Monday, September 29, 2008

The Bailout of Failure

Of all the things GW Bush has endorsed as President, this "bailout" is probably the worst.

The free-market works specifically because of non-intervention by any organization which resides outside of market forces (otherwise, there is not really a "free market"). In this way, the dynamic balance of success and failure reward those contributions which benefit society and reject those contributions which don't. This is why any corrective measures by a central government is in tremendous error. It fundamentally breaks the system.

Note that the "market" is not about equilibrium. Certainly, there are aspects of the market which exhibit local tendencies to move towards equilibrium; but it is the dynamic nature of the system that makes it work. Just as a pendulum swings towards it's lowest energy state, so does the market. And, just as energy is added to the pendulum to keep it swinging, the market is chock full of driving forces - full of desires and providers, consumers and suppliers; this is the energy which drives the pendulum. Note that static equilibrium renders the very purpose of the pendulum meaningless.

It is critical to understand that given any level of incomplete knowledge one cannot predict the market -- and importantly, such incomplete knowledge is a guarantee. Thus, one can never "predict" any market with "perfect" certainty. Therefore, it is unknown what the absolute best strategy for any known particular situation may be, let alone the changing dynamics of a society, evolving cultures, emerging technologies, and the myriad of other variables that play into the system. Because of this, the common denominator becomes meeting the changing demands of society; no group within the market can readily "manipulate" market forces outside of such demand because such is already part of the dynamic and accounted for by the system itself.

But, enter our "system." We've heard a lot recently about "lack of regulation and oversight" having "caused the financial crisis." WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. WRONG. It really couldn't be more wrong.

Remember when I said that the free-market works specifically because of no market intervention by any organization residing outside of such free market forces? Well, let's look at what we have here.

In our country, just about everything is heavily regulated. There are tremendous barriers to entry on just about every business you can imagine. The law is so thick that you could build an elevator to the moon with it. So, the idea that somehow "markets" were deregulated is just a bunch of mumbo-jumbo double-talk bunk that has nothing to to do with the actual problem at all. The true markets are anything EXCEPT for deregulated.

The deregulation they are talking about isn't even part of the issue. The issue is that the government is far to involved in the affairs of businesses across the board, and there is far, far too much regulation. Because of regulations, "established" players help set "policy" which correspond to parts of legislation that impact those regulations. Without such regulation, there is no such "policy."

These policies do things like put safety requirements on cars, limit the kind of radio broadcasting you can do, and force businesses to get insurances like worker's comp and pay minimum wages. And, what does all this do? It absolutely destroys the free market dynamic.

What happens is that these regulations create huge barriers to entry for new businesses competing in the sector. Because there are thus less businesses in the sector, there is less competition; thus, any regulatory policy put into place is done with a few special interests in mind and with actions towards the status quo. Those regulations that get installed benefit the few established companies, and it's a self-perpetuating feedback. This drives up the price of consumer goods and services and creates a government-industrial complex that resembles an oligarchy more than a free-market system.

At the end of the day, you have a few car companies, a few phone companies, a couple of aircraft manufacturers -- in other words, all of the companies that got in before the mountain of government regulations were built. And what about the areas where there weren't such regulations? Just look at the computer and electronics industry and the boom in that sector -- and think about it; think about the advances in computers, electronics, and the internet. Now, just imagine if software (for instance) had been regulated for "safety" or "functionality" -- that there was a "regulation" it needed to meet certain "crash-proof" standards or such. Who would make those standards? How much would it cost to get testing? How many players would thus be excluded from the marketplace? I think you get the picture here -- the computer industry, as we know it, would simply not exist.

So, let's go back to the issue at hand: "the bailout." Why is it a horrible, terrible thing to do? First, it kills the free market dynamic; it's similar to government bankruptcy protection. The government (though power NOT vested in it by the constitution) is wrongfully adjusting the free-market to the advantage of the players already in business. But, that's NOT how the free-market works -- in fact, the very strength of the free market is being subverted by bankruptcy protection and bailouts.

