s incestuous relationship with Freddie Mac-Fannie Mae wasn’t bad enough, he is closely aligned with one of the most audacious crooks who have lined up to capitalize on the aforementioned stupidity, shortsightedness and greed of our office holders.

ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) “is the nation’s largest grassroots community organization of low- and moderate-income people with over 400,000 member families organized into more than 1,200 neighborhood chapters in 110 cities across the country” (from their website). They’re also a radical, far Left entitlement-oriented group that throws around phrases like “social and economic justice” like kids playing ball at recess and for which the financial bailout initially marked $100 million in funding. Why? Is ACORN a stressed bank that is foundering? No – congressional Democrats have simply dropped all pretense vis-à-vis cavalier and irresponsible dispensation of tax dollars.

Of course, ACORN has endorsed Sen. Obama, whose connection to this radical group goes back even farther than his community organizer days.

ACORN is but one of an unknown number of carrion-eaters circling above the carcass of our banking industry, waiting to pick its bones clean. It is simply a prominent one for which this information became available.

A little-known fact about carrion birds: Many will attack and kill prey animals if they can get away with it. Likewise, nonprofit and for-profit thieves will dine on the beefed-up bailout package if it is not transformed in a revolutionary manner or judiciously scrutinized and supervised.

Why, I ask myself, do I have the feeling that in the days of the Founding Fathers of this nation, such phenomena as described above would have resulted in four-fifths of Congress being dragged out into the street and shot?

Perhaps because that is precisely what would have occurred. I can fantasize, can’t I?

Which presumably makes this black columnist “white trash.” Curious…

There are certain points that occasionally need to be repeated, and one is the far Left’s practice of projection. Something taught in Psych 101 classes, it’s the psychological trait of ascribing characteristics to one’s adversary that actually apply to oneself. Whether intentionally or subconsciously, progressives (read far Left socialists) are consummate masters of this.

Inasmuch as those on the far Left are internationalists, it is no surprise that a Canadian journalist might be alarmed at recent developments in the current presidential election cycle in America. The choice of Sarah Palin has gained Republican nominee Sen. John McCain massive ground, while the camp of Democrat nominee Sen. Barack Obama has reacted like someone reflexively blowing soda pop through their nose after a shock.

The campaign of tawdry insults directed at Palin is in the spirit of the schoolyard invective that has been flying as regards the vice-Presidential nominee, such as making fun of her religion, appearance, upbringing, hobbies and her children’s names. The latter is in itself is an extraordinarily bad idea. Not that I’d know much about it, being white trash and all, but Democrats are likely to lose a substantial portion of the black vote if they keep that up. Tabascus-Jamal and Uniqua aren’t going to take kindly to a party that disrespects people simply because they have unusual names.

“[Palin] has a toned-down version of the porn actress look favored by this decade’s woman, the overtreated hair, puffy lips and permanently alarmed expression.”
Heather Mallick, Sept. 5, 2008

Here, what is either funny or sad – take your pick – is that these wild, histrionic swings are patently inaccurate. When Gov. Palin came on the scene, she looked more like a librarian than a porn actress. Save for the hair bun, which Palin has mercifully shed, Mallick’s hair is strikingly similar to the governor’s. The columnist’s criticism of Palin’s lips – with which we assume she was born – is beyond despicable. Other, even more insulting remarks concerning the Palins’ disposition apropos their unmarried pregnant daughter were simply additional validation of my assertions here.

“I’m not the one preaching homespun values but I’d destroy that ratboy before I’d let him get within scenting range of my daughter again…”
Heather Mallick, on Bristol Palin beau Levi Johnston

Yes, I suppose murdering Johnston – like real white trash might do – would be an eminently more constructive solution. Later, Mallick actually suggested outright that they shoot him.

In short, the rash emotional nature of progressive-socialists itself is very evidently betraying them. These tasteless slurs, though sometimes humorous in what they reveal, are the mark of the far Left as haters rather than torchbearers of all that is loving and tolerant (as they would have American voters believe). As regards the upcoming election, one can only hope that this is being driven home to enough of the electorate.

