The Democratic Party seems to be obsessed with race, and it’s true when it comes to racial quotas in employee hirings and college admissions, although they prefer the euphemism “affirmative action.” I say “seems” because when it comes to judicial nominees or anything else in government, politics trumps race.

The Democrats and their media allies made the most unprincipled and vicious attacks on Clarence Thomas and Miguel Estrada, both of whom were of superior qualifications and never said anything as outrageous as Sotomayor. It’s somewhat ironic that liberals are quick to label principled opposition of Sotomayor as “racist”, when it is they who engage in unprincipled attacks against conservative minorities, including accusations of being ‘inauthentically’ black or Hispanic.

The Democrats blocked Miguel Estrada from the federal appeals court believing he was conservative and likely headed for the Supreme Court. So when the Democrats and the liberal media start swooning over the thought of the first Hispanic Supreme Court Justice, what they really mean is the first liberal Hispanic Supreme Court Justice. Like the phonies that they are, it has nothing to do with race, but everything to do with ideology. There were no celebrations from the left when the Republicans nominated the first black Secretary of State and the first black female Secretary of State. Those firsts apparently don’t count.

Instead of Democrats and the media just admitting that they want liberal minorities appointed in government, they play these deceitful race games of feigning concern for minority advancement. While there was no respectable reason to oppose either Estrada or Thomas, there are good reasons to oppose Sotomayor and it has nothing to do with race. Based on her activist record and highly controversial statements that reveal a disrespect for the Constitution and role of the judiciary, she is clearly unqualified to sit on any court, yet alone the Supreme Court.

Barack Obama has nominated Judge Sonia Sotomayor to replace Justice Souter on the High Court. As expected, she is a deeply flawed candidate who has made outrageous comments concerning race and judicial activism. The mainstream media has either not reported or downplayed her controversial statements, which are the most relevant points about her to be scrutinized. Instead, the media is focusing on the most trivial and irrelevant topics of ‘her compelling life story’.

Sotomayor has revealed on more than one occasion that she is a judicial activist and is therefore wholly inadequate to sit on any court, yet alone the highest court in the land. The New York Times reported that in 2001, at the annual Judge Mario G. Olmos Law and Cultural Diversity Lecture, Sotomayor made the following comment: “I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.” Aside from her statement being tinged with racism, what difference should it make whether you are a white male or a Latina female if your job is to impartially apply the law?

Sotomayor later said: “Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.” Sotomayor readily admits that she, as a judge, is influenced by “gender and national origins.” That fact alone should disqualify her from the bench. Additionally, a very high rate of her decisions are overturned, giving further evidence that she is a liberal activist.

She manifestly has no respect for the proper role of a judge or Supreme Court justice. It cannot be made more clear than to think of a judge as a referee who applies the rules of the game (law). It should not make a scintilla of difference what her sex or race is as a referee. But radicals like Sotomayor do not think of themselves as referees who apply the rules evenly. She believes a judge should be changing and/or making the rules of the game.

There is a video of her admitting this, saying that the “court of appeals is where policy is made.” In a moment of truth she let it slip and added: “And I know - I know this is on tape, and I should never say that because we don’t make law. I know. O.K. I know. I’m not promoting it. I’m not advocating it …” But the problem is she just did, and she did so in a contemptuous way. In backpedaling and trying to retract her own words, you can hear people in the room laughing, as though the corruption of the judicial branch should not be taken seriously.

Sotomayor, like other activist judges, appears to have more of a social philosophy than a judicial one. Historical context or original intent is done away with in favor of personal preferences and social engineering.

With a judge like Sotomayor, the Constitution is an amorphous ‘living’ document. If it is constantly ‘evolving’ with the times, then by definition it cannot be the same thing it was before. Where it once had authority and meaning, it will no longer. Thomas Jefferson called the judiciary “the despotic branch”, and warned that the Constitution would become “a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”

This is precisely what is wrong with make-it-up-as-you-go-along liberal judges. A non-living Constitution is the only sensible one to have, because it binds people to a set of rules with a fixed meaning. As Jonah Goldberg writes, this is important because it “ensures that future generations will be protected from judges or politicians who’d like to rule arbitrarily…We all like to believe that we have some say about what this country will be like for our children and grandchildren. A ‘living Constitution’ denies us our voice in this regard because it basically holds that whatever decisions we make…can be thrown out by any five dyspeptic justices on the Supreme Court. In other words, the justices who claim the Constitution is a wild card didn’t take their oath to uphold and defend the Constitution in good faith because they couldn’t know what they were swearing to.”

