For decades liberals have gotten away with posturing themselves as having some moral authority to preach at the rest of us about any array of rights that they purported to treasure.  The Age of Obama has finally put an end to that canard.

MYTH: It’s My Body

You know the line.  Many proponents of abortion rights make their argument based upon the idea that our bodies are our own and that government cannot regulate them.  The idea is that the baby, once born, enters the realm of government protections enjoyed by the rest of us, but up until that point it is none of its business.  “My body, my choice”, the mantra goes.  Over the years they have managed to position abortion rights as some sort of sacred canary in the gold mine indicator of individual liberty, even coining the oddly inapplicable phrase reproductive rights for the debate.  Proponents of abortion rights always position themselves as the ones who believe in individual freedom.

But then along came ObamaCare to shatter the myth that their position on abortion was based on a general philosophy of individual freedoms.  If the government can tell its subjects how and where they can get health care, that government effectively has complete control over their bodies.  Given that the Left has now implicitly admitted that we in fact do NOT have control over our own bodies, they can no longer make any parallel claims of self-ownership to justify abortion rights.  They gave that up in pursuit of third world socialized medicine.  They simply cannot have that one both ways, though with their typical intellectual dishonesty they will certainly try.

RESULT: BUSTED

MYTH: Liberals Revere and Defend Individual Rights

We all remember how liberals shrieked at the passage of the Patriot Act – when it was Bush, that is – they let it go when their Dear Leader renewed it.  They claimed that the Bush Patriot Act was a violation of our 4^th amendment rights (one of only two amendments with which most liberals are familiar) because it permitted the monitoring of foreigners who communicate with suspected overseas terror groups.  However, in the new Obama Age in which people have accepted that we are not free individuals but are instead simply livestock living on the government collective, such talk is ridiculous.  The freedom-loathing mindset that allows people to support ObamaCare requires that the government monitor all of us all the time.  You cannot have it both ways; either we are free or we are not.

RESULT: BUSTED

MYTH: Liberals Protect and Defend the US Constitution

Those of us who are familiar with the Constitution laugh when liberals try to refer to it because they routinely demonstrate a complete lack of familiarity with it.  Thinly veiled political groups like the ACLU act like several of the clauses and amendments do not even exist.  To most liberals, their grasp of the Constitution consists of a murky understanding of the first amendment and the fourth amendment but very few can speak about much of the remainder.  Admittedly, they do like to wrap up their ideology in Constitutionality when it comes to baseless things like claims of civil rights violations in the new Arizona law, but they can never have an informed discussion about the Constitution nor can they ever get beyond vague claims of “rights”.  Many liberals have put far more time into studying the Communist Manifesto than the Federalist Papers, and it shows.

In the Obama Age, liberals simply cannot even mention the US Constitution again.  From their ignorance of the text in general, to their denial of the very existence of the 10^th amendment, to their egregiously dishonest contortions of the Commerce Clause in order to seize more power over our lives, they have always thoroughly despised our founding document and typically trot it out only when they want to defend some immoral behavior.  Those of us on the libertarian side of conservatism have known that for decades.  But now they have shown once and for all that they view the Constitution merely as a hindrance standing in the way of implementing their immoral collectivist ideology.  Most recently, Elena Kagan’s unwillingness to answer whether Congress could make a law requiring that we all eat vegetables every day is as clear a window into their demented thought processes are you are likely ever going to get.  They genuinely think that government owns every one of us.

Liberals reject the Constitution and should be called on it even when they pay lip service to it.  They are enemies of Constitutional government and our historical individual rights.  We should never even humor them when they try to pretend otherwise.

RESULT: BUSTED

MYTH: Liberals Are Serious About Fiscal Responsibility

In the Obama Age, we have clearly seen that liberals are willing to throw all future generations under the bus in pursuit of their agenda.  The radicals running our country have no problem borrowing money from Americans not yet born in order to fund their vote-buying agenda today – after all, most of them will be dead and buried before the whole thing comes crashing down.  Though no clear thinking person has ever taken liberals seriously when it comes to spending restraints, with a $13 trillion debt and a $3.7 trillion budget they have forever lost any credibility when it comes to spending.  Just as important, they can never criticize anyone for over-spending, though their more likely class warfare laced insult is that we are under-taxing.

RESULT: BUSTED

MYTH: Liberals Care About “The Children” (It Takes A Village)

One common refrain from politicians of all stripes is that we need to do something “for the children”.  Though the Democrats love to tout welfare programs like SCHIP under the notion that they are compassionate and concerned about America’s children, the Democrat party and its continued supporters have shown via their out of control spending that they have absolutely no concern for today’s young people or for future generations of Americans.  To compare them to drunken sailors is an unfair insult to inebriated servicemen.  True to the core selfishness of liberalism, they only care about what is good for them today.  It is decidedly adolescent thinking, but all too often that is par for the course for liberals.

RESULT: BUSTED

MYTH: Liberals Protect Senior Citizens

Over the years liberals have played a dishonest but successful game involving senior citizens.  They claim to be huge proponents of Medicare and Social Security, but that myth was quietly busted decades ago when they started stealing every bit of the surpluses to spend on other vote-buying schemes, all the while knowing that they have created unfunded liabilities for the future generations about whom they simply do not care.

Then along comes ObamaCare, which will not only ration care for the elderly like other countries with Soviet-style health care – several of Obama’s advisors have made past statements confirming that reality – but it steals money from Medicare in order to prop up the preposterous notion that ObamaCare is budget-neutral.