In their quest to demoralize America abroad, the far Left perennially accuses our government of meddling in the affairs of other nations. Political correctness dictates that we are not to judge other cultures or social practices, even including such extreme measures as stoning or clitoridectomies. Once again, however, we have a far Left non-American presuming to interject their socialist (and in this case, anti-social) mores into American culture.

Then, last week, porcine comedian Janeane Garofalo railed on the Real Time with Bill Maher television program that liberals were fundamentally more decent people than conservatives, specifically, Republicans, who ought to be jailed. What I and others find horrifying is that so many Americans would sooner pattern their values after this aging tomboy with bad tattoos than someone like Sarah Palin.

Are these infantile ramblings what now pass for rational, intellectually-sound, emotionally mature behavior in the Western world? Perhaps so, if we’re dealing with a faction (progressives) that sympathizes with Islamofascists, who want to put Jews and Christians “to the sword.”

And indeed she might be. Around 40 million folks tuned in to the festivities at the Republican National Convention in St. Paul on Wednesday, September 3, according to Nielsen Media Research. That’s about a 28 million more than those who watched the Democrats’ hyper-boganza (“bogus extravaganza”) on any given night of the previous week.

As most readers are aware by now – the show at the Republican convention (as well as that of the Democrats, come to think of it) was stolen by Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin. “How will she handle it?” wondered supporters and detractors alike. “She has to say this…She has to say that…She has to cover this base…She has to present herself as…”

Well, she said this and that, covered all the bases and then some, and presented herself as favorably as was possible, better than any imagined – although a few might have expected such. This columnist was reminded of the women he knew as a child – strong, independent ones who were nonetheless quite “in tune” with their femininity, as social psychobabblers are wont to say.

In addition to addressing nearly all of the key questions Americans had, rendering the unknowns known, and enlightening all too precisely who the Alaska governor is in unequivocal fashion, she succeeded in making Democrat presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama look like Steve Urkel – a comparison I’ve made before.

It was a good day to be a conservative. Not only did Palin accomplish all of the above, she delivered a message of indomitable spirit and solidarity. Palin offered hope to conservatives that traditional values and the “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” attitude were still alive in America amongst at least some seeking high office.

It’s a strange dichotomy; a segment of America believes that the Democrat presidential nominee is something special though he’s done nothing but speak. Sarah Palin has become an instant hero, though – in the greater scheme of things – she’s done little more than speak.

Or should I say “instant heroine?” Somehow, I think not. Though perhaps the term might be more appropriate semantically in that Palin proved women had been doing and having it all long before liberals came along, “hero” has a better ring to it. Why not take the opportunity as well to rub their faces in the more androgynous term they likely prefer?

Having Palin be the one to Urkelize Obama – though he seems to miss few opportunities to do so himself – was a stroke of genius. Although it is not atypical for candidates accepting the nomination to focus on other things and leave the opponent-bashing to surrogates, Palin was able to cut loose – but with class – because she is a woman. The ever-present perception of women as downtrodden in the minds of liberals, though Palin certainly doesn’t fit the bill, precludes the accusations that would certainly fly had an evil old white guy in a suit mopped up the floor with Obama.

Once again, we were also treated to yet more corroboration that it is the far Left who are America’s haters, as opposed to their so-accused adversaries. Governor Palin shone in her speech and has carried herself with grace despite having been slimed more by the establishment media in one week than has any woman in the public eye with the possible exception of the late “Queen of Mean” Leona Helmsley. It has long since become evident that American voters detest these calumnious machinations and react accordingly (by withdrawing support for progressive candidates), yet, like bratty urchins, those on the far Left simply cannot help themselves.

The puke-gutted Bolsheviks in the establishment press have apparently lost all shame and sense of vulnerability. While they have shielded Barack Obama from scrutiny regarding the most serious of charges, they have no qualms whatever toward dredging up the most paltry issues with respect to Governor Palin, her past and her level of experience.

Look for the far Left to continue to slander Palin and turn over the soil in attempts to find something sufficiently unpalatable about her to force McCain’s choice of another running mate – which would certainly cost him the election. Don’t discount the possibility, however, that another bone or two might yet fly out of Obama’s closet. One might actually be the bone that breaks his campaign’s back.

