Transition to What?

I am writing this on Friday, November 7th. I am actually in Costa Rica today. However, I am pretty sure of what’s gone on in my absence.

Obama has put in place his transition team. He is choosing his White House Staff and cabinet members. He has tried to avoid the mistakes of Bill’s transition team and has worked hard to emulate Ronald’s. He has placed some people in positions and he is trying to coax others to climb aboard.

This is not an overtly watched process, but who he places in these positions says an awful lot about his positions. Want an example?

Donald Rumsfeld. Was there any question on what Bush was thinking when he placed him in his position? C’mon really? No. The problem was America in general didn’t know how much of a ‘hawk’ he was. Why? Because, we don’t pay attention.

Who the president surrounds himself with is a key indicator of what is coming. But instead of paying attention, we are living our lives, going to work, seeing movies, and spending time with our families. This is the key reason we are not really a democracy. We don’t actively participate in politics, we vote people in to do that for us.

So who is Obama putting in? How far to the right are they? Do you know? How do you find out?
Did he put a Republican in any of the positions? Did he offer any job to a moderate voice? Do you know? How do you find out?

These people will advise him, because he can’t know it all. So we need to pay attention to his choices as well, or we will all end up with another batch of problems that will need to be solved. Oh, yeah there’s that socialism thing again.

Energy: Why nothing is going to get done

While Obama and his surrogates are running around in transition, I want to impress on all of you one thing. The most important immediate issue is energy, well, mainly gasoline.

Why? Because our country runs on it right now.

No matter what we do, no matter what we say, gas is a critical issue at the moment. Let’s take a look at the facts:

1. Our country runs on gasoline. You use it every day in your cars. The trucks that bring you all the food you eat uses it. Everything at some point is transferred using a gas powered engine. Every business in the U.S. relies in one way or another on gas. You could use less, but even the most die hard liberal still uses gas.

2. The problems in the Middle East are all caused by our dependence on their oil. Years of dependency have either created or fueled the problem. Even now, if we could become independent of their oil, the damage has been done.

3. Without a substantial amount of oil from another source, we will never, EVER become energy independent. We cannot just jump from Gas to hydrogen or solar powered cars. Use common sense, even if they were available, are you going to junk your gas using car and purchase a new $25,000 hydrogen car? (you mean you’re not willing to sacrifice your personal budget to save the planet? How shocking!)

4. We have the gas, but we don’t have the will. Our government has the ability to drill safely in the ocean and in Alaska, and in Utah and in Colorado, but they tell us that it unsafe to the environment. But, the facts tell us something different. Besides a trumped up false claim off the coast of California, there has never been a drilling accident on U.S. soil. Every problem was involved in the transportation of oil. Drilling has never been the problem. If we had the will, we would make the transportation just as safe. The problem is, Liberals do not have the will. They would rather be bed buddies with the environmentalist then solve your gas dilemma.

Which brings us to the bigger picture. What is Obama’s energy plan?

No drilling off shore or in Alaska. No shell harvesting in Utah or Colorado. No new coal plants (Well unless you want to be bankrupt http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=211243), and no new nuclear plants.

Wow, this is stunning. You mean to say that his whole plan is to NOT create any new usable energy, even though we all know that consumption is rising and the reserves and supply are falling? That even though China will eclipse our usage in a few years, we are not going to find any more for us? You mean to tell me that he has some new “supply and demand” model that trumps the old “supply and demand” model that we have been using for centuries?

Oh, wait, that’s right he is going to tax those evil oil companies because they make too much money. That will solve it. Take away their profits and redistribute them to other sources of energy to develop. That makes total sense. Because then they will produce more oil for us to use when they get their profits taken away. They’ll just squeeze it out of their rear ends.

Let’s look at this policy in real life. Michael Phelps trained everyday for four years, worked hard at his business and went to China and earned 8 gold medals. He earned them. He was in the right place at the right time, he had a little luck, and he swam his guts out. But, since we are into leveling the playing field and have a need to punish those who are successful, he should give up three of those medals and give them to another participant who did not medal.