The free market does NOT support failed entities -- those which fail disappear and make way for new products that meet the new demands. Otherwise, you are simply supporting the very same flawed systems which crashed in the first place. Worse, you bind government even closer to those entities. Why is that? Because, what does government do? They regulate more -- thus tying a stronger feedback to those companies, along with a newly vested interest in them.

We all know people who bought houses and went way beyond what they could afford thinking they could "just sell." That was irresponsible and it was their own fault. The banks took the risk as well, at that was their fault. End of story, period. How does anybody expect to get a better culture if we simply reward bad behavior over and over? Those people are being helped for gambling their money, while all the others who waited (because they were being responsible) are now being shafted by the federal government. That is wrong. You and I should not be rewarding those people and businesses who decided to take a gamble and lost their money. Do we repay people who go to a casino and lose on roulette?

The fact is, we need to let businesses fail and new ones come up. In short, we need to let the banks fail. Let the lenders fail. Let businesses fail. Get government regulation out of the way. Get rid of product liability lawsuits, get rid of business regulation, get rid off all of that which is doing nothing but killing our economy and society.

By doing this bailout, we have conceded that we are not a free-market. That we are no longer America. We are basically starting to emulate the failed Soviet Union, which ultimately fell apart because of the same types of failed socialistic policies that we are starting to put in place here. Doesn't anyone study history?

Let the market work.

Wednesday, September 24, 2008

The Huge Ideological Difference

There is a huge and important difference between Democrats and Republicans that stems from their ideologies. Typically, Democrats address "symptoms" while Republicans address "problems." Let's look at a few "big picture" examples.

When Democrats think about unemployment, they think "federal assistance;" Republicans think "create new businesses." When Democrats think about the increasing costs of goods, they think "add regulations and raise the minimum wage;" Republicans think "remove barriers and increase competition in the marketplace." When Democrats think about the workplace, they think "worker's comp and liability insurance;" Republicans think "progress, innovation, and society." When Democrats see a dangerous product, they think "regulation;" Republicans think "individual responsibility." When Democrats see high gas prices they think "windfall profits tax;" Republicans think "invent new technologies."

The same is true in more than just the marketplace. When Democrats think about terrorists, they think about "the act;" Republicans think about "the causes." When Democrats think about crime they think "law;" Republicans think "culture." When Democrats think about protection, they think "police;" Republicans think "self-defence." This fundamental difference in thought gives rise to the foundational premises of the ideologies themselves.

While is both quicker and easier to address a symptom (as the Democrats inherently do) it leads to terrible systemic issues. Because of this difference in the way policy is instituted, Democrat "fixes" are typically quick acting kludges which bring huge problems with them, whereas Republican solutions are far better but take time to be vetted into society.

It is partially because of this fundamental difference that I say Bush has often acted like a Democrat. From the increase in the size of our federal government (with organizations like the Homeland Security Department), to the types of added regulatory policies and executive orders, people would be hard pressed to call Bush anything close to a Republican. For sure, there are a few areas where he is 'sort of' a "Republican," but mostly, he's an ideological centrist and has behaved like a Democrat all to often.

That brings up something that really bothers me. It's the idea that somehow, the "party affiliation" of the "President" should attract the finger of blame when there are "problems" to address. I want to discuss that with some contemporary examples.

In the 80's, the GOP built good financial policy; they controlled the White House and the Senate; the House was Dem controlled. Technology was booming, the economy was booming, new industries were being created left and right. The Democrat controlled House was trying to stop the progress though policy, but it was a mixed group.

The Dems got a very shady break by taking the Senate in 1987, thus controlling both houses of Congress for the entire time of GHW Bush's Presidency. But, their lousy policies and huge unpopularity again was "pointed" at the incumbent president, rather than at themselves - thereby setting up some of the conditions for Bill Clinton to, in essence, sneak into office.

When Clinton took office in the 90's, he did so partly, and quite ironically, by way of the public dissatisfaction with his own party's policies; the Dems unpopularity (as they controlled Congress), was being tacked onto an incumbent GOP President. But even more importantly, a quirky voting fluke without which Clinton would have lost badly was the real culprit. Ross Perot gathered 20% vote, and almost 100% of it was Republican. So, why did Republicans vote for Perot? Because GHW Bush was starting to behave like a centrist Democrat. Republicans lost by splitting their own vote because Bush was trending centrist and that allowed a far distant third choice into office.