Leading the Republican party out of the wilderness is a tall order, but one that has to be done if the party is to retain its base intact, regain credibility and regain preeminence over the far Left-controlled Democrat Party. For if socialists have hijacked the latter, internationalists and invertebrates have hijacked the former. Neither of these represent nor reflect the values of the American majority; it is only our ennui that has facilitated their ascendency. Calculated action and awareness of our civic responsibility are what will reverse this trend, and we have stellar example in the personage of Sarah Palin. She got involved – now see where she is and how many she has inspired already. There’s our road map.

Nothing.

We have to do more in our own lives, our own families and our own communities. That starts with providing the guidance our children need, turning off the TV and putting away the video games; attending those parent-teacher conferences, helping our children with their homework and setting a good example.
- Sen. Obama, July 14, 2008

While the candidate has adopted some of the “tough love” rhetoric proffered by legendary comedian Bill Cosby (the sort of thing that prompted corporate blackmailer and poverty pimp Jesse Jackson to declare that he wanted to castrate Obama), the expected sagacious proposals for rousing black Americans to greater participation in the American Dream are as elusive as his grand design for “Change” in America. If inspiring talk was all that blacks needed, Jesse would have accomplished this decades ago.

Unfortunately – as is not surprising to many of us – Obama’s vision for American blacks doesn’t seem any more, well, visionary than was Bill Clinton’s or any other Democrat’s over the last 40 years. This might seem a tad strange considering that we’re dealing with a person steeped in a theology which teaches that being black is the black man’s “ultimate reality” (James Cone, Black Theology, Black Power, Orbis, 1997.). Judging from his nebulous, boilerplate far Left oratory, which includes such things as taxing corporations, the evil, faceless “rich” and cyclopean spending proposals for domestic and foreign poverty programs, it doesn’t appear that blacks can expect any more from Barack Obama than his perpetuating the institutions and cultural subversions that have kept so many black Americans poor and ignorant while incrementally degrading the spirit of those who aren’t as yet in that position.

This song is not only outrageously offensive to Sen. Clinton, Rev. Jackson, Sen. McCain and President Bush, it is offensive to all of us who are trying to raise our children with the values we hold dear.
- Sen. Barack Obama, on Politics as Usual, by Ludacris, July 30, 2008

This of course refers to a recent offering by the putrescent gangsta rapper and genetic throwback Ludacris, which not only ripped Sen. John McCain, but – in true chaotic rapper fashion – hammered Hillary Clinton and Jesse Jackson as well. I’d like to say that Obama can’t have it both ways, condemning a rapper’s lyrics while asserting that he is a “talented individual.” The problem there is that the press has determined he can have it any way he wants.

If any gangsta rappers possess talent in the understanding of most Americans Obama’s age (which is doubtful), they are simply prostituting their talent for dollars. As this columnist has asserted, rap is crap, and rappers are bums. If indeed Obama is the agent of change so many believe him to be, he should be throwing the entire rap industry under the bus with extreme prejudice, from each and every unintelligible performer (such as Ludacris) to leeches like rap moguls Sean Combs and Russell Simmons.
Apropos Obama’s comment above, given the opacity of the candidate pertaining to what “the values we hold dear” actually means to him: Here we have another instance of the press essentially acting as an arm of the Obama campaign; the press reports his remark, yet we are to believe no one within that body ever thought to request that he clarify those values. He steps in it, like he’s done so often, but the cameras quickly pan away as not to cause embarrassment as he wipes his shoe.

Absolutely surreal…

From what we’ve been led to believe, black voters are champing at the bit to cast their votes for the senator. It is truly sad that such a large percentage of any subgroup of Americans could be so thoroughly misled, as is the fact that Obama’s race counts for so much among them even though it’s clear that he’s just another grabbastic politician and Marxist who is already selling them out. This is unbeknownst to them, to be sure – but what else is new?

Last Friday evening I had the honor of joining Mr. Hannity and Mr. Colmes on their Fox News television program. They, along with the urchinesque Tamika Mallory (Director of Al Sharpton’s National Action Network) and I, analyzed the July 11 New York Post column by the Post’s D.C. Bureau Chief, Charles Hurt.

In his column, Mr. Hurt addressed civil rights activist the Rev. Jesse Jackson’s recent on-air sotto voce claim that he wanted to castrate Democrat presidential nominee Barack Obama. The comment, supposedly made during a time Jackson did not know his lapel microphone was live, was subsequently “heard around the world,” as it were. Jackson later apologized (equivocally, some suggested) and his apology was ever-so-magnanimously accepted by the candidate.