Sound stupid? It is, but it is exactly what he is suggesting to do to the oil companies. Heck, movie stars make ten times the amount teachers do, so why aren’t they taxing them? Or how about professional athletes, or heaven forbid Harvard University. They should have to live by the same rules too, right? Wrong. You are missing the critical point. Socialism isn’t really about leveling the playing field. It is about blaming an easy target so that you can provide hope and change when you attack them. It is never about accomplishment, it is about keeping the masses in check and presiding over their salvation. The liberals don’t care if your problems are solved, because if they were, you wouldn’t need them anymore.

But, let’s get back to the problem. No new energy sources, and tax the one we have. How does that help you? Will the tax they levy on oil companies put gas in your tank so you can go to work and earn a living?

But, the gas companies already have hundreds of thousands of acres they could be pulling gas from, Obama told me so. Man, you really swallowed it all didn’t you?

Again real life example: Sorry Will, you can’t have the Independence Day script. It might make too much money. Or even better yet, nope sorry Native Americans, you can’t keep your traditional hunting grounds, we need you to move to the desolate backlands of America. Or, yeah, sorry but you’ll have to sit at the back of the bus.

The offering to the gas companies look different when you realize that where they have been given the rights to drill isn’t profitable. Then add onto it that they will be taxed even more if they are, and you’ve got the best plan for Middle East energy dependence in history. Now why would they want that?

I thought that the Liberals wanted energy independence? I thought it was their battle cry that Bush started the war over oil. I thought that it was them who said that we brought 9/11 on ourselves by being dependent. Wouldn’t it make sense then that they would be for creating our own oil, and getting us out of the war? Then it must be something else?

Oh that’s right, socialism. One fire for another, keep the masses needing the political messiah, so he can stay in power. Right. I almost forgot.

The Media’s New Role

It is no mystery that that the mainstream news casted its vote early on for Obama. Given their left tendencies it was no surprise to see them fondling themselves in anticipation. The accolades, the adoration, the “tingles that run up their legs” with the prospects of an Obama presidency. Well they got what they wanted. Now what?

The news now days isn’t about reporting facts or stories, it is about creating the news, telling people what they should think, and allowing surrogates and talking heads time to fill up the 24 hour news cycle. Have you ever wondered why they only allow sound bites from the candidates themselves, but give endless time to their surrogates and talking heads to analyze what they said, how they said it and what you should think about it? It is because they don’t trust you. They don’t want you to think for yourself, they want to do it for you. You are not educated enough, you are not aware enough and you are certainly not capable of crafting your own opinion.

But now they have a problem. They promoted Obama, helping raise the expectations of his supporters. They fueled the fire of his greatness, the political messiah, the chosen one, to the point they know he cannot live up to. But when he can’t deliver on his myriad of promises, they won’t be able to criticize him. Now, I know that you are reading this several days after the election, but I wrote it the Thursday after the election and I will tell you what is going to happen, because it started this morning.

On the Today Show they had a full four minutes of “the daunting tasks that face the new President Obama.” Except, they used every chance they had both in the story and right after the story to lower the bar. They have decided that they need to begin, the day after the election, to douse the fire that they fueled for the last year. They realize that if they don’t, they will lose more credibility. What is telling about this is that they know they are manipulating you, and they don’t care. Why? Because, the general populace is too uneducated to follow their subtle “strategery.” They proved it during the election. They could give you the Obama talking points and you think it is the news. They could tell you what to think, how to think and what to say, then it was repeated over and over again by the uneducated watchers.

The media wants you to trust them. I say, you know better. So when they start defending the “failed Obama policies” remember, they put them him there, they need to own up to their bias.

Here is a great report on the history of studies done by reputable sources about media bias. Of course the numbers are not in for this last election, but I suspect that the results will be more negative news for the media. Here is the source: http://www.mrc.org/biasbasics/pdf/BiasBasics.pdf

Here are some highlights from 2004’s election:

The vast majority of American voters detected media bias: “83 percent of likely voters said the media is biased in one direction or another, while just 11 percent believe the media doesn’t take political sides,” Zogby reported.

By a huge margin, most of those who saw media bias thought it favored liberals: “Nearly two-thirds of those online respondents who detected bias in the media (64 percent) said the media leans left, while slightly more than a quarter of respondents (28 percent) said they see a conservative bias.”