A Supreme Court justice is supposed to interpret the Constitution in a dispassionate and agenda-free manner. Liberals on the other hand want activist judges, who will ignore or twist the Constitution to produce the outcomes they desire. For the Left, the only job of a judge or Supreme Court justice is to create equality or ’social justice’. They will admit as much, as Democratic Senator Herb Kohl remarked: “The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress . . . ” The Left has always been a product of postmodernism and the French Revolution. Therefore, the greatest evil is not injustice or even murder, but inequality.

A country cannot function with a legal system based on feelings or empathy. If a judge can rule in favor or against someone based on what creates ’social justice’, regardless of law, the system crumbles into a third world kangaroo court. America has spent decades trying to get away from the tyrannical notions of other countries, where who you are determines what kind of justice you get. Unfortunately Judge Sonia Sotomayor represents that kind of judicial tyranny, because who you are will influence her decisions. There is a good reason why Lady Justice is depicted wearing a blindfold. But with activist judges like Sotomayor the scales will tip in the direction of her personal preferences, now that the blindfold is removed.

Here are some traditional characteristics of this country Obama and the political left ‘hope’ to change, in no particular order:

• Free speech - greatly reduced with thought-crimes (Hate crimes) laws, as well as backdoor ‘Fairness Docrtine’ policies already in the works.
• Judges who respect the proper role of judiciary - gone, in favor of activist judges who rule by personal feelings and believe in a ‘living’ Constitution, which means no Constitution.
• Free markets - mostly gone in favor of a command and control economy.
• Fair elections - mostly gone with rampant voter fraud via ACORN, etc.
• Equal protection or rule of law - gone, in favor of equality of outcomes.
• God - gone from the public square completely.
• Keep and bear arms - gone.
• Property rights - further restricted and can be confiscated at any time by the state.
• Economic freedom - further restricted with more taxes, licenses, fees, regulations.
• States rights - further eroded in favor of federal power.

If they truly had their way, America would look nothing like the nation it was before, and would be reduced to another European-like socialist nation, at best. Our Constitution, for all intents and purposes, would be rendered null and void, and turned into just a museum curiosity.

Ask yourself this question; does Barack Hussein Obama have more in common politically/philosophically with Thomas Jefferson or Hugo Chavez of Venezuela? You can compare and contrast Obama with any of the other Founding Fathers to any socialist dictators, and reach the same conclusion. Obama is far more in line philosophically with authoritarian socialists. I know some will object that Obama does not want concentration camps. Yes, they may differ in degree, but not in kind. There is no such thing as a safe amount of socialism. Soft tyranny is still tyranny no matter how you slice it.

Obama sayshe believes in free markets, says he wants a small government, etc. But Obama says a lot of things. He is deceiving the people like the masterful politician he is. Don’t listen to what a politician says to know what he believes, look to what he does. Actions really do speak louder than words. His actions, friendships and political alliances are far more revealing than his soothing rhetoric.

You don’t try to change the country fundamentally if you love and respect it. Obama’s ‘Hope’ is to completely undo everything that made America great to begin with. From free markets, to limited government, to the Bill of Rights, Obama and his supporters are either for greatly reducing or eliminating altogether the foundations of American exceptionalism. It is absolutely frightening to consider the consequences of what that will mean to this country and the world, but that is what Obama ‘Hope’ represents.

David Hamilton is being touted by the White House (and the New York Times) as a “moderate”, yet there is absolutely nothing in his record to suggest it. However, there is every reason to believe he is a far left activist judge who does not respect the Constitution or the traditional role of the judiciary.

So what are some of this ‘moderate’ appointee’s credentials?

• Was a fundraiser for ACORN, a far-left organization that engaged in criminal voter fraud and closely allied to Obama.
• Served as a board member of the ACLU, another far-left special interest group.
• Hamilton ruled that prayers in Jesus’ Name was unconstitutional, but prayers to Allah were okay.
• He prevented enforcement of an Indiana law requiringabortion clinics to warn about the risks of the procedure, or requiring two visits before the abortion.
• In 1994, when Bill Clinton nominated him to the district court, the ABA rated Hamilton as ‘not qualified,’ apparently because of his almost purely political (as opposed to legal and judicial) experience. There is nothing in his record to suggest he is more qualified now.

If this is Obama’s idea of what a ‘moderate’ judge should look like, then the country is in very big trouble. But all of the warning signs that Obama would appoint extremist judges were there.