Hurt’s claim is that Jackson knew his microphone was live and “somewhere, deep down, he wanted the world – and Obama – to know how much he wants to ‘cut his nuts out.’”

A daring statement; hence the analysis in which I was invited to participate.

Neither Hannity nor Colmes nor Ms. Mallory nor I actually believed that Jackson had done this intentionally – but it did make for some lively speculation. The core message this columnist tried to convey is that while it illustrated the seething hatred Jackson probably does have for Obama, more importantly, it illustrated the hypocrisy of both men and race politics in America.

It was surprising to see how many people were puzzled that Jackson would have animas toward Obama. I would have been astounded if he did not. The perception of Jackson as a person of prominence and power in the eyes of black Americans is his very life. Suddenly, this was threatened by an upstart, just-add-water sage who captured the Democrat presidential nomination after a half-hour or so in the U.S. Senate. He is more articulate and far easier on the eyes than Jackson, he usurps Jackson’s message, his audience, and then has the nerve to remind him of the credibility he lost (with the 2001 revelation of his love child with a Rainbow Coalition staffer) by chastising black men who don’t raise their children.

Far be it for me to excuse anything Jesse Jackson says or does, but colloquialisms for castration are quite often used figuratively in many sections of our culture. Jackson might well have been speaking to “castrating” Obama in the arena of politics or his general credibility.

“It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is ‘merci beaucoup.’”
Sen. Barack Obama

Well, of course they do. European countries are geographically situated like our states. What choice do they have?

That night I would have far more relished discussing Sen. Obama’s admonition that Americans learn Spanish as a second language. I found it a bit disconcerting that the television news outlet that has broken every big Obama story wasn’t on this one like white on rice. That issue alone – properly packaged, which is what it seems to be all about these days – could easily cost Obama the presidency. Last week at a campaign event in Georgia, Obama not only made the above declaration, he also pooh-poohed the notion that we have a problem with immigrants not learning English and scolded Americans for their lack of multi-lingual skills.
“Instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English — they’ll learn English — you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.” Sen. Barack Obama

Make sure my child can speak Spanish?

Forget the fact that we have a radical element in America that is vigorously denying the necessity for immigrants to English. Obama points to Europe. Let’s examine that for a moment. Look at the shape Europe is in culturally; ask yourself why we’re moving in that direction and who wants us to do so. It sure isn’t conservatives. Europe opened the door for the wretched refuse of Africa and Asia. Many were Muslims; now there is real concern when radical Islamists take to European streets in numbers. The far Left answer to incursion always seems to be accommodation: Let the scum in. Cater to them. Short term sacrifice for long term… sacrifice.

Wait a minute…

The fact is that people have been emigrating to the U.S. and emulating American culture for decades because we are all that and a bag of damn chips. It’s far Left invertebrates and puke-gutted Bolsheviks like Obama and his puppet-masters who seek to convince us otherwise, and to compromise America on every level possible. Obama’s assertions are treasonous propaganda based on perverted, flawed logic. There is every reason for émigrés to the U.S. to learn English. For the European, travel means speaking another language. It is analogous to a New Yorker discovering that folks in New Jersey speak a completely different tongue. Unless a European plans to work in a hometown factory or vineyard for their entire life, the only way to successfully interact with the people they will meet is to learn other languages.

People in Europe and in other parts of the world learn English for the same reason. For the last hundred-plus years, America has set the standard in commerce, politics science, and a host of other areas. In order to remain competitive, people found they had to learn English. There is no reason Americans should be made to feel guilty about this. Obama’s comparison of Europeans to American tourists visiting a densely-populated, extremely diverse continent is beyond disingenuous.

This is what we get, however, when we rashly look to the political left. The Democrat Party is no longer one we can use when we’re miffed at Republicans, like a child playing one parent off of the other. Had Ronald Reagan not come along and infused our citizens with confidence, our economy with stability and our enemies with fear, Bill Clinton would have been voted out in 1996.
Until Democrats either take their party back from the far Left, or Americans realize that the party has been compromised to the degree that it no longer even approaches viability, our spirit, culture, economy and national security will remain in the gravest danger.