The Left has thrown America’s senior citizens under the bus, and many of them do not even know it yet.  Though they will certainly not be called death panels when they arrive, such decision making panels are coming.  Liberals can never again pay lip service to the idea that they give a rodent’s posterior about America’s senior citizens.  Senior citizens and future generations are effectively cannon fodder for the Left’s agenda.

RESULT: BUSTED

MYTH: Liberals Care Deeply About the Environment

One long standing liberal myth involves their concern for the environment.  They all shrieked loudly when a biased and only partially truthful report about arsenic in water was used to slam the previous administration. But outside of a few liberals who hail from the Gulf region their silence on the Gulf Oil spill is truly deafening given the pathetic response and weak leadership from the White House.

President Obama intentionally dragged his feet in his initial response on the oil spill because he immediately saw it as a too-good-to-pass-up vehicle for his anti-energy agenda.  He wanted the mess to get big enough to be successfully used to strong-arm domestic energy policies, but he once again showed his incompetence by letting it go too far.  Adding insult to injury, he chose his allegiance to labor unions over his alleged concern for the environment when he refused to waive the Jones Act, which would have dramatically helped contain the damage from the oil spill.

The fact that the liberals are not going after Obama for his dismal performance on the oil spill shows that their alleged concern for the environment is just another political game for them.  Their silence in the face of the federal government keeping the press away from the oil spill mess speaks volumes about where liberals are really coming from.  They do not really care about the environment unless it can be used as a political bludgeon against their opponents.

RESULT: BUSTED

MYTH: Liberals Are Civil Libertarians

Though it’s undeniable that the Democrat party is historically the party of racism, including Jim Crow laws and the filibuster of the Civil Rights Act, with the aid of a complicit media they have managed to construct a myth involving an opposition to race-consciousness and bigotry.  But once again, their Dear Leader President has busted yet another myth.

The case against the New Black Panther Party members for voter intimidation was already won.  The defendants never responded and were found guilty.  After being found guilty, the Obama administration dropped the case.  The only conclusion that an objective observer can draw is that they only care about bigotry and intimidation when it is a white person doing the intimidating – they do not really care about equal rights or the Voting Rights Act at all.

RESULT: BUSTED

Thanks to President Obama, we no longer have to believe in these liberal myths.

I still cannot believe that grown-ups were fooled by the pathetic (though smooth talking) empty suit Marxist that was candidate Obama.  Though many of us saw what he really was at the time, it remains embarassing and troubling to me that my fellow countrymen are so naively susceptible to such transparent snake-oil salesmen.

The bottom line is that we are taking our country back from the adolescents.  Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.  Lefties, you had better make that last choice.

This was very well thought out.  I had to resist the urge to tag some friends in this photo when I posted it on Facebook.

To those of you who check this site regularly: I apologize for my very limited blogging lately.  I am putting a lot of hours into a side project – political of course – and it has cut into my blogging time severely.  I should be able to get this new project running in the not-too-distant future and will be announcing it here.

I appreciate your patience, and I will get some more content up here soon.  I have several half-done posts…

Would the executive branch of the United States Government selectively enforce laws to achieve political goals? Would they even be willing to effectively entrap companies in order to force them to join the big labor allies of this administration?

In fact, according to an article at Big Government the Obama administration is doing just that, including taxpayer-funded Public Service Announcements by Labor Secretary Solis, Dolores Huerta – a union activist and member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and the well known intellectual Jimmy Smits.

The video linked by Big Government starts with President Obama’s Labor Secretary Hilda Solis:

I’m U.S. Secretary of Labor Hilda Solis, and it is a serious problem when workers in this country are not being paid every cent they earned.

Remember every worker in America has the right to be paid fairly whether documented or not.

So call us it is free and confidential at 1-866-487-9243

We can help.

All three of these activists make the claim that “every worker in America” has a right to be payed “fairly… whether documented or not.” Then they provide a phone number and promise confidentiality for whistle-blowers. This is a government agency using your tax dollars to try to solicit calls from illegal aliens to report the companies for which they are working illegally – though it is a safe bet that the “undocumented” worker is not going to lose his job or get deported.

From the article in Big Government:

Here is how this works.   Undocumented workers call the DOL hot line and say that they are being unfairly paid by Employer X.  Armed with this information, DOL investigators call Employer X and say they have evidence that Employer X has hired so-called undocumented workers and that it may have wage violations. The DOL investigators suggest that some type of remediation needs to occur, and then DOL will likely offer a list of options, any combination of which may be used:  multiple substantial fines, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) investigation, Wage & Hour investigation, IRS audit, and possibly imposition of a union contract to help prevent future calls from DOL.

Think about that for a minute. Not only is the federal government refusing to enforce our immigration laws, but they will always error on the side of giving illegal aliens a pass.  Far from the simple incompetence that we all expect from our government, this is all part of a strategy that I outlined in Statism’s Intentional Failures, in which the federal government intentionally allows a problem to fester in pursuit of expanded powers in the longer term. In this specific example, the federal government itself created the illegal immigration problem, then has the audacity to use your tax dollars to solicit calls from illegal aliens to demand their so-called “fair” wage. The immediate result is an investigation of that company for – you got it – hiring illegal aliens!

At this point, the Obama administration steps in and plays the role of organized crime thugs. They make the company an offer that it cannot refuse: either face DOL investigations and fines and IRS audits… or agree to unionize. Given their complicity in the border problem, they have essentially entrapped these companies into committing a crime so that they can use that to force them to unionize.