A New York Times article dated May 28, 2008 gave us a glimpse of the type of judges Obama would appoint. When asked about judicial nominations Obama responded, “I want people on the bench who have enough empathy, enough feeling, for what ordinary people are going through.”

Feelings? Empathy?

Do we really want judges deciding cases based on something other than the facts and the law? How can a judge be impartial and give a fair trail when feelings should be considered? This is something that justice Ginsburg would endorse as a valid way to reach rulings. Ginsburg also recently said, “Why shouldn’t we look to the wisdom of a judge from abroad with at least as much ease as we would read a law review article written by a professor?” Because taking into account foreign rulings undermines American sovereignty since most countries do not have Constitutions or a Bill of Rights.

The article went on to explain that Obama had opposed the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court by saying that Alito showed “extraordinarily consistent support for the powerful against the powerless” and “for an overreaching federal government against individual rights and liberties.”

That last part is laughable, as Obama and the Left are the ones who are in favor of massive overreaching federal government, as has been seen lately, and have consistently been opposed to individual rights and liberties. True conservatives are trying to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and do everything they can to protect individual rights and liberties.

As for the first part about Altio supporting the powerful over the powerless, this is just plain rubbish. This nonsense comes straight from the socialist propaganda playbook. It is a pure emotional claim, like most liberal criticisms, and is without validity.

Liberals were against Alito because he hinders the Left’s agenda. Alito is considered an originalist justice, and interprets the Constitution in a dispassionate and agenda-free manner, as much as possible. Alito’s politics should not matter if he just interprets the law, not creates it. However, liberals want activist judges, who will ignore or twist the Constitution to produce the outcomes they desire. They do not want an accurate or faithful interpretation of the Constitution. They see the courts as a vehicle for social change. Hence the hostility to all ‘conservative’ judges, which really means judges who do their job properly.

For the Left, the only job of a judge or Supreme Court justice is to create equality or ’social justice’. No other value is higher to modern liberals than their idea of equality. Those on the political left will admit as much, as Democratic Senator Herb Kohl remarked: “The neutral approach, that of the judge just applying the law, is very often inadequate to ensure social progress . . . ” The Left has always been a product of postmodernism and the French Revolution. Therefore, the greatest evil is not injustice or even murder, but inequality.

A country cannot function with a legal system based on “feelings” or “empathy”. If a judge can rule in favor or against someone based on what creates ’social justice’, regardless of law, the system crumbles into a third world kangaroo court. Law will not matter, right or wrong will not matter, personal responsibility will not matter, contracts will not matter.

Western civilization in general, and America in particular, has spent decades trying to get away from the tyrannical notions of other countries where who you are determines what kind of justice you get. This is especially strange coming from Obama, a black (half-black) man, who in the past would have likely been ruled against in court simply because of his skin color. But the political left does not mind injustice, per se. If injustice helps bring about equality of outcomes, then it is acceptable to liberals.

A president and his administration are only around for four to eight years, but a federal and Supreme Court justice is a lifetime appointment, which can mean decades of harm to this nation and the Constitution.

Barack Obama will stack the courts with radical activist judges who will legislate from the bench and rule by judicial fiat. For the political left, it is not about right or wrong, but weak and strong.

The only exception to this are cases involving the government and money/power. For instance, eminent domain abuses are acceptable if it benefits the state. Kicking people out of their homes for greater tax revenue is unjust and unconstitutional, but to the statist it is permissible.

But in all other cases, the ‘little guy’ must always come out the winner. Judges who side with murderers and terrorists exemplify this. Outcome-based jurisprudence is no different than any totalitarian country, but unfortunately that is where we are headed as a nation.

http://thenationalscene.com/

President Obama refuses to see the folly of his foreign policy approach. Appeasement of our enemies combined with military cutbacks will have the same disastrous outcome like every other time in history it was tried. The Neville Chamberlains in the Obama administration believe that all you need to do is sit down with your adversaries, listen to their grievances, make concessions, and peace will follow. It’s a nice idea, but rarely works, without backing up negotiations with the possibility of force, and the will to use it, or else every agreement can be broken without consequence.

Is a softer approach justified given current events? North Korea recently launched a missile over Japan in an unprovoked show of force. Iran is moving at full speed to acquire a nuclear weapon, with a leader who publicly announced his desire to see Israel destroyed, as well as America. Baitullah Mehsud, the head of the Taliban in Pakistan, said the next attack would be in the heart of American power: “Not in Afghanistan, but in Washington, which will amaze the entire world.” Russia is rearming itself and bullying former soviet bloc nations, while supplying Iran with nuclear technology. Pirates from Somalia brazenly attack shipping vessels, etc.