Perhaps Clinton supporters and those voters who are on the fence as regards the individual for whom who they might cast their vote saw the event as either an expected political maneuver or an exercise in magnanimity on the part of both Obama and Clinton. Others such as this columnist, who oppose both – and are not yet sufficiently numb to the effluvia of falsehoods and deceit that emanates unremittingly from the two Democrats – viewed the exercise as a transparent, vapid retch fest of the highest order.
It is apparent that the central order of business amongst Clinton and Obama fans – judging from the hoots, clucks and grunts of reaction from the Quest for Fire crowd in the stands outside of Unity Elementary School – is ending the war in Iraq. It is also apparent that they have long since wholly accepted the boilerplate misdirection and obfuscation that marks every oratory and press release coming out of the Clinton and Obama camps: Questions such as what is to be done when Iranian forces and al-Qaeda swarm unchallenged into Iraq and Shiites begin butchering Sunnis go unasked, let alone unanswered.

The wimpification of American foreign policy is a phenomenon that had its genesis in the Democrat Party. Granted that it has taken its toll on Republican administrations, during the time between John F. Kennedy’s presidency and Gerald Ford’s, far Left elements that had insinuated themselves within the Democrat Party implemented their “rot from within” strategies in numerous areas. The next Democrat administration – Jimmy Carter’s – subsequently compromised American credibility, integrity and power in the area of foreign policy to a degree from which it has not yet recovered, and perhaps never will. Inaction with regard to known threats from radical Islam, most notably during Bill Clinton’s presidency, quite literally paved the way for the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Like Richard Nixon, who was painted as the foul Republican creature responsible for the Vietnam War despite the fact that it was started and escalated by Democrat administrations and that Nixon actually removed our forces from that country, George W. Bush has been successfully cast by the far Left as the foul Republican creature responsible for our problems with radical Islam. In the eyes of Democrat voters, our current President cavalierly orders ignorant patriotic youth overseas to be blown into steak tartare while he sits in the Oval Office and giggles. We need to turn tail and run again even if it means emboldening our enemies further, because war is just terrible, horrible and icky, and besides – this one is just a case of military masturbation for the sole purpose of Bush’s entertainment, as was Vietnam for Nixon.

“‘This was not a pat on the back for Barack Obama from Hillary Clinton. This was a bear hug,’ said Kevin Madden, former spokesman for GOP candidate Mitt Romney.”
- Fox News, June 27, 2008

Actually, it far more resembled Clinton sticking her tongue down his throat. As Obama sat smiling and relaxed but unmoving, Clinton showered him with accolades peppered with gloom-and-doom prophecies surrounding Republican nominee John McCain. She offered the patently preposterous claim that McCain and Bush are two sides of the same coin, which “doesn’t amount to a whole lotta change…”

Guess she just had to get the “change” line in…

Then it was Obama’s turn. John McCain will keep American troops in Iraq until the next cycle of the cosmos ends, Obama intimated, extend corporate welfare and tax breaks, and so forth; again, one might swap out McCain for Bush and the accusations would be identical, which is of course holds dark irony for dedicated conservatives.

And Hillary? Well, he’s admired her as a leader, learned from her as a candidate, and he’s proud to call her his friend.
“She rocks…”
- Sen. Obama on Hillary Clinton, June 27, 2008

Like, gag me with a maggot… Totally! As far as being a friend goes: Would that be the sort of Clinton “friend” that gets thrown under the bus, winds up in prison, or is found dead of high-velocity lead poisoning in a park with a gun in their hand?
In what is becoming known as typical fashion, at one point Obama slipped verbally, saying they (he and Clinton) “needed” the people present. Then, presumably not wanting to appear too “needy,” he corrected himself and said that while they did need the people in a practical sense, they really needed them to be unified for the sake of the party, to play nice, “just get along” – that sort of thing.

Clinton definitely needs some of Obama’s millions approximately ($200 million at present, with more on the way given that he’s not taking federal funds) to help pay down her campaign debt. Toward the end of the primary race, she infused her campaign with a substantial amount of her own cash. Wherever she winds up, Clinton does not want that lodestone following her. Sen. Obama definitely needs her supporters, a significant portion of those blue-collar white Democrats and Independent voters who it is speculated are wary of Obama due to his errant speech concerning them and his connection to black nationalists and other questionable characters.