The Big Government article goes on to provide compelling evidence that the real aim here has nothing to do with immigration, it is to force companies into becoming unionized. The mere fact that the government provides that option as a choice for avoiding punishment shows clearly that the labor unions own this administration. This plea bargain forced unionization by the Obama administration is outright extortion, financed with your tax dollars.

You can be an illegal alien working for a company, pick up the phone and report your employer, then have your pay and benefits improve thanks to [this] Uncle Sam’s incestuous relationship with both American and international labor unions.

This is another step in the Obama Administration’s continuing shakedown of employers in an attempt to entice them into agreeing to force their employees into unions.

With the legal costs associated with multiple federal agency investigations and the risks of heavy fines, Employer X could be forced out of business.  Under these conditions, Employer X might begin to believe that sacrificing his workers’ rights and forcing them into a union is an option worth taking.

Loos makes a strong case for his assertion that the Obama administration is involved in this pro-union entrapment and extortion, and concludes with this:

These DOL videos provide another peek inside DOL under the Obama Administration.  Sec. Solis and her forced unionism allies intend to use the power of the federal government to force documented and undocumented workers to expand the ranks of SEIU and other unions at the cost of individual worker freedom and choice.  Congress should defund these forced unionism programs; stop Sec. Solis from using the Wage & Hour Division to intimidate workers; and specifically exclude payments to or contracts with unions as a condition of settlement or negotiation with an employer.

Barack Obama is the Godfather, and his capos are his buddies who run the big labor unions.  They brought their Chicago Way to the beltway.

Statists have a racket going that too few people seem to have figured out.  Though many Americans oppose Obama and his allies based upon specific policy issues, they continue to be naïve about the tactics of these genuine enemies of freedom.  These power-hungry people seek to destroy our historical institutions and principles in order to remake America under an immoral collectivist ideology, but they must acquire more power over our lives and over the states in order to succeed.  As ridiculous as it sounds, their modus operandi involves the simple act of intentional failure.  While their consistent use of this approach demonstrates their low view of the intelligence of Americans, their success with this tactic suggests that they are on to something.

How To Seize More Power By Failing

Step 1: Intentionally let a problem become a “crisis” by either refusing to enforce laws or by enforcing laws that only worsen the situation.

Step 2: Insult every American’s intelligence by pretending to ride in on a white horse to save us from the problem that was in fact intentionally created by the same group of egregiously dishonest con men.

We see this simple statist pattern repeatedly in America, and astute readers may realize that this tactic is right up Saul Alinsky’s alley.  This approach has certainly been co-opted at times by statists in the GOP, but it is now the default MO of the Democrats in their relentless assault on American limited constitutional government.

The Broken System

The Broken System approach involves refusing to enforce good laws that would help solve a particular problem.  The statist knows that the problems associated with non-enforcement will ultimately snowball into something that he can label as a crisis, therefore nothing that could help the problem will be attempted or permitted.  When the problems predictably fester into something that can no longer be ignored, the statist demonstrates Obama-like audacity by claiming that “the system is broken.”  Remember, the statist has refused to enforce laws that would help the problem because he is using his own intentional failure to seize more power and freedom from the people he undoubtedly sees as ignorant proles.

The Broken System fallacy is perfectly displayed in the illegal immigration debate. We have enough laws on the books to close the border, deport those here illegally, and severely punish those who employ illegal aliens.  But the plain truth is that the statist has no intention of enforcing those laws.  The purported failure of those “mean” laws is intended to be used as a vehicle for the Left’s agenda to “fundamentally remake” our country into something that the founding fathers would not recognize.

The President opposes the Arizona law not out of concerns about racial profiling but instead because he knows that the law will work.  If Americans see the Arizona law working, they will reject Obama’s call for a full amnesty, which he euphemistically refers to as Comprehensive Immigration Reform.

Exactly why does the President oppose the Arizona law?  Ignore his rhetoric; Barack Obama is always selling some new snake oil.  The President opposes the Arizona law not out of concerns about racial profiling but instead because he knows that it will work.  If Americans see the Arizona law working, they will reject Obama’s call for a full amnesty, which he euphemistically refers to as Comprehensive Immigration Reform.  Don’t ever forget that so-called Comprehensive Immigration Reform is nothing less than utter capitulation and amnesty.  Why does the President of the United States want this?  He simply seeks the vote inflation that comes with stamping out another 10 or 20 million poor and uneducated citizens.  It’s all about power to the statist.  They are willing to throw anyone and anything under the bus along the way.

Saved by the Antagonist

Another statist tactic involves passing laws that severely undercut the free market system.  When the economics play out just as anyone could predict, the statists claim that this “unencumbered free market” is out of control and that greedy corporations must be reined in.  They write restrictive new regulations that always seem to have special rules and exemptions for people and companies that donate money to these politicians.  Once again, the very people whose actions caused the crisis in the first place claim that they are here to save us.  This statist tactic very clearly played itself out in our debate over socialized medicine.

Government at many levels, though mostly the federal level, put so much onerous legislation and protectionism in place with regard to medical care that the system could not function properly.  Laws against purchasing insurance across state lines, refusal to rein in the trial lawyers (who positively own the Democrat party), and government imposed mandates on coverage constructed an artificial environment that was most decidedly not a free market.  Then, completely true to the original plan, when this system predictably fails to provide reasonably priced health care the statist steps in to take the system over, castigating the “greedy” companies that the statist claims caused the problem.