Then we see Obama hugging and greeting, like old friends, rabidly anti-American Hugo Chavez. Hugo Chavez has embraced Iran’s Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Sudan’s Omar al-Bashir and proudly calls them friends. Obama also intends to lift some Cuban sanctions in an effort to herald a new openness with the Castro regime. Cuba is a one party system with no freedom of speech, a secret police, no free elections, no media freedom, and no labor freedom. Much the same as what Obama and the political left in America would like to see here undoubtedly.

In the meantime our Department of Homeland Security is busy watching the most loyal and patriotic citizens as being potential ‘threats’ to America. How ironic that they look outside the government for threats to America when the real threats are in the government. The president himself has close alliances and friendships with terrorists like Bill Ayers and other radicals, but is the DHS watching Obama?

If that wasn’t bad enough, the DHS has dropped ‘war on terror’ and ‘terrorist attack’ from its vocabulary, and instead uses “overseas contingency operations” and “man-caused disasters”. No more “unlawful enemy combatants” in Guantanamo Bay, only “detainees”. It is ludicrous to believe that merely changing the terminology will somehow change the reality.

Obama will only embolden our enemies with his hate-America-first world tour, and thus justify in the minds of our enemies that America deserves to be attacked. Unilaterally apologizing for America’s sins, almost never put into any historical context, only makes us look weak and unsure of ourselves. None of Obama’s groveling apologies will stop Iran from going nuclear, nor stop the North Korean missile program. Venezuela is allying with Iran and Russia, all of whom are strengthening their world influence, which often goes against ours. Cuba is also strengthening its ties to Iran and Russia, and just last December Russian warships docked for the first time in Cuba since the cold war.

The rest of the world may temporarily like us better because there isn’t a ‘cowboy’ in the White House, but it won’t last long. In an off-the-record critique of Obama’s performance, even France’s President Sarkozy called him “Weak, inexperienced, and badly briefed.” Obama says he wants to rid the world of nuclear weapons, which sounds like a very noble idea. However, how do you trust other nations to keep their word? The Clinton-Carter deal with North Korea, who promised to abandon their nuclear weapons program in return for billions in aid, lied to us by having a secret program all along. Obama’s foolishly naïve and irresponsible actions are that of an ideologue, and will do much more harm than good.

“The Central Intelligence Agency told CNSNews.com today that it stands by the assertion made in a May 30, 2005 Justice Department memo that the use of “enhanced techniques” of interrogation on al Qaeda leader Khalid Sheik Mohammed (KSM) - including the use of waterboarding - caused KSM to reveal information that allowed the U.S. government to thwart a planned attack on Los Angeles.” Obama’s own national intelligence director conceded that harsh methods had yielded valuable insights into al-Qaida.

Yes, sometimes the person will crack under pressure and say what they think the interrogator wants to hear, but then you check out that information to see if it could be legitimate. But to suggest that a certain technique constitutes ‘torture’ , and can never be used, is to deprive us of a valuable tool that may extract useful information. Can those who are willing to ban this technique honestly say it’s worth losing innocent lives, possibly in the thousands or millions, to avoid discomforting or frightening a terrorist?

America does not engage in true torture. It’s amazing to hear those who say that waterboarding is torture when it does not physically harm the person. If your definition of torture is anything that causes discomfort or yields information, then just about anything can be called torture. Waterboarding is not like electrocution or burning, where permanent physical damage is done. Waterboarding is mostly psychological and may be terrifying, but we are not using this interrogation method on Boy Scouts or nuns - these are terrorists who are actively trying to kill Americans.

The fact that so many waterboarding demonstrations have taken place should give pause to those who call it torture. After all, if it is so bad, why are people voluntarily going through it for demonstration purposes? I don’t see people volunteering for electrocution or being hit with a Roman scourging whip.

The Department of Homeland Security is warning law enforcement officials about a rise in “rightwing extremist activity,” and gave some reasons that need to be broken down and looked at more closely. The DHS has made warnings of leftwing groups in the past, but was always very specific. However, this time there seems to be a generalized attack on all those on the political right. Janet Napolitano, the head of the DHS, is an Obama appointee so it’s not surprising this kind of statement would come out.

The DHS warning includes, as one of the reasons for the “rise of rightwing extremism”, the “election of the first black president”. Notice how they include racism on the Right when it has primarily been a Left phenomenon. Conservatives have no problem with a black president, if he were say, Justice Thomas. The issue is un-American socialism, not skin color.