A marriage made in hell if there ever was one…

One of the talking points of the piece was outlined by the forum’s director, who was quoted as saying that due to cultural factors and because they frequently don’t have role models or parents directing them, black high school seniors are often unmotivated to go to college and aren’t even aware of the wide variety of fulfilling choices open to them.

Big surprise there.

No surprise either was rap mogul Russell Simmons’ endorsement of Democratic presidential nominee Sen. Barack Obama. Simmons, the Robert Mugabe of the music business (in that he enriches himself via the exploitation of blacks, but given the perverse paradigm of justice proffered by the far Left that Americans have agreed to swallow, this is acceptable because Simmons too is black), endorsed the candidate in March and has since been making the rounds of media venues explaining why Obama’s “the man.”

Simmons has been one of the most politically-active black figures in the entertainment business for some years. While reluctant to endorse candidates (until now), his social campaigns have always been thinly-veiled, left-leaning, shallow pop-culture extravaganzae. Founder of the Hip-Hop Summit Action Network (HSAN), itself an afrocentric far Left activist vehicle, Simmons has partnered with Rock the Vote (whose stated mission is “to engage and build the political power of young people in order to achieve progressive change in our country”) since 2000.

Simmons’ endorsement of Obama reeks of hypocrisy. As of early last year, he had hinted at favoring other Democrat candidates. This was likely a subtle but savvy message to Obama that if he wanted the support of young blacks (whom Simmons reckons he now represents), he’d better be black enough, afrocentric enough, and far Left enough for Simmons – something which, for all practical purposes, the candidate has proven in spades.

About a week ago, it was also revealed that Ayham al-Samurai, a former Iraqi exile (now an American citizen) who had hidden out in the U.S. for 20 years, called for support of the terrorist insurgency against U.S. forces in Iraq, has contributed $2,300 to Obama’s campaign (the maximum amount allowed for an individual under the law), and is allegedly back in the Middle East raising more cash for the candidate. The former dissident – whose most recent U.S. residence was Chicago – also had dealings with Antoin Rezko, the Syrian-American who supported Obama both politically and personally, and who was recently convicted of fraud in a federal court.

Nice.

So it appears that it matters little whether Sen. Obama’s endorsers are ostensibly “upstanding citizens” like Al Gore, far Left hate machines such as MoveOn.org, turncoat black “conservatives” who hint that they’re willing to sacrifice their principles for a candidate just because he’s black, anti-U.S. supporters of terrorism or terrorist organizations (such as Hamas) themselves. The candidate can claim that he has no control over who likes him, the response is framed by the establishment media as plausible, and sedated America nods numbly in agreement.

Back to the high school students mentioned earlier. The question of how viable a nation we shall have if Sen. Obama is elected – which could obviously impact the students’ lives in many ways – aside, their future appears dubious at best. In addition to the wholesale social and economic oppression likely to ensue if Obama wins, he also represents a party and an ideology that have done everything they can to ensure that as many blacks as possible remain as ignorant and impoverished as possible.

Barack Obama may see to it that yet more billions are carelessly thrown at the cause of furthering black education – but what will it matter if his buddies in politics and the news and entertainment media continue to sell pimp culture (immorality, self-indulgence and the cult of victimization) to black youth?

With Obama in office, it will be easier for far Left and black activists to blame the past actions of evil, faceless whites for blacks’ social ills than ever before. How long that song will play, with resentment festering on the part of both whites and blacks, before widespread social unrest rears its head will be anyone’s guess.

Barack Obama will stand blameless, of course: He can’t control anyone else’s actions.

Though it may be a losing battle, all such folks as this columnist can do is transmit these facts and pray that the weight of truth, in the aggregate, carries enough force to smash this candidate’s façade prior to the November election.

Despite the last several years of Americans’ synaptic pathways being deluged by how much the Bush administration and Republicans employ vacuum-related techniques, in the aggregate they have more than enough evidence that conservative principles have proven themselves more fruitful than so-called progressive ones.