Another example of the Saved By The Antagonist approach is the housing crisis and subsequent financial meltdown.  On the front-end, the government and rabble-rousers like our current President strong armed financial institutions into making bad but politically correct loans to people who previously would not have qualified for a loan.  On the back-end, they used their control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to require that a certain percentage of purchased loans be so called sub-prime loans, creating a huge market for these bad loans.  Our financial crisis was clearly created by our federal government’s policies, but now people like the deeply corrupt Senator Chris Dodd – who has been called “the Senator from Countrywide Mortgage” – claim that it was all greedy bankers and that the people who really caused this are going to fix it with more market-skewing regulation.

Think about the reality of what is happening.  Imagine an old western movie.  A bad guy rides in to town, shoots the place up, and storms out of town after robbing the bank.  Then he pauses in the woods to change horses and clothes and rides into town telling the people how he can save them from such future problems if they just let him take charge of everything.  Our politicians do not even bother to change disguises when they pull this game with us.

Let’s learn from their failures, even the unintentional examples.  When they fail, we should replace them rather than giving them more power.  Let’s throw them out in November and hold their replacements’ feet to the fire every single day.

We all remember what happened last December in the Senate and then again in March in the House of Representatives.  After a full court press and in outright defiance of the clearly stated will of a majority of Americans, the Senate voted on Christmas Eve to approve so-called health care reform, now ubiquitously referred to as ObamaCare.  Even though solid majorities of Americans opposed the measure, every single Democrat voted for it, even the fictional “blue dog” Senate Democrats who were once able to claim adherence to fiscal conservatism.  In March the House then voted to pass their version of ObamaCare, once again in the face of clear opposition from the American public.

Even though these politicians should have been concerned with keeping their jobs after their next election, they disregarded the wishes of the American people in order to pass this sweeping new legislation.  Knowing that they were less than a year from the next election and while receiving quite a bit of feedback from their constituents at town hall meetings and rallies across America, they still pursued their agenda against the will of the people.  In fact, I remember seething when I heard Nancy Pelosi say that they had enough votes to allow some Democrats to “vote their district”.  These three dangerous statists – Obama, Pelosi, and Reid – are simply intoxicated by their ideology and have proven over the last 18 months that they will do anything and say anything to advance their agenda, which always seems to boil down to more dependency-based control over Americans.

Now consider this.  Given the likelihood of significant GOP gains in the November elections, just imagine what the fired congressmen will be willing to do in the interim period between receiving their pink slips from the voters and actually leaving office in January.  We have all been forced to recalibrate our government outrage meters in the Obama Age, but we should prepare ourselves for affronts that we simply cannot even imagine today.

Ask yourself a few questions.  Why aren’t they trying to pass Cap and Tax right now?  Why no push for amnesty for illegals Comprehensive Immigration Reform?  Further, have you heard that they have no plans to pass a real budget any time soon?  They are already clumsily tipping their hand to their plans.  They are saving everything for the lame duck session of Congress.  How many times have you been stunned at the audacity and gall demonstrated by this gaggle of statists?  Unfortunately, I think that we have not seen anything yet.

We all know from experience that when people get fired or laid off, they get shown the door immediately and there is a good reason for that.  When someone has been terminated, you can expect that employee to be worthless at best and damaging at worst, with a bit of revenge mixed in.  But in contrast with private sector people, the angry employees that we will terminate in November will retain significant power over our lives until January.  Perhaps more significantly, these “public servants” will feel a pressing need to cut deals to land their next government job.  They will throw us all under the bus and by now we should all accept that fact.

At first I naively thought about proposing a scenario in which every candidate would publicly ask for a pledge from the incumbent that he or she will not vote on any significant legislation during the lame duck session if they are defeated on November 2^nd.  But just thinking like that makes me look like someone who just fell off the turnip truck – in fact I surprised myself with that half-second of naiveté.  These dishonest charlatans have proven that they will do whatever they want even when they still have a chance at reelection.  They would violate any pledge without remorse.  Does the name Bart Stupak ring a bell?

Then I finally arrived at the obvious and unavoidable core reality of our situation, and wondered why it took me so long to figure this out.  When the rubber hits the road, there are 41 people in America who can stand between us and tyranny.  The only people who can stand in the way of truly significant outrages – potential death blows – against the American Experiment are the 41 Republican Senators who possess the so-called nuclear option of the filibuster.  If they stand together, and only if they stand together, we can weather the two dark and dangerous months between our national repudiation of the Obama agenda and the seating of our new Congress.

234 years ago the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence pledged their “Lives, [their] Fortunes and [their] sacred Honor” to further our independence and begin the task of creating the American Experiment.  I honestly do not consider it hyperbole to argue that the 41 Republican members of the United States Senate will face a challenging period that could decide the future of our country.  Though it will not even begin to compare to the tribulations faced by the Signers, in duration or in danger, let us hope that they are up to it.  Given that their number includes weak links like Graham (SC), McCain, and Snowe (ME), I worry about whether they possess the principles and intestinal fortitude to stand up to the predictable juggernaut.  Further, imagine what an angry and resentful John McCain will be willing to do if he is defeated in his primary with J.D. Hayworth.  The future of the Republic could depend on whether these 41 Americans are willing to be pariahs for two months.

If they do the right thing, these 41 Senators may go down in history as having fought a holding action that helped save the nation and preceded the restoration of our Constitutional Republic.  The ancient Greeks who fought a desperate holding action at Thermopylae against Xerces’ invading Persians were dubbed The 300.

If they do the right thing, these 41 Senators should be remembered as The 41.