So, when Clinton came in he was riding this great economic and technological wave built by the GOP, which was being tarnished and clouded by the Democrat controlled Congress from 1987. Then he, along with Congress, did almost everything they could to completely derail it.

In the approximate two years that the Dems had full control, they became so unpopular with their pushing of big government/big spend federal programs and socialistic mantras that in 1994 there was what is commonly known as the "Revolution of 1994." Republicans quickly took back control of both the House and Senate. And, it is because of this that the 90's continued to see economic growth, in deference to the Clinton administration.

Clinton tried, without success to institute policies like the "imputed" income tax, where people would be taxed based on not only their income (which is already wrong) but also on "extra credits" they have. For example, if you owned but did not rent your house, you would pay extra taxes on the difference between your payment and the average rent in the area. This was a typical Democrat, "Clintonesque," idea. That wasn't the only bad policy, of course.

There were all sorts of Democrat "tax and spend" programs, but most were able to be partially (but not fully) prevented by the GOP, such as Clinton's idiotic federal heath care plans and extreme expansion of the welfare state. The GOP thus prevented Clinton from instituting a slew of horrible measures that spanned areas from economy to public policy. But, not every abatement was successful and some, unfortunately, made it though the cracks. For instance, "his" versions of NAFTA, the Family and Medical Leave Act, various tax increases and Progressive Taxation, his "far too many to enumerate" foreign policy fiascoes (such as Somalia, North Korea, China, etc.) his constant attacks on the Constitution -- including the entire Bill of Rights, and especially the 1st and 2nd Amendments (which greatly hurt America); the list goes on. Note the typical, small-minded, wrong-headed, "fix" the symptom philosophies throughout. These would be used by Clinton (and the media) for later political pandering to the masses.

At the end of Clinton's term, some of those things finally caught up with the country. Economically, it helped crashed us in 2000; foreign policy wise, it set up the worst terrorist attack in our history. But, it seems like people forget all of this.

Not only had Clinton helped pave the way for domestic disaster, but his complete incompetence in foreign affairs allowed nearly every country to come technologically up to similar footing as the United States; including building the China powerhouse and allowing them to have the neutron bomb. At the end of his term, you had someone who had forced damaging anti-liberty domestic policy and allowed terrorists to bomb with impunity; who at every opportunity threw away decades of solid robust economic insight while expanding the worst of our socialistic practices; who slashed our defence network, increased our taxes, burdened small business, fostered a culture of insurance and liability, ushered in an unprecedented era of 'irresponsibility,' helped crash the stock market and tech sector, and even get impeached.

When GW Bush came in, he inherited a lot of these problems. And, to make matters worse, shortly into his first term there was an attack on the U.S. mainland (thanks in part to those Clinton policies) the likes of which had never been seen before. But the problem was (and still is), that on many important issues, Bush acted just like a Democrat. But, do you ever wonder why no one in the media points this out??

To even make matters even worse, in 2006 the Democrats took control of congress -- again, because the finger of dissatisfaction being pointed at the President's incumbent party. True to their quick "fix the symptom" philosophy, the Democrats immediately started to push policy piecemeal through congress - one totalitarian law after another; each day another socialist move and liberty killing legislative dagger (energy bill, minimum wage increase, etc). It didn't take long for systemic problems to ripple to the surface - both gas prices and the prices of consumer goods skyrocketed. Gas went from $2.16 to $4.50 in less than two years after Democrats took control. But, nobody notices both the timing and the policies that caused this? And, what did the leftist media keep saying??

For those who have forgotten, even though Bush was sometimes (and increasingly) behaving like a Democrat, during the time the GOP controlled congress, we had several years of economic growth - even after Clinton's terrible debacle, the tech crash, and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. But after all that, the economic growth itself was never even acknowledged. Nor was the low unemployment ever talked about. The mass media has had a clear, obvious, specific agenda from day one.

Remember, it was after the Democrats took control of Congress (principally because the leftists had used the Iraq war as a propaganda tool to shape public perception), that things really started to go down.