Also included was a footnote saying, “rightwing extremism…including not just racist or hate groups, but also groups that reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” Again, racist groups are not rightwing, but are something more like apolitical anarchists who are racists. “Hate groups” is a bit vague and can mean virtually anything. I consider N.O.W. a hate group, and they certainly aren’t rightwing.

And finally this part: “reject federal authority in favor of state or local authority.” In fact, this statement from the DHS is incomplete. What it should read is - “reject unconstitutional federal authority…” Those on the political right have no problem with legitimate, constitutionally authorized federal authority. It’s when the federal government usurps power not delegated to it by the constitution that we reject. This is actually a good thing, as the people are doing their patriotic duty. If The People do not keep the powers of the federal government in check, who will?

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/14/federal-agency-warns-of-radicals-on-right/

http://thenationalscene.com/breaking-dhs-warning-rightwing-extremism/

Obama’s Attorney General Eric Holder said that the president will seek to reinstate and make permanent the ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’, despite Obama promising on the campaign trail that he would not be a gun-grabber. Obama told voters “I’m not going to take your guns away”, and “Lawful gun owners have nothing to fear. I think people can take me at my word.” We see his word is worth little or nothing.

Dianne Feinstein (D-Ca) was the champion of the 1994 so-called assault weapons ban. She said these guns are “more deadly” and are the weapon of choice for gangs. Wrong. All firearms are potentially lethal, and so-called assault weapons are no more deadly than any other firearm. Gangs and drug cartels obtain their guns on the black market and from foreign sources. Taking them away from the average citizen accomplishes nothing against crime.

The U.S. Department of Justice conducted two studies of the consequences of the 1994 assault weapons ban. In 1999, Bill Clinton’s Justice Department looked exhaustively at the ban’s effects. It concluded that “the public safety benefits of the 1994 ban have not yet been demonstrated.” In 2001, a second Justice Department review similarly found no evidence that the ban had a statistically significant effect on violent crime. A congressionally mandated study by the Urban Institute reached comparable conclusions.

So-called assault weapons are used only in a tiny fraction of crimes compared to handguns and so-called ‘Saturday night specials’. Data compiled by criminologist Gary Kleck put the frequency of ‘assault weapons’ use in all violent crime at 0.5 percent. Most criminals do not prefer these types of weapons because they are more difficult to conceal and more costly to obtain. More people are killed each year by drowning compared to ‘assault weapons’.

The new tactic is to claim that by banning these types of guns it will help Mexico with their drug cartel violence. Aside from the fact that robbing Americans of a constitutionally protected right to aid a foreign government is ludicrous, there is no evidence to suggest that banning these semi-automatic firearms will help Mexico’s problems. And even if guns were coming from the US into Mexico, it’s not a gun issue, but a border issue. Secure the borders and you won’t have to worry about illegal guns or drugs crossing the border (not to mention illegal people crossings).

Most of the people get their news and information from the mainstream media, which is manifestly anti-gun. People need to be educated about the myths surrounding guns in general and ‘assault weapons’ in particular. Why is there this scary word ‘assault’ attached to certain guns? Can’t you assault someone with any gun, or a knife or just about anything else for that matter? So that word is meaningless, aside from its usage as a buzzword to help demonize certain semi-automatic firearms.

‘Assault weapons’ are NOT machine guns. Fully automatic guns are called machine guns and cannot be owned by the general public (with extremely rare exceptions). When you pull and hold the trigger of a machine gun, multiple bullets are fired. If you pull and hold the trigger of an ‘assault weapon’, a single bullet is fired, which is no different than any hunting rifle. In fact, one of the rifles that would be banned is the common AR-15 Sporter rifle, which is commonly outfitted for hunting.

So how then do they define ‘assault weapon’? It is defined purely by cosmetics and nothing more. This irrational gun-banning crusade is based only on the appearances of certain guns. Some look like their military counterparts, but are NOT the same thing; internally and functionally they are different. Therefore there is no rational basis to ban these types of firearms.

Watch as the news media begin focusing more of their stories on gun crimes. This is intentionally done to help the Obama Administration enact more gun control. If they get their way, the Second Amendment will be further eroded until it is almost gone (which is their ultimate goal). Do not fall for the lies and deception from the anti-gun Democrats and their cheerleaders in the mainstream media.

The political, academic and media elites hate the idea of the people being armed because they do not trust the people. These immoral and arrogant aristocrats see the American people as small-town rubes to be subjugated and controlled. However, they do trust government agents to have ‘assault weapons’, as well as full machine guns, because they have direct control over them.