The only thing that will make this idea work is getting it out there.  Please pass this along to your conservative friends and even consider calling into a talk radio show with the idea.  Most importantly, pass it along to your Senators.  Let’s make it clear to The 41 that we understand the seriousness of our situation.  We are watching.  We will be sitting next to our children and grandchildren, the ones who will pay the biggest price for the selfish orgy of the Obama Agenda, and we will be watching The 41 to see if they are up to the challenge.

The new web site will be up soon…

[Note to regular readers: It’s not unusual for me to percolate on a blog post for a month or two, chatting with my wife about it regularly but not quite getting it typed up in a timely manner.  The observed downside to that slow process is that sometimes I end up throwing away a half-written blog post because I do not want to be a “back-bencher”, which is what Mark Levin calls the other pundits, commentators, and bloggers who borrow material from his radio show for their next-day offerings.  In the most recent case, I was mostly done with a blog post – ultimately the one that you just read - that I was going to call Lame Duck Tyranny or Lame Duck Danger in which I intended to discuss the real danger that we face between the next election and the seating of the next Congress.  But on Saturday I listened to Friday night’s Mark Levin show only to find that he was covering the same topic and making some of the same points. This is not the first time that he and I have espoused similar positions and it likely will not be the last – after all we both arrived at our very similar philosophy by reading the same things, studying the same history, and observing the same events.  However, this time I decided not to toss my blog post because this topic gets me worked up and worried.  Mark Levin would likely prefer that even more people are exposed to the idea of this lame duck tyranny anyway.  Finally, I am such a small time blogger that I do not even qualify as a back-bencher!]

Used intelligently, Twitter is a very valuable tool, with one caveat.  Though I know that different people utilize Twitter in very different ways, there are two things about Twitter than I find to be particularly worthwhile, one on the news side and one on the politics/opinion side.

If you sit in front of a computer all day like I do, Twitter will ensure that you know about any news event almost the very moment it happens. This instant “heads up” has proven to be true through virtually every news story of the past year.  Apparently there is an equation, I could call it Waterson’s Law if I was feeling self-congratulatory, that states that if you follow a certain number of people on Twitter then at any given instant someone that you “follow” will be sitting at home watching cable news or listening to talk radio, eager to be the first person to pass along some breaking story.  It’s better than keeping a page open on Drudge Report, though you can follow Drudge Report on Twitter as well!

Beyond those breaking news updates, Twitter is really good for political news and opinion.  Some people seem to love to sit around coming up with snarky or downright funny thoughts (@ExJon) and some people are more likely to pass along good political articles, often at a surprisingly prolific rate (@Cubachi).

As far as the caveat that I mentioned earlier, I started thinking about something after reading a largely unrelated blog post over at Riehl World View.  In that post, Dan was making a point about Twitter not scaling well and the implication that those of us on the right may be too dependent on it heading into the fall, but it made me think about something else and it is the one warning that I would offer about Twitter: do not let it make you a passive news gatherer.

I have been one of those web junkies since before Drudge broke the Lewinsky scandal.  Heck, I remember in 1994 when the only good web site was Adam Curry’s MTV.Com .  In fact, I cut my teeth arguing and reading on the Usenet in groups like talk.politics or talk.politics.guns back a few years before the web ever put a user friendly face on the internet.  But recently I realized that I had gotten a little too dependent on Twitter for my news and political opinion.  I have subsequently made a conscious effort to go out and find my own news again rather than allowing myself to be satisfied with what others’ pass along.  Do not forget to continue to go to the places that you used to check before Twitter, otherwise you risk being too passive in your news and opinion trolling.

Finally, most of you are wondering how in the world you got this far into this post without finding out who the heck Kurt Schlichter is.  Kurt is a guy that I follow on Twitter.  His short bio states:

Writer (Big Hollywood, et al), ex-comic, Desert Storm/OEF (Kosovo) veteran, and the only right wing civil trial lawyer in LA.

Kurt seems like a stand up guy and a patriot.

For the last couple of weeks I have been thinking about writing a blog post exhorting conservatives to use Twitter, but it had not really come together until Kurt went off on a funny-but-true rant with a series of twitter updates about what it means to be a conservative.  I wanted to pass along some of his observations while encouraging conservatives to use Twitter.

Here are some of his spot on [and unaltered] observations from this morning:

I am a Conservative: I get that Israel and America are fighting the same war against the same enemy. #tcot #teaparty #gop

I am a Conservative: I’ve done more than just fly-over the states that don’t touch the ocean. #tcot #teaparty #gop

I am a Conservative: I think F.A., rather than Salma, is the hottest Hayek. #tcot #gop

I am a Conservative: Why would you sign a union contract that keeps you from firing incompetent teachers? B/c you’re the govt. #tcot #gop

I am a Conservative: We don’t need a revolution. We had one. We need a restoration. It starts 11/2/10. #tcot #teaparty #gop

I am a Conservative: This is my country. I built it. I defended it. And I’m not just walking away from it. #tcot #teaparty #gop

I am a Conservative: My Che t-shirt has a picture of him post-ventilation with the caption “Ha, ha!” #tcot #teaparty #gop #cuba

I am a Conservative: I think we’ve been at war with Iran for over 30 years; I just think we ought to fight back. #tcot #teaparty #gop

I am a Conservative: No, Mr. Progressive, my success is not the cause of your failure. You are. #tcot #teaparty #gop

I am a Conservative: Liberalism = Envy; Conservatism=Ambition. #tcot #teaparty #gop