Today, Democrats are in control of Congress and the media is still saying that the "faltering" economy hurts the -- Republicans? Again, with Bush acting like like a Democrat (and more with each passing day; now this "bailout" fiasco), how hard is it for people to realize that such Democrat and leftist style policies are the problem, and that those Democrat types of policies are actually the 'status quo?'

Friday, September 12, 2008

Does Obama Think?

In addition to his terrible choices of friends, Barack Obama's life is littered with lies and critical errors in judgement, including extensive drug use, which according to him to helped him 'cope' with an "identity crisis" because he was half black and half-white. If that doesn't say enough, I'll continue...

Let's talk a bit about the drug abuse. His handling of the drug issue was so completely irresponsible it's a huge embarrassment to the U.S. Senate and an affront to America itself. Aiming to avoid the "I did not inhale" criticism heaped upon the eventually impeached Bill Clinton, he irresponsibly proclaimed "I inhaled frequently" as if it were a badge of honor.

This proclamation had nothing to do with "honesty," although many of his leftist media supporters wanted to 'spin' it that way. Rather, it was political pandering at the expense of responsibility.

A standing Senator has a tremendous responsibility to serve the people of the United States - and this goes beyond voting in the Senate. A senator, because of the position itself, will be looked at as a role model to follow. These people should be the ones we look to in society for good examples, not bad ones. As such, if a once rotten apple does get elected into the senate, he should be doubly careful about how he approaches discussing the things he did which were terribly irresponsible in his life. But Obama's virtual "endorsement" of drug use was a terribly irresponsible act. The fact that he was one of the front runners for President at the time of this 'declaration' made matters even worse. It caused partisans in the media to not properly assail the comment - in effect, excusing the action.

Obama could have handled the situation in a way that would have been far more subtle and immensely more responsible. In fact, he should have decided against running for president in the first place - that kind of irresponsible behavior is certainly not something society should promote. It is possible that these drug comments alone did more effect to increase the acceptance of drug abuse than all of the educational programs designed to discourage drug abuse. Indeed, one of the commentators went so far as to say, "it clearly shows that [drug] use has become an acceptable part of our society." What kind of a message does that send?

If a Presidential candidate can be so flippant about drugs, and drug abuse creates no barrier for him to become a viable presidential candidate, and the media then lauds him, and labels a political and irresponsible disclosure as "honesty" with no condemnations - then, really what kind of a message that that send to our society?

Let's note something else for the record. This is really not about the legality or illegality of drugs, insofar as the drugs themselves. But still, we must note Barack Obama was indeed seriously breaking the law with his drug abuse - which is, in and of itself, another problem (in fact, they lock people up for less). But legality aside, far more problematic is the actual irresponsibility of the act and the method of disclosure.

The drug abuse itself shows complete lapses in judgement and demonstrate how Barack Obama deals with problems. And, continuing with such irresponsibility and downplaying the act, almost turning it into a joke or something he was proud of, takes the horrid irresponsibility to new lows. Just terrible, terrible, terrible behavior - especially from a standing U.S. Senator. As Hillary Clinton would say, "Shame on you, Barack Obama."

Well, Obama is no stranger to such poor judgement and he is also no stranger to lies and double talk. He voted against the recent troop surge in Iraq, saying it could not possibly work. But now, he readily concedes that he was completely wrong. Publicly, he claimed that NAFTA should be dissolved, and then wrote a memo to the Canadian ambassador saying that he only said that for 'public relations' reasons (can anything be more disingenuous?). He staunchly opposed the 2nd amendment, but after the Supreme Court DC vs. Heller ruling, said he supported the 2nd Amendment.

This is a guy who is a smoker and has not been able to quit. Well, what does that say about his strength of character? It might be OK for just 'anyone,' but is this the kind of person we want in our president? Is this who we want to be a role model for our society and our children? Obviously not.

Even his selection of Vice Presidential running-mate was a lousy choice. It is often said that the VP decision is the most important choice a Presidential candidate will make during their candidacy - and he probably couldn't have made a worse choice! He has the golden chance to pick Hillary Clinton and lock up a large section of the vote; such would have given him the absolute best shot at the White House, but he picks....... Joe Biden??? Huh???