Republicans and independents both saw the media as dominated by liberals, and even some
Democratic voters agreed: “While 97 percent of Republicans surveyed said the media are liberal, two-thirds of political independents feel the same....Just two-thirds of Democrats were certain the media skewed right — and 17 percent said the bias favored the left.”

Here is some from the horse’s mouth:

“I don’t know if it’s 95 percent...[but] there are enough [liberals] in the old media, not just in ABC, but in old media generally, that it tilts the coverage quite frequently, in many issues, in a liberal direction....It’s an endemic problem. And again, it’s the reason why for 40 years, conservatives have rightly felt that we did not give them a fair shake.”
— ABC News political director Mark Halperin appearing on The Hugh Hewitt Show, October 30, 2006.

“I believe it is true that a significant chunk of the press believes that Democrats are incompetent but good-hearted, and Republicans are very efficient but evil.”
— Wall Street Journal political editor John Harwood on the April 23, 2005 Inside Washington.

“At ABC, people say ‘conservative’ the way people say ‘child molester.’”
— ABC 20/20 co-anchor John Stossel to CNSNews.com reporter Robert Bluey, in a story posted January 28, 2004.

“As the science editor at Time I would freely admit that on this issue we have crossed the boundary from news reporting to advocacy.”
— Time Science Editor Charles Alexander at a September 16, 1989 global warming conference, as quoted by David Brooks in an October 5, 1989 Wall Street Journal column.

Obama’s Mandate

The night after the election I happened to catch the Reverend Jesse Jackson on Larry King. He was using the “M” word. Now, a lot of conservatives want to fight the notion that that there is a mandate. Lets’ be honest, you can claim a landslide victory in the Electoral College, but at least 50 million people don’t want what Obama is selling.

But still, rather than fighting the notion on whether or not Obama has a mandate, I say, let’s jump on the bandwagon and increase the hype, the expectations and the endorsement of such a thing. Here’s why.

In 1994, I was working at a college that had one of those huge pendulums that hung from the ceiling and rotated using the worlds wobble to tell time. Two brilliant freshman (liberal arts majors I’m sure) thought that it would be a smashing idea to see how far they could swing the pendulum by pushing it. They got behind it and pushed it with all they had, then stood back to watch their achievement. What they didn’t know was that the force in which they pushed the pendulum increased the arc’s apex on the other side. When it came back it swung further than either of them suspected. One lost his two front teeth, the other got a concussion, a skull fracture, and a black eye.

Mandate, sure. You go for it! You push that pendulum with all your might. I wonder if Pelosi has enough makeup to cover up a black eye, (oh wait, have you seen the make-up on that woman? I am sure she does.)

But more importantly, I think something else needs to be addressed here. While the liberals run around talking about this mandate, they have lost sight of one minor detail. By their own accounts, the middle of America voted because of their hatred for Bush. This is a mighty big difference than voting for Obama, no matter how they want to spin it. When middle America wakes from this hope induced hangover and realize that what Obama wants is different than what they want, those same voters who didn’t take the time to actually learn something about politics, promises and political marketing will be easily swayed to hate him as well.

What goes around, comes around.

(Oh, and don't get all over me for finding the ugliest picture of Pelosi I could find. I envoke the Bush Rule.)

Clueless Obamanomics

On the Today Show Firiday one of Obama’s top economic aides was on showing his towering intellect. Wow, this is staggering, even now as I write it, I can’t believe that this is the guy who might be leading the charge for Obama’s economic plans.

Meredith had established that our country survives on consumers. Need to add a little bit more here. We only survive on consumers. We don’t make much anymore, if you don’t consume, (buy something today) your neighbor down the street loses his job. If he doesn’t consume, you lose your job. We have built the most fragile economy on the planet and it is showing its frailty.

Now, this brain trust that Obama has developed began to answer questions and what he said was once again the half truths of his campaign.

‘We need to stimulate the middle class so that they will spend. We need to either get a tax cut into their hands or a stimulus check to them so that they will stimulate the economy.’

Now, on the surface this sounds good right. Those of us in the middle class would like more money to spend, but, THAT ISN’T THE ISSUE AT ALL!

So let’s have a little economics lesson shall we?

The economy is mostly affected by jobs. Why? Because, jobs provide a constant flow of money for consumers. When people have a job, they spend their money. (People without a job spend other people’s money, it’s just a lot less) When people lose their jobs, mostly because other people are not spending their money, they stop consuming and other people lose their jobs. Cyclical.