I am a Conservative: Many problems in our society could be solved by not ever again giving money to deadbeats. #tcot #teaparty #gop

I am a Conservative: I don’t buy global warming b/c I’m not progressive enough to believe can control the weather. #tcot #teaparty #gop

I am a Conservative: No one who would exclude our military is fit to serve on the SCOTUS. http://is.gd/cJcuS #tcot #teaparty #gop #rs

I am a Conservative: The #gop will be serious about cutting spending when they filibuster NEA and PBS spending. #tcot #teaparty #rs

I am a Conservative: You’re free to try to impose sharia in America. And I’m free to help you get your virgins. #tcot #teaparty #gop #rs

Kurt is one of those guys who has served his country and continues to do so as a patriot, but he also puts together some original thoughts.  There are a lot of people like him on Twitter; you can follow Kurt here.  It is up to you to find the ones that you find interesting enough to follow, but I can suggest a few.

Some people to check out on Twitter:

For good, funny and often patriotic thoughts

Exurban Jon, Kurt Schlichter, Anthropocon, Jim Treacher,

For prolific tweets of good articles

Psst Erica, TRScoop, Gay Patriot, Cubachi, Caleb Howe

Opinionated Bloggers

Dan Riehl, Robert McCain, Matt K. Lewis, Nick Gillespie, Jim Geraghty, allahpundit, Erick Erickson, Doctor Zero, Tabitha Hale, Michelle Malkin, Ed Morrissey,

Politicians/Candidates on Twitter

Rand Paul, John Bolton, Rep. Paul Ryan, Rep. Mike Pence, Rep. Darrell Issa, Rep. Michele Bachmann, Marco Rubio, Sen. Jim DeMint,

Journalists on Twitter

Andrew Malcolm, Steve Hayes, Jamie Dupree, Mark Knoller, Major Garrett, Andrew Napolitano, Michael Yon, John Stossel, Andrew Breitbart

News Sites

The Daily Caller, Political Wire, Breitbart Big Government

Blogs

American Thinker,

Pollsters and Pundits

Scott Rassmussen, Larry Sabato, S. E. Cupp, Andrea Tantaros, Mary Katherine Hamm, Dick Morris, Bernard Goldberg, Karl Rove, Newt Gingrich,

Talk radio personalities

Mark Levin, Neal Boortz, Jeri Thompson, Herman Cain, Tammy Bruce, Hugh Hewitt,

Patriot Groups

Freedom Works, Media Research Center, Liberty Patriot, Sunlight Foundation, Cato Institute

Celebrities

Gary Sinise, Kelsey Grammer, Craig Ferguson,

Skeptics/Science:

Michael Shermer, Richard Wiseman, Phil Plait, Skeptics Guide to the Universe

Of course, you can always chose to follow me on Twitter, I am Rob Waterson.  But get on Twitter and sift through the noise, it’s worth it.

One of the most frequent comments we hear goes something like this: “I know this guy who voted for Obama, and he really regrets it.” It’s a refrain that seems to be growing and spreading. It is buyer’s remorse.

It seems to me that we ought to examine that phenomenon. People generally have buyer’s remorse because they don’t feel they received what they were sold. And what were the American people sold in November of 2008? They were sold a cool dude who cut a fine image, spoke rather well, and seemed to make a number of people feel warm and good all over. Weren’t we wonderful? We elected a minority to the White House.

But that’s not all we were sold. We were sold, if you recall, an intellect. Barack Obama, we were assured, is “bright.”

Now, let me ask you a question: You’ve all read about the great men and women of history. Do you recall ever reading that a major historical figure was “bright”? Of course not. No one would even think of describing anyone of significance that way. The issue is not whether someone is “bright.” The issue is whether that person is competent and wise.

Katz goes on to point out that no one ever debated whether Lincoln or FDR were bright.  It was about competence.

In some measure, Barack Obama was oversold because he was considered “bright,” brighter than George W. Bush, and bright enough to hold his own with other “bright” men and women in government and the academy. Instead of concentrating on the wisdom of his ideas, and the capacity of his leadership, we seemed mesmerized by this bright African-American seeking the presidency.

Mesmerized… indeed.  Mesmerized by a shiny object – that simply nails the American Left and the ignorant “moderate” center.  They are easily mesmerized by shiny objects, easily fooled by the outer veneer of a person, and they simply do not seem to want to delve any deeper than that.

This propensity to get easily distracted by shiny objects is endemic on the left.  They judge their people based simply on how well they string together words.  This explains how an utter moron like Al ‘Forrest’ Gore or an empty suit gasbag like John ‘Winter Soldier’ Kerry can be painted as an intellectual, but someone who is bright but inarticulate like George W. Bush can be painted as a moron.  Until he was eclipsed by Joe Biden, Gore was without a doubt the dumbest Vice President in American history – and no, I am not forgetting about Dan Quayle. But the leftists wanted to believe that Gore was intelligent, and as they perennially do they assigned positive (but inaccurate) qualities to a candidate that they liked rather than liking a candidate based upon those positive attributes.  It is exactly the sort of inverted logic that made them leftists in the first place.

More significantly when it comes to the future of America, too many people were completely bamboozled by our TOTUS (Teleprompter of the United States) President simply because he could speak eloquently.  Everyone has now seen that without the teleprompter he is not impressive at all, just another charlatan politician trying to sell statism to people that he believes are morons.