This is just another step on the road to banning all firearms. The anti-liberty crowd is devious in their tactics and uses what has been called incrementalism. Meaning, they will slowly take away rights piece by piece, so you don’t notice the infringement all at once, while claiming they just want ‘common sense’ restrictions with every seemingly small step.

Tyrants, criminals, and the political left all prefer their victims unarmed. Only an immoral person would deny a citizen the right to exercise one of the most fundamental aspects of liberty imaginable. The right to keep and bear arms has been an integral part of our nation since its inception, and We The People should not allow the erosion of that valuable right.

http://thenationalscene.com/truth-socalled-assault-weapons-media/

To answer the question posed by my last posting we need to turn to the schools and universities. The root cause of the socialist ideas in popular culture can be traced directly to the education system in this country. It is here where many of the journalists, reporters, news anchors, writers and politicians received their worldview.

The academics have many fashionable theories as to how things should work in society and the world, many of them utopian, but ultimately they are incorrect and often make things much worse.

The late William F. Buckley, Jr., famously wrote: “I should sooner live in a society governed by the first two thousand names in the Boston telephone directory than in a society governed by the two thousand faculty members of Harvard University.” But he went on to explain why he would make this preference: 

http://thenationalscene.com/source-socialisms-influence/

The Left, with its belief in socialism and other forms of utopianism, always fail because they reject the core truths of mankind. Conservatives understand that mankind can never achieve perfection on this earth, while modern liberals believe it can. The history of the last century has proved that when movements attempt to perfect mankind and its institutions, it always ends in catastrophe.

Socialism, fascism, Nazism, communism, etc. are all forms of collectivism that have some things in common. Among these are the ideas that the troubles that plague mankind are due to corrupt institutions and ineffective leaders; that if we only remade the institutions of society with the right leadership, we can achieve some kind of utopia. That criminals and the poor are a product of broken or outdated capitalistic systems. That a classless society in which all are equal is achievable. That religion is bad and science is all that is needed to explain everything. That the State should be all-powerful and essentially worshipped by the people. That the State should control the economy and redistribute the resources according to the elite who know better because of their ’superior’ education. Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao and others believed in this, though they had differing way as to how to achieve a socialist paradise. Regardless of the means taken, the end goal was always the same. Continue Reading

What the Obama Administration has in store for this country represents the danger of voting for a Democrat these days. Not to say the Republicans are without flaws, as we have seen with the reckless spending and growth of government under the Bush Administration. The Republicans have certainly lost their way and have abandoned many of their conservative principles, which is why the Democrats now control the government.

But whatever their weaknesses, at least the Republicans do not try to take your money away, nor your Constitutional rights. Here is a partial list of the damage done by putting liberal Democrats in charge of the country:

• Attack First Amendment (i.e. reinstate a backdoor ‘Fairness Doctrine’)
• Attack Second Amendment (i.e. reinstate so-called ‘Assault Weapons’ ban)
• Raise taxes (i.e. letting the Bush tax cuts expire – yes, the effect is an increase)
• Weaken national defense (i.e. against missile defense systems)
• Activist judges who legislate from the bench (i.e. Ginsburg)
• Push America further into socialism (i.e. “spread the wealth around”)

Most Democratic politicians, and the intelligentsia, do not believe in liberty or the foundational principles this country was founded on, despite paying lip service to the contrary.

For example, the Left does not respect free speech, as is seen by their desire in reviving an alternative version of the so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine’, which in typical Orwellian fashion is about as unfair as can be. However, they will end up calling it something else (watch for words like “localism” and “airwave neutrality”) and use a different means to the same ends. How can you claim ‘fairness’ while creating a monopoly and silencing opposition?

Another Orwellian act from the Left is the so-called ‘Employee Free Choice Act’, or “Card Check” that was introduced in the U.S. Congress. Employee free choice sounds good, right? Liberals are experts at twisting words and manipulating people with disinformation and lies. What this Act will do is effectively eliminate our right to vote by private ballot when deciding whether to join a union, and undermine our right to freely negotiate contracts. The Union will then know who voted against them and harass that person, or take any number of other retributive actions.

So why are modern liberals so interested in taking away our liberties and making government bureaucrats our rulers? What is it about collectivism that is so attractive to them, regardless of its historical failures?

With the passage of the massive government spending under the guise of a stimulus plan, what can be expected? If history teaches anything, it will do very little if anything positive for the economy. Leaving aside the fact that it was the government that caused the economic downturn to begin with, what evidence is there to suggest that more government intervention is going to make things better?