So what’s wrong with a stimulus plan, nothing. But, I know something that is better. You see, a stimulus plan is a booster shot, a one hit wonder. It is not a gift that keeps on giving. If you want to stimulate the economy, create new jobs. Jobs don’t provide a one month $1,800 check to spend, it creates an ongoing consumer stream that saves your job, your neighbors job, and mine.

So obviously, a job is worth much more in the long run then a middle class tax cut or a stimulus check. Many times more.

So this aide to Obama says, ‘we need to create 100-200k jobs as quickly as we can.’
So let’s check the Obama plan for creating jobs. ‘We are going to tax people who make $250K+ and give tax relief to everyone else including $1,000 checks to people who don’t pay taxes.’

Need more information? Thought so. How many poor people are going to take their $1,000 check and hire someone? Right, none. How many people who make $70,000 a year working for UPS are going to create a job with their tax refund? Right again, none. How many people who have jobs working for someone else, are going to take their tax cut, start a business and hire five other people? In this climate? Right again, none.

It isn’t Reaganomics, it is simple economics. Poor people, people who work for other people, and people who don’t work, DO NOT CREAT JOBS!

Who does? Well therein lays the craftiest lie in all of this. The average successful small business owner in this country makes just about $250,000 a year. They supply the greatest number of jobs nationwide. They get paid to take the chance, build a business and they have earned their reward. These are the people Obama’s brain trust wants to tax. Brilliant. That’s the way to get them to invest more, and hire more people, by punishing them with more taxes.

I am a small business owner. I have a desk, a phone, and work for another employee. I know if I hire that employee, I could make more money. I could grow my business. But that desk has gone unoccupied for the last three months and I have no intention of filling it anytime soon. Why? Because if you (my dear reader) lose your job because your neighbor stopped consuming, you won’t buy my products and then I lose the income from that sale. This hurts my business. So instead, I will sit on the capital that I so wisely saved during the economic boom, and wait this economic crisis out. (I can do that because I saved a lot more than I consumed during the last five years personally too.)

Obama’s plan to tax the rich and give to the poor sounds great as a stump speech, It placated the masses, and trumped the promises of economic security for all. But, I will bet you a whole bunch of my money that when push comes to shove, people would rather have a job then a stimulus check. They would rather have a job then a tax cut.

So as you contemplate your hope filled Obama future, think about this. That person I didn’t hire, because I am unsure about Obama’s taxes, didn’t get a paycheck from me this week, so he/she didn’t consume, so your neighbor is about to lose his job, which means, yep, you guessed it, you’re about to lose yours.(Now, don’t even think about blaming me for not hiring that person. I do what’s best for me and my family just as you do yours. Blame Obama if you must, I invoke the Clinton Rule)

Socialism Rears its Ugly Head

When I was young, naive and in my first years of college, I’ll have to admit, I leaned the left and thought myself to be quite liberal. I think when you’re young, liberalism offers you hope because it promises to level the playing field. It equalizes this unfair world so that you can participate. It promises you a place of equal standing regardless of your current stature.

Then you enter the real world and you realize that it is not equal. It is not fair. And you don’t get a prize for showing up and participating. There are no ribbons for sixteenth place. That the world is highly competitive and unless you are willing to step ahead of someone, you will always be behind.

Back in those years I was given an assignment by a history teacher to read a book from an “opposition to democracy” leader. Being the over active, over achieving student I was, I read Hitler’s ‘Mein Kampf’ and Karl Marx’s ‘ The Poverty of Philosophy’ and ‘The Communist Manifesto’. I’ll admit, I was taken under their spell. Both are written in such a way that they suck you in and turn your own life’s situations into powerful examples of why socialism is the way for everyone to have equal opportunity.


Now, many are afraid that Obama is a socialist. The radio-right talk show hosts always point to his policies of redistributing wealth, welfare taxation, and tax the rich to give programs to the poor ideology. This is summed up in Marx’s philosophy:


The rich must give all they can, but the poor must take all that they need.


But, this pales in comparison the Marxist ideology of how to gain power. You see. I am a much bigger fan of judging a person by what he does, rather than what he says. So let’s take a look at the Marxist playbook of gaining power and then we can draw some conclusions.