In fact, it is obvious now that Barack Obama is a complete empty suit, a man who was uniquely and categorically unqualified for the office of President.  But because he was good at prose the shallow myrmidons who dominate the Left and the so-called moderate center bought the gigantic myth that Obama is an intellectual.

You shallow morons screwed your country and sold future generations of Americans into a slavery to the state.  Good job getting fooled by a slick talking used car salesman and getting caught up in the “historic moment”.

It is strangely ironic that future generations of Americans will despise the first black President because he sold them into slavery to the state.  Put that one in your pipe and smoke it, you leftist idiots.

Wallis is a political operative who wraps himself up in religion in order to gain some legitimacy so that he can then trash every conservative religious person for not being liberal.  Writing an article in the Huffington Post , Wallis demonstrates his mastery of dishonest sleight of hand.  Wallis first equates the Tea Party Movement with libertarianism and then immediately makes the jump to Rand Paul so that he can find some positions to use to make the Tea Party look bad.  He must have received the email from the Democrats on that one; it is a consistent talking point approach lately.

The basic gist of his article is an attempt to make the case that because he is an alleged reverend he is therefore qualified to pass judgment on “how Christian” the Tea Party movement is.  In fact, his incredibly weak arguments fall well short of convincing any intelligent person of the merits of his position and simply made me want to find out who this clown was.  It seemed clear that this guy was an Alinksy type, a wolf in sheep’s clothing.  Little did I know how true that was, but I will get to that later.

Wallis starts out by demonstrating his complete misunderstanding of compassion:

Loving your neighbor is a better Christian response than telling your neighbor to leave you alone. Both compassion and social justice are fundamental Christian commitments, and while the Christian community is responsible for living out both, government is also held accountable to the requirements of justice and mercy. Both Christians on the Right and the Left have raised questions about Libertarian abandonment of the most vulnerable — whether that means unborn lives or the poor.

Par for the course for those who revere government because they are utterly terrified of freedom, Wallis is not intellectually honest enough to understand the difference between individuals helping their fellow man when he truly needs it and the government seizing vast amounts of wealth to redistribute to those who have learned to game the system.  It is very important to note that it is never compassion when you are spending someone else’s money and that one can love one’s neighbor without feeling any requirement to pay his bills.

Because Wallis claims to be religious, I have to point out that millions of faithful Christians tithe ten percent of their money to their church.  But that sort of chump change is not enough for people like Wallis, whose agenda requires not only what he could raise under the ruse of religion but also necessitates confiscating the property of even non-Christians.  That is mighty Christian of you, Reverend Jim.

In fact, libertarians know that most poor people are poor not because they have encountered some misfortune in life but simply because they have made a series of stupid, short-sighted decisions.  Libertarians are not opposed to individuals helping individuals but are opposed to the government perennially transferring wealth from those who earned it to those who simply know how to harness poverty pimps like Jim Wallis.  Libertarians believe – with good reason – that people who do not suffer from the stupidity of their actions will continue to do stupid things.  Clearly Mr. Wallis thinks that one of the appropriate roles of government is to protect people from the consequences of their actions, but only if they are societal parasites.  That plants him firmly in the camp of the Nanny State Left.

Finally, to hear a member of the laughingly oxymoronic “religious left” criticize libertarians because many (though far from all) support abortion rights is a new level of hypocrisy.  As a member of the alleged religious left, Mr. Wallis is a card carrying stockholder in the abortion industry.  Sure, he may claim to be anti-abortion in front of certain groups, but the Democrat party has perversely elevated their vision of abortion rights to the level of a “canary in the gold mine” bellwether of individual rights.  As such, supporting the agenda of the Democrat party while claiming to be anti-abortion is like being a KKK member in the 1920s while claiming to be anti-lynching – you cannot be a part of the group without implicitly supporting one of its main agenda items.

For what it’s worth, this libertarian believes that the official Libertarian Party’s position on abortion is dead wrong.  That unborn human has just as many rights as the parent who wants to treat the child like an inconvenient mole, but uppercase-L libertarians are so caught up in wanting to be purists that they cannot see that they are just as wrong and selfish as the left is on this subject.  Furthermore, more libertarians should realize how unconstitutional Roe v. Wade is – under our system the judicial branch does not write laws, as Harry Blackmun did in his horrible decision.

Wallis also tries to make the contorted argument that simply because the bible happens to mention government, being anti-government therefore “just isn’t biblical”.  Statists like Wallis must pine for the days when government and religion were intertwined and even went so far as to prevent open inquiry in the sciences.

Then Wallis spews this tripe:

The Libertarians’ supreme confidence in the market is not consistent with a biblical view of human nature and sin. The exclusive focus on government as the central problem ignores the problems of other social sectors, and in particular, the market. When government regulation is the enemy, the market is set free to pursue its own self-interest without regard for public safety, the common good, and the protection of the environment — which Christians regard as God’s creation. Libertarians seem to believe in the myth of the sinless market and that the self-interest of business owners or corporations will serve the interests of society; and if they don’t, it’s not government’s role to correct it.

This is laughable.  The truth is that the left’s supreme confidence in big government is not consistent with the reality of human nature and corruption.  Their exclusive focus on wealth redistribution as the central goal ignores the real problem, which is that these people would not need to live off of the rest of us if the government had not created the lifestyle-subsidy welfare programs.  As an analogy, if you put out food for stray cats those cats will get used to it and will be there every morning.  Like our parasitic class in America, they will even get angry if the free food stops.  That entitlement mentality is at the core of those 47% of Americans who pay no taxes and are therefore living off of the rest of us.  Shockingly, liberals seem to believe in the myth of the blameless societal parasite and that giving someone else’s property to them will actually help rather than harm them.