The rub, as it were, lies in the fact that conservative principles have not been a benchmark of the Bush administration nor have they guided the Republican Party for some time. It is fortunate for the American people that Bill Clinton was more of a narcissist than an idealist, responding to the will of the people in such areas as taxes and entitlement programs in order to secure a viable legacy. Had this not been the case, Democrats would now have even more woes to heap at the feet of George W. Bush.

The election of a Democrat president – Obama in particular – would mark a perilous quantum leap toward socialism and an ever-weakening presence on the global stage, particularly if Democrats retain control of Congress and gain more seats in the House and Senate.

“Obama praised Thursday’s Supreme Court decision to allow detainees at Guantanamo Bay to challenge their imprisonment in federal courts. Enforcing habeas corpus rights, he said, is ‘the essence of who we are.’”

-Associated Press, June 14, 2008

The limp-wristed ruling with roots in a perverted interpretation of law was lauded by the Democrat candidate; the insanity of granting citizen’s rights to unconventional, lawless combatants in a global conflict be damned. Denial of the fact that the War on Terror is an unprecedented effort in response to an enemy of unprecedented ruthlessness and barbarity which must be met decisively and unconventionally is patent madness. Unfortunate that so many have accepted the notion that the entire phenomenon was a Bush concoction, and that millions may suffer terribly as a result.

“[Obama’s proposals]include a $1,000 tax cut for most working families; a new Social Security tax on incomes above $250,000; a ‘windfall profits’ tax on oil companies*; a $4,000 annual college tuition credit for those who commit to national or community service programs; and an end to income taxes for elderly people making less than $50,000 a year.”

-Associated Press, June 14, 2008

The transparency of these proposals would be humorous were they not so manifestly flawed – and historically proven to be imprudent. Still the masses cheer and gape over the façade, not considering the following for a nanosecond:

-A $1,000 tax cut for most working families is a joke.

-Americans with incomes of $251,000 are not wealthy, particularly if one has a family and lives in a large city.

-New taxes on oil companies will simply be passed on to the consumer as they always are, and Obama knows it.

-From whence is this unfunded mandate of a $4,000 annual college tuition credit to come?

-Here, Obama likely has gained the votes of elderly Americans who make less than $50,000 a year and pay taxes – all five of them.

But forget common sense, logic, the historical record, and the truth. As this columnist has asserted, Obama’s success (to date; he isn’t President yet) has been but a part of the global-socialist agenda. Turn the American Dream into enough of a nightmare and Americans will give up on it because survival – let alone prosperity – under the capitalist system will appear unattainable.

The former world heavyweight champion boxer George Foreman comes to mind, and the success he has enjoyed not only monetarily, but as a successful community servant. He grew up “po,’” claiming his family was too broke to afford the “or” (at the end of the word “poor”) in conditions that are more readily associated with impoverished people in the Third World these days. Yet, to hear the unshakable faith in the man, which he has also instilled in his children, that anyone can achieve anything in America to which they set their minds stands in sharp contrast to the message of those who stand out as “representatives” of “black America.”

Despite the ongoing production of multimillionaires in the U.S., even among those who ought to reside in penitentiaries, the Left continues to propagandize our citizenry as regards the downside of everything whilst busily working to manifest that nightmare of universal hopelessness.

“Barack Obama celebrated Father’s Day by calling on black fathers, who he said are “missing from too many lives and too many homes,” to become active in raising their children.”

-Associated Press, June 15, 2008

If that’s his belief, then perhaps Obama ought to reconsider his core political philosophy, embrace conservative values and refrain from validating and keeping company with those who promote victimology, class envy and race hatred. It speaks volumes to the media’s bias toward this candidate that even when he catapults boulders from his glass mansion, there isn’t a peep from the establishment press.

Since most members of the press have proven themselves to be card-carrying Obamaphiles, save for independent pollsters – who can be incorrect – there is really no manner by which one can discern how popular the Democrat candidate is in actuality.

The press portrays Barack Obama with the confidence that his occupancy of the White House is an inevitability. Will conservative Republicans and independent conservatives, perceiving the gravity of this election in the long term, vote for John McCain, a man whom they don’t consider conservative enough?

Only November will tell whether or not Dewey has defeated Truman again.