Idea number one: You must sow seeds of discontent among the poor. They must feel that they are not participating, disenfranchised, or have lost something. Their discontent must be drawn out.


Idea number two: Blame the opposition for everything. They are the ruling power, they must accept blame for all their actions. Sow the seeds of discontent against the ruling party. It is much easier to believe that things are wrong and that someone else is to blame, then it is to promote your ideology.


Idea number three: Offer hope and change. You have now sowed the seeds of discontent and assigned blame. Now offer hope and change. It will not matter what that hope is, or what that change is because if done correctly people won’t ask. They will believe that anything is better than what they currently have.


So far kind of scary, huh? But he isn’t done, and the scary part is yet to come.


Idea number four: Use any means necessary to gain power. It does not matter what you offer, how you offer it, or if you can ensure that it will happen. Gain power by any means necessary (yes to Marx, this includes lying, cheating, stealing or any other way) because until you have power, nothing else matters. Only the powerful get to make decisions.


Idea number four: Keep your power. In order to keep your power, you need to keep the masses and create more of them. Advances in social status must be offset by reductions in social status. Fight one fire while creating another fire somewhere else. Destroy the middle class and create an “us versus them” mentality. The have-nots must always be reminded that they don’t have what the rich do, and that they need the government to level the playing field.


Now, having Obama actually say he wants to redistribute wealth is awful disturbing. But in light of the Marxist playbook, I am more scared of his actions during the election. If you can’t see the parallels you’re blind. This is how he beat Clinton and then beat McCain. He took this play by play straight from the Marxist playbook.


The last two ideologies scare me the most. Take a look at how liberals operate. In all the years they have been fighting for the under classes, what’s changed? What have they done to improve their status? In every case for the last 50 years they continually created programs that were supposed to help people, but they never get better. Their programs fight one fire, while they create another somewhere else. In all their billions upon billions in governmental programs, they have solved nothing. They blame the conservatives at every chance, but by purpose, they have nothing to show because if the poor, the discriminated, the minority, the illegal were to ever advance, they would lose their power. Socialism is why it will never change. Read Marx, he’ll tell you, straight up, what is going on.


We are just too uneducated, too unread, and to apathetic to care. The masses would rather blame the opposition then change, and the programs that were established to help ALWAYS come back to burn them.

Bush Haters United

When history writes this chapter, I am afraid that a footnote will need to be written about Obama’s campaign. One that won’t get as much press, but will none-the-less be worthy of a great deal of scrutiny. It is not the amount he spent, or about the way in which he campaigned. It will be the award winning job he did marketing to the American people.

Marketing has always been part of the campaign, but it was taken to new heights and in ways that when viewed with historical facts, unsettling. Not because he used them, by all means, we all market, but because the American populace was dumb enough to buy it hook line and sinker.
What am I talking about? The wholesale marketing of hatred for Bush.

Now before you go all postal on me and start shrieking about Bushes failed policies, remember results take time to measure, and we are now just getting the facts of how much deception there was in Obama’s marketing. I guess we are also getting more facts on just how Americans believed the marketing lies.

Obama didn’t win because of his amazing intellect, his great plan, or even for good policies. He won because he convinced enough people to hate Bush. He used it over and over, then used it over and over again, until people who don’t think for themselves believed. Then he told them there was hope in his change. (By the way, this is a play right from Karl Marx’s socialism playbook. But, that is for another posting.)

Want proof. Good, cause I got plenty.

We are in this position of economic crisis because of Bush’s failed economic plans, right? That is what most Americans believe and voted on, but here is some interesting exit polling time statistics.

Since 2004, through Bush’s failed economic plan, the number of people making less than $15k dropped to 6%. That is a 25% decline.

Since 2004, through Bush’s failed economic plan, the number of people making less than $30k dropped to 12%. That is a 20% decline.

Since 2004, through Bush’s failed economic plan, the number of people making between $100k and $150k increased to 14% which is a 27% increase.

Since 2004, through Bush’s failed economic plan, the number of people making between $150k and $200k increased to 6% which is a 50% increase.

Since 2004, through Bush’s failed economic plan, the number of people making over $200k increased to 6% which is a 100% increase.