Further, and I give credit to my brilliant wife for this angle, if Mr. Wallis actually took a clear look at the biblical view of human nature and sin he would realize that it in fact makes the best argument possible for limited government.  We simply cannot trust human beings with that level of control over their fellows.  They are too flawed to handle it without descending into power grabs and corruption and almost every shred of human history is a testament to that undeniable fact. This self-evident truth of government corruption was a main reason that the founding fathers realized that government should be limited to the role of umpire as opposed to the left’s desired role of mommy.  George Washington certainly understood this fundamental truth and put it as clearly as anyone ever has:

Government is not reason, it is not eloquence — it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.  – George Washington

Showing the complete lack of logical thought that so uniformly characterizes the American left, Wallis continues:

But such theorizing ignores the practical issues that the public sector has to solve. Should big oil companies like BP simply be allowed to spew oil into the ocean? And is regulating them really un-American? Do we really want nobody to inspect our meat, make sure our kids’ toys are safe, or police the polluters to keep our air clean? Do we really want owners of restaurants and hotels to be able to decide whom they will or won’t serve, or should liquor store owners also be able to sell alcohol to our kids?

After seeing such flagrant use of the false dichotomy logical fallacy, it’s getting easy to understand how this clown is a democrat.  But to be fair, being a leftist Mr. Wallis is unaccustomed to dealing with people who possess a command of logical thought, so we cannot blame him for attempting to foist tripe on us that works consistently with his normal bevy of parasitic myrmidons.

Finally, I am just going to say it. There is something wrong with a political movement like the Tea Party which is almost all white. Does that mean every member of the Tea Party is racist? Likely not. But is an undercurrent of white resentment part of the Tea Party ethos, and would there even be a Tea Party if the president of the United States weren’t the first black man to occupy that office? It’s time we had some honest answers to that question. And as far as I can tell, Libertarianism has never been much of a multi-cultural movement. Need I say that racism — overt, implied, or even subtle — is not a Christian virtue.

Claims of racism are the last refuge of the scoundrel, the trump card played by someone who is losing the debate.  Apparently Mr. Wallis had no problem with every black American voting for Barack Obama simply because of the color of his skin.  They certainly were not voting for the [bankrupt] content of his character!  Mr. Wallis proves that he is a full-fledged race-hustling poverty pimp with this clumsy attempt to play the race card.

Yes, Mr. Obama is a huge part of the rise of the Tea Party Movement, but even Mr. Wallis knows that it has nothing to do with his brown skin and everything to do with his red politics.  Mr. Obama is a Marxist and patriotic Americans would oppose him no matter how much melanin was contained in his skin.

Finally, though there is plenty to criticize in Wallis’ “The Bible Loves Tyranny” screed, one need only read this gem to see the true nature of this leftist propagandist:

But a power-hungry government is clearly an aberration and violation of the proper role of government in protecting its citizens and upholding the demands of fairness and justice. To disparage government per se — to see government as the central problem in society — is simply not a biblical position.

Mr. Wallis has the typically weak leftist knowledge of history and his world view clearly demonstrates that.  Anyone who can make the statement that “power hungry government is clearly an aberration” simply cannot be taken seriously in any context.  When the rubber hits the road, Mr. Wallis is simply dishonestly attempting to use religion to sell tyranny.  As always, that tyranny is disguised as false compassion and false security.

After writing this I wondered if I had been too hard on Reverend Jim Wallis, so I did some more digging in order to ensure that I was not just going off on an unfair rant.  I quickly found what I was looking for in the very place that I should have looked first: David Horowitz’ incredible site, Discover The Networks.

Wallis expressed his hope that “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes.”

In short, Jim Wallis is a long term left wing radical.  His basic shtick is to attempt to use his status as an alleged religious leader to bash conservatives and push his own agenda.  The entry on Wallis at Discover The Networks contains the following interesting items:

• His magazine, now called Sojourners’, was originally an anti-capitalist publication called Post-American.
• He is a lifelong champion of communism and an apologist for atrocities committed by the Khmer Rouge and the Vietnamese.
• In a 1979 interview, Wallis expressed his hope that “more Christians will come to view the world through Marxist eyes.”
• In a January 13, 2006 radio interview with Interfaith Voices, Wallis was asked, “Are you then calling for the redistribution of wealth in society?” He replied, “Absolutely, without any hesitation. That’s what the gospel is all about.”
• In 1995 Wallis founded Call to Renewal, a coalition of religious groups united in the purpose of advocating, in religious terms, for leftist economic agendas such as tax hikes and wealth redistribution to promote “social justice.” 

The final quote from Discover The Networks lays bare the obvious truth of his screed in HuffPo, which is that Wallis simply wrote a hit piece on the Tea Party because he is a foot soldier in the progressive movement, a hard core Marxist who seeks more government control over the lives of Americans.

More than a mere religious leader, Wallis, a registered Democrat, is also an adroit political operative, publicly portraying himself as a politically neutral religious figure whose overriding allegiance is to God. Always with the disclaimer that neither major political party can claim to authoritatively represent the values of religious faith, Wallis passionately contends that Republican policies tend to be immoral and godless. — Discover The Networks

Jim Wallis is right to fear the Tea Party Movement.  We are taking our country back from freedom loathing charlatans like him and his intellectual soul mate in the White House.  We will once again attempt to toss Marxism back where it belongs, “on the ash heap of history” as a great President once said.