This is guy who himself said that Barack Obama was not ready for the presidency (I guess Obama again proved it there). Biden is one of the most divisive and partisan people in politics, he is a foot-in-the-mouth machine, and is entrenched in the Washington establishment. Obama ripped apart his entire message of 'change' with his running-mate choice; is this the way he shows how his actions match his words?? It's laughable! Even Biden himself said that Hillary Clinton would have made a better choice of VP!

In addition to his complete lack of executive experience and being one of the newest members of the Senate, Barack Obama has been a dismal example of a person. From his extensive abuse of drugs (and, importantly, his attitude about it), to his close associations with corrupt businessmen and politicians, to his friendships with known terrorists and radical extremists, to his inability to cope with problems or make good decisions, to his lies and double talk on issues ranging from NAFTA to the 2nd amendment, Barack Obama may indeed be the least qualified and worst candidate ever to run for President in our nation's history.

Obama's Feathers

The old expression 'birds of a feather flock together' is forced to come to mind when we look at Obama and his very extensive pattern of negative associations.

First, Obama has a history of associating with hard-left radicals. As many of us know, 'Bomber' Bill Ayers, a member and founder of the Weathermen Organization, is a radical leftist terrorist group who bombed the Pentagon (among doing other things) and still claims "we didn't do enough." Their mission: to overthrow the constitutional republic of the USA and install a totalitarian socialism. This anti-US terrorist is a Barack Obama's "friend."

How do we know he is a Obama's "friend?" Because Obama said so, directly! Obama refers to Ayers as his "friend." He knows Ayers, has spent significant time with him, even worked on legislation with him, and in fact Obama's political career was virtually launched in Bill Ayers' living room.

Now, why would 'anyone' consider someone like Bomber Bill Ayers "a friend," and/or develop such an association? Looking at Obama's own ideologies will illustrate the answer. Most of Obama's ideological positions are nearly identical to those of Bill Ayers. It is clear that Obama is sympathetic to Ayers' positions, and in fact, is a near ideologue.

But Obama keeps saying the most ridiculous thing about this association. He constantly makes statements such as: "this is something Ayers did when I was 8 years old." Implying that he himself had nothing to do with "the bombing." Obviously, that's not the issue, and Obama either misses the point entirely or he is trying to deflect criticism (with a logical fallacy nonetheless). It's not about the bombing or what Obama did 40 years ago in relation to it - it is about Obama's history and association with the person who did do it, Bill Ayers. It speaks volumes about Obama's character and background, which is exposed and shaped by such associations.

Obama has a close enough association to have worked with Ayers and to consider him a "friend." But we know Bill Ayers doesn't feel any differently today then he did 40 years ago (i.e., as he proclaimed "we didn't do enough"). So if Obama is a "friend" of his today then we are forced to ask the question why? We cannot deny the fact that their kinship in sharing core ideologies has brought them close, even enough to work on legislation together.

But Ayers is just one of many. Enter the Reverend Jeremiah Wright, who Obama considered one of "the most influential people in his life." He knew Reverend Wright for more than 20 years; the title of his book, "The Audacity of Hope," was inspired by the Reverend himself. He argued that he could no more "disown Reverend Wright than disown his own grandmother." This is how close their relationship had been for two decades.

Obama, who is half White, attended a "Black" church, called Trinity, for more than 10 years. This is where the Reverend gave his sermons each week. According to Obama, he attended two or so times a month. Now, as most of us already know, Reverend Wright is a racist hater of America, who's words "... NOT God Bless America... God Damn America!!! God Damn America!!!..." among other completely anti-American utterances gained him immense national attention.

Barack Obama not speak up immediately to denounce Rev. Wright when it became public, and he claims that he 'never' heard the Reverend say anything like that in 20 years. Huh? Someone who was so close and influential that he didn't even know his thoughts when everyone else did? These sermons were video taped and being sold in the halls of the church! It's astronomically unlikely that Obama wasn't aware of these things when those were the same sermons being video taped and sold. Rather, it's far more likely that ideas such as Rev. Wright greatly influenced and shaped Obama's view of America.