Since 2004, through Bush’s failed economic plan, the total number of people making over $100k increased to 26% which is a 44% increase.

But, wait. Didn’t the liberal Bush hating machine tell you that you were worse off than in 2004? Didn’t they spend hundreds of millions of dollars convincing the uneducated masses that Bushes failed economic plans had made things worse?

Hook, line and sinker. The uneducated bought it because the media feeds you a constant flow of gloom and doom. It is easier to get you to think that you are worse off, then show you how the numbers actually work. Oh, and there was that thing about the media hating Bush as well and wanting the ‘chosen one’ elected, but that is for another post as well.

Here is some more.

Bush’s failed economic policy caused the current credit meltdown and the stock market crisis. Two questions. One, who controls the laws and the purse strings of the United States? Answer: Congress. Question two, who oversees Fannie May and Freddy Mac? Congress. Whether it was democratic or republican, Congress had a hundred fold more impact on the current economic crisis than Bush did. So what did the brain dead electorate vote? More bone heads in congress. Bush warned congress 27 times in the first six years of his presidency that it was broken and needed to be fixed. Great job doing your homework America. Oh wait, those weren’t in Obama’s marketing plan, so you didn’t get that memo did you.

Here’s some more.

Bush’s failed policies caused jobs to go overseas, and for companies to move outside of the U.S. raising unemployment, and job loss. Let’s take a look shall we? Where did you shop this week? Where were the best deals for your family on clothing, electronics, house wares, and textiles? You did what every red blooded American did this last week and bought those items at the best prices so that you could save money, and still get what you want.

Now, go take a look at where that stuff was made. Find the tag and see. I’ll bet that 90% of the stuff you consume is from somewhere else other than The U.S.

So let’s put two and two together shall we? Was Bush there when you bought those items? Did he in some way whisper in your ear and tell you to buy foreign merchandise? Of course not. You did it because you made the decision consciously or unconsciously that whatever you bought was the best thing for you. You did it to save money, get better quality, or because it was simply the one you wanted.

Companies move overseas to compete with overseas companies. When you as a consumer demand a better T.V. at a lower cost, companies have to find ways of producing a T.V. at lower costs. When an American demands $30 an hour to build a T.V., but the company can’t compete at that labor cost, that company moves its production overseas. You, me and everyone else in the U.S. wants goods at a lower cost, much lower than what it costs to produce in the states.
Bush has little or nothing to do with that, YOU DO. Your desire for cheap goods to fill that whole in your emptiness causes more job loss than any president. Once again, great job doing your homework America. But of course, you bought into Obama’s marketing didn’t you, so you didn’t notice you were the problem.

One more.

Bush’s failed foreign policy has made the world hate us. Agreed, I am not a fan of the war, or of the Bush doctrine in general. History has not been kind to people who start wars. However, hindsight is 20/20. It is interesting how people have skewed history to mean something it didn’t, rewrite it if you will.

In 2001, Muslim extremists from the Middle East hated us enough to attack us on our soil. They hated us enough to attack and embassy, a warship, and some other targets as well. Most Muslim countries have always hated us. Europe didn’t much care for us, nor did China, Venezuela, or Southeast Asia. So who hates us now? The same people. Nothing has changed, they just voice it more. (Mainly because they want Obama too. Someone they can "talk to.")

But Obama marketed to all of you that the Bush failed foreign policy has been bad for the U.S. Let’s see. The eight years prior to 9/11 brought us 7 different terrorist attacks on U.S. Assets. Since, none. Bush traded some counterproductive “light petting” with some of the fringe countries and protected our assets around the world. Countries who have taken the Obama approach of foreign policy have had the reverse effect. England, Spain, the Philippines all have been attacked and all of them think diplomacy is the key to working with terrorists. Oh, another memo that the Obama campaign failed to get you. Ouch.

Look I am not a fan of Bush, and I think that in many ways he made bad choices. But Obama marketed half truths to you about where you stand, who’s to blame, and where you were headed, to get elected. He used you. He used a prevailing feeling, cultivated it into a fire, and then dropped an atom bomb on it with creative marketing.

Who’s the bigger idiot? One who makes up the lie or ones that believes it? Hook, line and sinker.

The Messiah?