*Obama’s “windfall profits tax” does not conform to the definition thereof; it would simply be a new tax; in this context, an appeal to Americans’ resentment of “big oil.”

Like the seizure that alerted Sen. Ted Kennedy’s doctors that he was suffering from a grave condition, it is just a symptom – albeit a very nasty one.

“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals…”

-“Agent K,” from the film Men in Black

Being convinced that the Republican Party is to blame for taking us to places we would rather not and shouldn’t have gone, and that the George W. Bush presidency was a mistake that never should have happened, Americans are now shambling, glassy-eyed and drooling toward “Change,” too transfixed by the captivating ultraviolet glow to hear the crackle of those who burst into nothingness in line ahead of them.

They have no idea what they’ve bought into, of course, the magnitude of the lies and the peril which awaits. They do not fathom that they are accepting a fundamental change in the paradigm of our social system from one in which the industrious and principled prosper versus one in which the indolent and capricious prosper.

As regards the political continuum in modern America, over the past 40 years the Democrat Party leadership transmogrified from elitist liberals into socialists. In the last 20, the Republican Party leadership became liberals, and the media has been a prime mover in this transformation. Having themselves been manipulated by those in the press to heed them rather than their constituents and conservative elements within the party leadership (which had brought past success), eunuchs in the GOP, driven by fear for their image and personal self-interest, sold America out to deviant parasites.

The walking mediocrities among the far Left (politically-active ideologues) and duped middle class voters believe the playing field will be “leveled” for them and “the downtrodden” once the faceless “rich” are brought under their leaders’ sway. There is nothing in the historical record that indicates that they will have anything to look forward to but misery, abuse and pain, but logic is immaterial. By design, the power brokers of the far Left appealed to their emotions, not their intellect.

The power brokers and their operatives (such as those in the press, for example) believe that they will be among the unassailable elite. Once again, despite the historical record, they don’t believe they will ever be counted among those who, in a fit of melancholy, climb into the trunk of an automobile and shoot themselves repeatedly in the head, as so many prominent figures in far Left regimes wind up doing.

Just a few of the dangerously dishonest representations in which the press has engaged over the last eight years:

-Television news bureaus withheld the more gruesome 9/11 footage – too graphic for their audiences, of course. The same criteria somehow doesn’t apply to video of terrorists killed by American troops in Iraq. This was the beginning of their systematically propagandizing Americans into forgetting 9/11.

-Engendering sympathy for retrograde culture (at which they have excelled for some time) and radical Islamist killers are among other wild subjectivities put forth by the press concerning the War on Terror in general.

-The Iraq campaign was supposed to be over in half an hour. The scope and the frequency of the falsehoods, minimizations, manipulations and exacerbations conveyed by the press to Americans in this area are too numerous to address.

-Slandered, maligned and generally demonized President Bush and the Republican Party – unfortunately, with their help – on a scale never seen previously.

-Exhibited barefaced partiality for Sen. Barack Obama during the Democrat Party’s primary process, evidenced by their downplaying glaring and perilous deficiencies in the candidate.

The press knows that Mexican drug lords essentially own the U.S. – Mexico border. American women are being abducted from our southern border towns and spirited away south of the border to face unimaginable fates. Atrocities reminiscent of the Mongol invasion of China are taking place along the border every day. How many Americans (who don’t live in border towns) are aware of these occurrences?

While the far Left escalates its quest to stamp out Christianity in America, the religion is literally exploding in Asia and Africa, where believers hold to their faith despite persecution Christians have not experienced since the time of ancient Rome. One example is the genocide in Darfur, Sudan; the press conveniently neglects to include this component in its coverage of the crisis.

For better or worse, we have this thing called the First Amendment to the Constitution, which prohibits government infringement upon the activities of the press. Little did the founders of our nation know that it would one day face a universally treasonous press that would, hell-bent on societal suicide, focus its energies toward bringing America to ruin.

Were the extent of the media’s manipulation of information to the political gain of the far Left in America known, it might well lead to the storming of news bureaus across the country. A conservative individual with, say, George Soros’s resources could take care of America’s “press problems” fairly handily. This columnist has intellectually considered certain initiatives; unfortunately, addressing them here would be imprudent.

Although it does bear mentioning that the First Amendment only applies to the government abridging the freedom of the press – not the people…