But, that's not all. Enter Tony Rezco, another man who Obama considers a "close friend." Rezco is now behind bars serving time for corruption. Rezco was the man who got Obama his first job, and they developed a close relationship. In fact, Rezco helped Obama buy a million dollar mansion when Obama couldn't afford it. And, they did this deal in very shady way, consistent with Rezco's way of doing business. Note that Rezco received favors from politicians though 14 million dollars in kickbacks and associated dealings; and he also had a close personal relationship and did business dealings with Obama? Obviously, something is not right here.

But, the list doesn't stop there - it goes on and on. Obama endorsed the mayor of Detroit, Kawame Kilpatrick, calling him" ". Kilpatrick is now jail for 5 years on corruption charges. And, if that isn't enough, Obama continues to affiliate with several hard-left organizations, including

Now, I could go on and on, but I think the point is clear. Obama's affiliations are an open window into his character and ideologies. They not only talk about him as a person, but they reflect upon his judgement, decisions, and motivations.

Obama the Freshman Senator

Let's face the facts. Barack Obama has almost no experience in either government or politics. Worse, he has no experience whatsoever in any executive level position. Obama did serve as a community organizer before he was a legislator - but obviously, that's nowhere near enough.

Now, there is nothing at all wrong with being a community organizer; it's a very admirable thing to do. But, it's not the same type of experience as having executive level job functions, such as being a mayor, governor, military officer, or CEO, for instance. Any candidate for the President should have at least some executive experience; the most suitable generally being a U.S. Governor.

Governors manage borders and have an economic budget which has a model and structure patterned similar to the U.S. and its Constitution. In addition, all the Gubernatorial responsibilities, from serving as Commander-in-Chief of the National Guard, to the various state level departments (such as treasury, transportation, etc.) are virtually identical to that of the U.S. In fact, at the level of a state, there are few differences in the job between a governor and the President. Even the scope is similar, being largely irrespective of the population differences - after a certain "critical mass" of population (which all U.S states far exceed), the "interfaces" for the Governor and President (namely the departmental directors) are largely the same.

Still, some senators who have been in the office long enough can acquire indirect experience with executive level responsibilities, even though the nature of the job is quite different. Often, senators who run for the Office of the President will have direct executive experience through military command roles or executive level business positions. Obama, however, has none of these things.

Obama is a freshman senator; just rookie. He only recently started his political career and most of that time has been spent campaigning for President. Being able to shout good rhetoric does not mean anything if there is no substance behind it, and such is true of Obama.

Obama has created no legislation to speak of, and his voting record is extremely thin. And this thin record shows that he votes along party lines more than 97% of the time(!), which means he tends to go along with whatever his party says - in other words, a party stooge.

So, the bottom line? A new freshman senator with no executive experience, almost no track record, no legislation to speak of, and no history of doing much of anything other than being a community organizer. Those are the painful facts.

Additional Notes:
Even his own running-mate, Senator Joe Biden, doesn't think he is ready for the presidency. When asked if Obama was ready to lead, Biden said NO. In fact, Biden elaborated by saying that "the presidency is not something that lends itself to on the job training." Wow. When even his own running mate doesn't think he is ready, there can be no legitimate dispute.

Thursday, September 11, 2008

Direct Example of CNN Bias - Anderson Cooper

On September the 9th, after Barack Obama had made his nasty and infamous "lipstick on a pig" comment regarding Sarah Palin, Anderson Cooper ran a segment which covered the smear. As is CNN's typical modus operendi, they had on the "usual suspects" for their commentators - Democrat partisans like David Gergen, X, Y, Z, and almost the whole CNN crowd, who already have a very strong bias which supports Obama and leftist policies.

The first thing they did was try to downplay the event. As a matter of fact, one of the participants went so far as to say he couldn't believe it was getting any media time at all. As outrageous as that may seem, it is nothing as compared to the Anderson Cooper "Live Blog."

I went to this "Live Blog." It is, of course, moderated. I entered five(5) comments, and none made it though the moderators. But, I noticed that on the blog, some people had left multiple comments. CNN claims to be unbiased, so let's see what made it into the blog...