Government spending cannot stimulate an economy. It’s been tried many times before and fails, because when you take money out of the private sector and place it in the public sector, you only moved it, you did not create anything. Professor Richard Wagner wrote, which was published by Office of the House Republican Leader: “Any so-called stimulus program is a ruse…Whether government finances its added spending by increasing taxes, by borrowing, or by inflating the currency, the added spending will be offset by reduced private spending. Furthermore, private spending is generally more efficient than the government spending that would replace it because people act more carefully when they spend their own money than when they spend other people’s money.”

FDR turned what could have been a fairly routine downturn into a prolonged depression. It is not a coincidence that the Great Depression developed at the same time the government started interfering in the economy on a large scale. FDR’s own Treasury secretary had stated: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises. I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started and an enormous debt to boot!”

The majority of the so-called stimulus consists of pork and payoffs to Democrat special interest groups. Some of the funds will be allocated to a group like ACORN, which is a radical group that has engaged in voter fraud, and Obama has had close dealings with. How exactly does giving billions of our taxpayer dollars to groups and organizations like ACORN help the economy?

Some may claim that the stimulus contains some good, like $88.6 million to build new schools in Milwaukee. But even that doesn’t pass scrutiny since Milwaukee does not need new schools. They already have 15 vacant schools due to decreasing enrollment, and therefore have no plans for new construction.

The spending bill also contains $300 million for ‘green’ golf carts, which government employees use. Another $8 billion for high-speed rail lines like the one proposed between Disneyland in California to Las Vegas. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid strongly supports the project, and I am sure has no personal interests in the project despite being a politician from Nevada.

Then there is the issue of spending on infrastructure, which normally takes years to start, yet alone complete. So if we are hearing such a sense of urgency from Obama with scary words like “crisis” and “catastrophic”, then why spend billions on projects that won’t start for several years? Let’s not forget the phony rhetoric from Obama just weeks earlier during his inauguration about choosing “hope over fear”. ‘Hope’ doesn’t count when shoving over three trillion dollars of new debt down America’s throat (the Congressional Budget Office reports the actual figure is now closer to $3.27 trillion), then fear is perfectly okay to use if it rushes his ’stimulus’ along with little or no debate.

New York Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer said that the American people don’t care about a “little” pork. Apparently Schumer’s definition of ‘little’ is quite different from most rational people. He also has called those that raised objections over so much waste as the “chattering class”. Spoken like a true tyrant. Notice the contempt in his comments and (if you saw the video) his voice. Most dictators and elites throughout history have had nothing but contempt and hatred for the average person. These people believe they are smarter than you, enlightened and superior, and therefore have a right to expropriate your money to spend as they see fit.

Obama’s chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel, remarked, “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” This is most telling, as both real and manufactured crises have historically been exploited by governments to expand their power and control. The Left simply does not believe in a limited government. They see it as a barrier to ‘progress’, as did the Progressives in America of the last century. Goldberg writes in Liberal Fascism, “The Progressives viewed the traditional system of checks and balances as an outdated impediment to progress because such horse and buggy institutions were a barrier to their own ambitions.” The totalitarian parallels are just too close to ignore.

Massive new welfare programs and entitlements are contained in the ’stimulus’ as well, creating countless new dependencies on the government. This is in line with Democratic strategies, as it creates more Democrat voters who naturally only vote for those who give them something for nothing. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you can always count on the support of Paul.

Creating new government institutions loaded with bureaucrats will only mean more obstacles and debt for future generations to have to deal with. FDR created the federal housing agency in 1938, and now we have the Federal National Mortgage Association (”Fannie Mae”) that made foolhardy decisions in the housing market that caused the beginning of the financial meltdown. It was the government pressuring lenders to make risky loans to people who either should not own a home, or bought more house than they could afford, that got us where we are today. More government will clearly not be the answer.

If this is the first real work from the new Obama Administration, it’s frightening to think of what the next four years will bring, or worse, eight. Only time will tell if they plunge America into another Great Depression. And if it does happen, you can bet the rent money that Obama will blame Bush, as FDR had blamed previous Administrations when his policies failed miserably. What we have seen so far is nothing short of irresponsible pork barreling and payoffs. So much for the new politics of change - the more things ‘change’ the more they stay the same.