As I sat and watch Obama’s acceptance speech last night, I found my heart repeating “yes we can.” I found myself swelling up with the crowd full of emotion as they repeated it over and over again. “Change we can believe in.” I saw the tears, the joy, the pride. I found myself almost believing that this man was the savior of our nation, the messiah of politics and the answer to all my concerns. He could save us. He could save us all! He’s the man with the plan. He’s the man with all the answers!

And then I woke up from my audacity of hope induced coma . My keen intellect wouldn’t allow the brainwashing to sink in. The crowd mentality, the me too, crackerjack prize at the bottom, jump on board, “Change we can believe in” snake oil salesman’s empty promises would not work with me.

Then it hit me. I get to have the job that the liberals got to have for the last 8 years. I get to sit back and watch it all implode. I get to armchair quarterback the destruction of the United States and comment on all the things that they do wrong. I don’t have to offer any hope, real legislation, or bipartisan support, but instead, offer a steady does of “well, here’s what you did wrong” finger wagging. What a great job! Then in four years, I get to lead the charge as stupid people who drank the cool-aide wonder, “what just happened? I though t that they were going to save me. I thought they were going to help me. I thought that things would be perfect, easy, and. . .” (gulp) “What happened?”

So let’s set some ground rules to how this is going to work.

1. I am not going to call him by his title. The Liberals and their media desecrated the presidential office by calling that other dude “Mister Bush.” So according to rule #2, I will continue this practice and it is fair game. This is the “Not my President Rule.”
2. Anything that was fair game with the Liberals is fair game now. You all got to sit back and criticize without impunity, now it is my turn. (Nothing is off limits.) This is the "Bush Hater Rule."
3. I have chosen ten promises that Obama made to the nation in his election speech. I will from time to time, critique him on how well he is doing. Although, I will almost always going to place it in the larger context, the final judgment will be based on how what he does directly affects me, personally. Not fair? That’s how you voted, isn’t it. On whether you thought he would affect your life personally? Hey, if you voted because you personally hated Bush, I got news for you, you’re going to hate Obama even worse. This is the “Bite Me Rule.”
4. I do not have to accept any personal responsibility for anything I write. You want facts checked, go check them yourself. If you think that my take on the facts is not accurate, tuff. Your left wing agenda media didn’t do their own fact checking and when they were called on the carpet, they never took responsibility. When they take responsibility, so will I. “Blind Faith Rule”
5. If you’re going to argue with me, and make posts on this blog, be prepared for two things. One, if I don’t like it, I will remove it and call you a hatemonger, a bigot, or a radical (that’s all you’ve done and it works for you). Two, you better come with both barrels loaded because I’m a pretty smart guy, with a whole lot to say, and oh yeah, it’s my blog. (Oh, don’t cry, your media will still feed you your daily dose of Obamacrack.) This is the “Mainstream Media Rule.”
6. For those of you who think it is going to be funny to just post “Yes we can” because B.O. says for you to say it to all the naysayers, critics, and pundits who don’t agree with him, save it. Go read a little history, Hitler, Stalin and Carl (Marx for all you non-readers out there), all had their “followers” repeat slogans in the face of detractors. So do cult leaders and the mentally insane. This is the “Empty words Rule.”
7. For all those who want to support B.O. by invoking the failed policies of Bush, stop. I won’t defend Bush. It is time for B.O. to stand where he was placed, by his supporters, on his own. Every single thing he does, he does now alone. All the nation’s problems are now his problems. No excuses, no fall back, no scapegoat. He takes full responsibility for the nation as of today. You have the Clinton’s to thank for that little rule. The buck stops with the president. Period. The moment I hear “Bushes failed ______” (insert the blank) I will invoke the "Clinton Rule."
8. If you like my blog, pass it on. If you don’t agree with me, you’re a hatemongering bigot that is just trying to divide the nation (hey it worked for you), because it couldn't possibly be a difference of idiology. This is the “it works both ways rule.”

So check back often. I am going to hold everyone who voted for this guy responsible. I am going to call it how I see it, and I am going to use my right to free speech. If no one reads, at least I will be able to vent my frustration, (that is until the liberal congress votes in the fairness doctrine, then my rights to an opposition voice will be limited until I can find a liberal who can take the time to paste two sentences together for equal time.)