If you visit the blog (I also saved a copy in case they pulled it down) at, you'll see that there were 258 comments 'approved.' Notice that, throughout the entire blog, you'll be hard pressed to find a comment which doesn't support Obama. In fact, the very few I found not "glowing" about Obama were actually soft in their opposition.

Now, we all know that this presidential race, at least according to the polls, is close. And, we also know that historically, those polls have been "loaded" for the Democrats. In other words, it is typical that the Democrats lead in the polls going into the election. Even John Kerry had more than a 15 point lead at some points during the last election cycle and went on to lose by a fairly significant margin. Still, we should expect the same kind of divide that we see on newsgroups, forums, and places like YouTube - where quick research will show that people's opinions about the subject are divided mostly along partisan lines.

This means that we should expect to see the CNN blog have a far higher percentage of people who denounced the Obama smear than what actually shows up in the blog, probably higher than 50% of the posts. However, in 258 "moderated" posts, comments criticizing Obama are almost nowhere to be found.

As mentioned, I entered five(5) comments myself and not a single one made it through the moderators. So, it is impossible for CNN to claim that they received few opposing comments. And as I know from research in the blogsphere, there is absolutely no way that they did not receive other comments from people who took the 'opposing' view.

This clear and obvious bias cannot be explained away. The only way that this blog could become so biased and lopsided is that the moderators were filtering the posts to fit their ideologies - which clearly shows a pro-Obama stance.

This disgusting display of biased news reporting masquerading as 'balanced' is absolutely appalling. It's no secret the CNN is heavily biased towards a leftist ideology, but a news agency should have the responsibility of presenting a neutral, balanced point of view; or at least try to. The Anderson Cooper blog shows unequivocally that CNN's bias is both extreme and pervasive.

Obama's Lipstick...

On September the 9th, in Virgina, Barack Obama spouted a nasty insult towards America and its policies. When he talked about reform and improving our current system, he proclaimed: "you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig..." It was certainly a disgusting comment, but it was all the more nasty because of who it was specifically aimed at.

Almost everybody knew why this comment was especially pointed -- because Vice Presidential nominee Governor Sarah Palin had made a joke that the difference "between hockey moms and pitbulls" is... "lipstick." Her joke at the Republican National Convention, fresh on the minds everyone following politics, had been a topic of discussion for days and repeated over and over in the news outlets.

The connection was obvious and unambiguous. Right before the comment was made, he was rudely mocking that McCain-Palin would be 'shaking up Washington.' Since reform is a trait that McCain and Palin are known for, he was trying hard to disparage and downplay it. By the greatly elevated crowd reaction, it was clear that everyone in the audience, and everyone who heard his nasty comment, immediately connected it to Sarah Palin. He was taking a stab at Sarah Palin directly, implying that the addition of this woman, or 'lipstick,' to the White House makes no difference.

By making this comment, it is quite obvious that either Barack Obama is exceptionally stupid or he actually meant the insult as it was delivered; there are no other reasonable conclusions. Since everyone else knew immediately this was an insult being cast directly at Sarah Palin, could the Democrat front runner actually be so stupid or out-of-touch that didn't realise that himself?

If we assume that he didn't intend the message in the way that everyone else clearly understood it, then we can only conclude that he is far less intelligent than would be expected of a Presidential candidate. In fact, any person off-the-street would be more intelligent when it came to this specific event. This does not bode well for a candidate who is trying to make the impression that he can handle the politics of such an important position as President, given zero executive experience and a track record of poor judgement and bad personal associations. Add to this that he is a 1st term freshman senator with no legislation, and it's amazing that he would even be 'considered' viable by any American.

If we alternatively assume that he intended the message in the way that everyone clearly understood, then we positively conclude that he's both an insulting misogynist and liar (as he claims that's not what he meant by the comment). But then, we are also further forced to wonder if that's the real reason why he didn't pick Hillary Clinton as VP.

Either way, this comment is just terribly horrible - and it speaks volumes about Obama, his bad ideologies, and his lack of judgement.

Additional Commentary:

If we go one step further and absorb the comment's meaning in the context he used it, we also see exactly what he is posturing in this metaphor: that his idea of 'change' actually means 'fundamental change.' Why is this? Because the comment he made means 'exactly' that.