First there was Tim Geithner who had to apologize on national television for not paying taxes for several years - this from a person who is essentially the one in charge to see that the rest of us pay. Shortly thereafter Tom Daschle had to withdraw after he also failed to pay taxes. Bill Richardson had to withdraw due to a pay-to-play probe in New Mexico. Nancy Killefer was picked to be ‘Chief Performance Officer’, but had to drop out for failing to pay employment taxes and had an outstanding tax lien on her home. Now we have Ron Kirk nominated for U.S. Trade Representative, but “underpaid” taxes totaling around $10,000.

Here you have the Democratic Party, who never met a tax they didn’t like, and yet they avoid paying taxes. The hypocrisy of liberal Democrats not paying taxes after spending their entire careers trying to raise our taxes is nauseating. Not to mention Joe Biden telling the people it’s “patriotic” to pay taxes. Now we understand why so many Democrats are sensitive to their patriotism being ‘questioned’.

If Obama has such poor judgment, and such a shaky start to his presidency (couldn’t even take the oath of office correctly the first time), then maybe the American people should reconsider all that hope and change nonsense, and make sure he is a one-term president. Perhaps the next president can undo the damage that will undoubtedly be done over the next four years of coming scandal and corruption.

If you asked the average person on the street if they want the government in their lives taking their money and controlling their choices, most people would say no. Of course no one wants to be controlled by bureaucrats or have less freedom, but the erosion of liberty is an inevitable consequence of the ideology that Obama and the Left ascribes to. When you switch a society from an individual to collectivist based, you must give up many economic and personal liberties. There is no way to have a nation that is part free, part collectivist. Capitalism cannot coexist with socialist policies and an ever-increasing government; they are mutually exclusive.

The Obama Administration has already toyed with the idea of nationalizing the banks, and will soon nationalize health care. How have other nations fared with nationalizing major parts of their economy? Every nation that has nationalized health care has to ration care for its people (except for the elite of course), with long waiting times and inferior equipment. The old Soviet Union had nationalized it farms. The result? A nation that was once an exporter of food, now could not feed its own people. It is clear from studies that nations with the greatest poverty also have the largest government control over the economy.

Socialism has long been discredited everywhere it was put into action, whether in a giant like the former Soviet Union, or the small island of Cuba. Every form of collectivism believes it has the right blueprint for a perfect society. It does not matter if they call it communism, Marxism, fascism, Nazism, Fabian socialism, syndicalism, or just plain socialism; they are all different flavors of the same poison. They all have as their end goal the same impossible objective; they only differ in the ways they believe they can get there.

Those on the political Left believe, in spite of all the evidence, that it is possible to perfect humanity and its institutions, and form a utopian society. They believe with the right leaders and enough tinkering in society they can achieve this fantasy. Lenin and Hitler believed the same thing. Human nature is unchanging, and as such, the only form of social organization that works best is individual liberty with free markets. No other system has ever produced a higher standard of living for the greatest number of people. It is not perfect, but no system is, and if you try to chase the mirage of perfection, you will only create tyranny and oppression. No matter how well your intensions may be, it’s best to remember the saying that the road to hell is paved with good intensions.

Utopias have never existed, and can never exist, at least under the rulership of human beings. That would explain why the word ‘utopia’ literally means ‘no place’.

Americans panicked.

Prior to the election and the financial meltdown, most polls showed John McCain with a small to comfortable lead over Barack Hussein Obama. Then the financial collapse hit and Americans were so frightened by the lies and distortions from the Democrat party in general, and the Obama campaign in particular, that they panicked.

Government was ultimately the cause of the financial meltdown, but did America vote for the one who would potentially shrink government and curb spending? No, America made the huge mistake of voting for the one who is guaranteed to grow government even bigger and more intrusive than ever with massive new spending.

It’s difficult to say just how much damage will be done to this country and whether or not it can be saved. There is always a point of no return, where you have a one party system that cannot be changed. Once the media is in bed with the government, and you have the schools and university system in lock step for socialists, it’s extremely difficult to balance or correct the public’s perception by presenting opposing points of view. Those promoting a socialist ideology control virtually all factors influencing public opinion.

It would be interesting to know what the Founding Fathers would have to say on the matter if they were around today. Although I’m afraid I already know the answer.

So what are some predictions that can be made for the next four years? In no particular order:

• Heath care will be nationalized, possibly other industries
• Taxes will increase, perhaps more stealthfully
• The return of stagflation and protectionism
• The middle class will shrink and the poor will increase in number
• Iran will most likely acquire nuclear weapons
• Terrorists around the globe will be emboldened and increase their attacks
• If Iran gets a nuke, it will likely hand it to a terrorist organization
• Treaties and arms reduction agreements will be made, and broken
• Israel may be hit with a nuke