This comment states that no matter how much you improve a 'thing' it is still going to be that same 'thing;' this was Obama's point. To him, it's not about reform and improving our constitutional republic because it will still be the same 'thing' - a constitutional republic. He wants a 'completely' different system. What kind of system? Well, let's look at his ideologies to discover the answer...

Obama is the most liberal, furthest-left member of the Senate. This means he is as far towards socialism and totalitarianism as one can go in this country (as far as Senators go, and there are plenty of far left Senators). It also means that he believes in a 'liberal' interpretation of the constitution, or in other words, that the constitution is a document that is simply open to change though interpretation; as such, he does not support the principles of the U.S. Constitution as it stands. If you combine these two items, we see clearly the direction that he wants the constitution to change -- towards a large government which embodies totalitarian socialism.

When we combine this and his pattern of associations with radicals, far-leftist organizations, racists, America 'haters,' and corruption including domestic terrorists like Bill Ayers and people such as Tony Rezco and Reverend Wright, we get a very clear picture of who he is and what he wants to do.

Given his shady background, radical associations, and hard-left ideologies, Barack Obama may not even be qualified to be an American, let alone an American President. Add in his lack of political experience, terribly poor judgement, and complete absence of executive experience and it makes you wonder how this unsavory and wholly unqualified individual could be the poster child of the Democrat party.

Wednesday, September 10, 2008

What is "The Patriot Knight"?

Patriots, by definition, believe in the philosophy of republicanism. Republicanism stresses liberty, individual rights, sovereignty of the people, individual and societal responsibility, and freedoms in all concerns, including social and economic. The republican philosophy strongly denounces corruption, nepotism, and any form of totalitarianism or governmental restriction. It is a philosophy that endeavors to improve the society through these principles, both evolving the culture and continually minimizing government so far as absolutely possible.

The philosophy is materialized by instantiating a constitutional republic which puts strict limitations on the power of government, not on its people, and enshrines this limited power directly within the hands of those people. Republicanism can be looked at as a type of "superdemocracy," differing from democracy in that republicanism asserts that people have certain inalienable rights that cannot be "voted" away by a majority. Among such fundamental, inalienable rights are those which we hold as self-evident - such as the rights to life, liberty, defense of oneself and others, and the pursuits of happiness in its infinite forms to name a few.

The United States of America is such a constitutional republic. It was founded on the blood of Patriots evolving from the Sons of Liberty; these brave people challenged tyranny and believed in the power of culture and the good of mankind. The immense success of the United States illustrates the indisputable benefits of this root philosophy, and the U.S owes its strength to such foundational thought. But not all of the colonists were Patriots - in fact, it is estimated that less than 1/3 and possibly less than 1/5 were Patriots, the others being loyalists or "indifferent."

Today, many people call themselves a "Patriot" or "Patriotic" without actually knowing what it means. Being a Patriot does not necessarily mean being "nationalistic," although it may sometimes appear that way. Rather, it means supporting the ideology of republicanism. A true Patriot may be forced to oppose their country, if necessary, namely if their country's action opposes an ideology of republicanism.

Each and every day there are Patriots fighting to maintain the Constitutional Republic embodied in the United States of America against those wanting to destroy it. They are fighting to keep it free from the poisonous hammer of the opposition wanting to crush the republic and move the U.S. towards totalitarianism. We see that opposition emerging in our media, in our schools, in our politicians, in some of our banks and our businesses -- and some growing from the shadows of ignorance.

A "Patriot Knight" is both a True Patriot and an ardent defender of their Republic. They are the champion of liberty and the ultimate warrior of free will. They fight against the damaging opposition wherever it may be and against whatever odds, and endeavor to maintain and evolve their Republic, pledging to restore it at any price, if such ever becomes necessary, though whatever means is required, without limitation.

Follow the thoughts of this Patriot Knight as I explore topics from the very mundane to the highly esoteric. Some topics may be shallow, and some may be deep... some may be ancient, some contemporary. But they will all, in one way or another, reflect the true nature of a Patriot, and illustrate the root ideology and core thoughts of republicanism - an ideology that is worth far more than the risks.
Top Blogs Politics