Barack Obama states that we are not going back to the "failed policies" of the Bush Administration. He ignores the fact that he has instituted a set of entirely new policies destined for failure, and continues to blame George Bush for the economic crisis we are currently in. This is disingenuous politics at best, a complete and outright disregard for the facts at worst.

One of the main complaints that Obama has about the Bush administration are tax breaks that "reward the rich." The suggestion is constantly made that the Bush tax cuts increased the deficit. Why no one calls him on this is beyond me. The Bush tax cuts resulted in some of the highest federal revenues in our history. This is fact, not conjecture - you can view the actual revenue here. As you can see, the highest revenue on the chart occurred in the years 2005-2008. It was spending that created a deficit, not a lack of federal revenue.

So the only failed policy that was engaged in when it comes to tax and spending was the spending. Yet this is the one failed policy that Obama does want to continue, and he is doing so with gusto. If you look at the spending beginning with Obama, you can see the deficit top a trillion dollars for the first time ever. Of course, the chart projects higher Federal Revenues, but there is really no evidence that this will actually happen. While the spending projections are probably accurate, the revenue projections are just wishful thinking.

So, Obama has it completely backwards. Of course he knows this - if spurring economic growth and creating jobs was actually his goal, he could achieve this by keeping the Bush tax cuts in place, and put an end to the divisive and "hostile to business" policies that create class distinctions and make for a climate where business owners are loathe to invest and take risk.

But then he wouldn't be able to use the crisis to advance his dangerous liberal agenda. That's his goal - not a robust economy, but a continuing state of crisis, economic or otherwise, that will allow him to reshape this country in to something we will no longer recognize.

If you mention Fox News to a liberal and/or progressive, you can expect a vitriolic reaction without fail. And if you voice any opinion contrary to the liberal/progressive groupthink, you will be accused of being a dupe of Fox News. You don't even have to mention the network - any criticism of the Obama administration will be met with a rebuke and the suggestion that you must be brainwashed by Fox.

How ironic. The liberals/progressives are engaged in a lockstep mass propaganda without truth. One doesn't need Fox News to know that the current Congress is passing bill after 2000 page bill, each expanding the power of the Federal government at the expense of people's freedoms. One doesn't need Fox News to know that federal spending is out of control and the country is headed for fiscal disaster. And one doesn't need Fox News to know that the president says anything he thinks he can get away with and baldly lies to the American people.

If you can't see the lies, fiscal disaster and the theft of freedom, you must be blind or kidding yourself. But for those who can't see it, or are so brainwashed by the liberal media and the groupthink of their friends, Fox News is there for you. Maybe they should turn it on and unwash their brain. At least it will be a starting point.

I keep hearing people suggest that Obama is a socialist or Marxist, and progressives/liberals always respond with an attitude that suggests "that's crazy talk." They then proceed to bloviate about how that type of thinking is akin to hate speech, or it's racist, or that Marxist and socialist are buzz-words that have a lot of loaded connotations and we shouldn't apply them to the president because it just misleads people.

Well, just for the record, let's just say it straight out: Of course he's a Marxist. His father was a Marxist, his mother was a Marxist, his grandparents were Marxists, his mentor was a Marxist, the man who recommended him to Harvard was a Marxist, his former pastor is a Marxist, his new spiritual adviser is a Marxist. He has surrounded himself with Marxists and installed Marxists in high positions in his administration, people who openly praise Mao and say things like "who is going to step down so someone else can have power?" In his own words he speaks of "spreading the wealth" around, and the entire focus of his presidency has been income redistribution schemes. He has nationalized large swaths of private society, taken over banks, and is now working on complete control of the entire health care system.

So to anyone who says he's not a Marxist, I say this: what, are you blind? Seriously - there is so much evidence to this fact that to deny it you would have to blind, or stupid, or just plain lying to yourself. Wake up comrades, before it's too late.

It's looking like there is only perhaps 1 more day of real American freedom left. Enjoy it while you can.

Is our long national nightmare over? Only time will tell. But this is a good sign. No, a great sign. If a Republican can win in "the bluest of blue states," the progressive agenda of the current Democratic majority may actually be derailed.

I was surfing the web yesterday, and stumbled across a critique of a blog entry I wrote some time ago. The post was about how people generalize groups of people as "assholes," or some other derogatory and intellectually void term. Now I don't usually use such a term as "asshole" on my blog, but this post was in response to a person who generalized all Republicans as "assholes." So, the use of such a derogatory term was necessary. I made the point that we shouldn't just generalize all people who disagree with us in such disparaging terms. And I further made the point of how ironic it is that "those who claim to be against bigotry, who claim to believe in equal opportunity, and who claim to disdain any type of favoritism, speak against those whom they do not agree with in such bigoted, elitist rhetoric."

So, imagine my surprise to find this critique: "Here's a conservative asshole complaining that liberals call asshole conservatives, 'conservative assholes.'" That's it, no further examination of my post, just that statement. My first impulse is to paraphrase the words of Christopher Lloyd, written for an episode of Frasier: "What trenchant criticism... One can only wonder how many hours (he) sat in the glow of his computer screen before his trembling fingers sprang to life and pecked out this chef d'oeuvre..." But some sort of revenge is not my aim here. I wish to point out once again the irony of such a person, identified on here as "B-Dup," calling me such a word.

Perhaps it is apparent to him that I am such an "asshole." But it is striking that inherent in his comment is the fact that, if he indeed did read the blog post, that he entirely missed its meaning. What that says about him I will leave up to you to figure out. I certainly have my own ideas about his ability to parse the meaning of a clearly written idea, and they do not speak well of his intelligence.

The point I wish to make here is that in the battleground of ideas, we must not stoop to that level. Many who disagree with us have their own reasons for doing so, and if we wish to make real progress, we must address the ideas, not demonize the source. Our playbook should take a higher ground.

Of course, we see such low tactics all the time from both sides, but the liberal left has perfected the practice. It is right from the playbook of Saul Alinksy, who stated: "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." In other words, don't engage on an intellectual level, but demonize the target. We see it in the persecution of Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, etc. Those who engage in these tactics are rampant, especially on the Internet, where little men (or women) with a mouse in their hand spew forth such garbage with relative impunity. Shielded from face to face contact, they criticize and disparage others. Or, they gather in like-minded groups and wax poetic about how intelligent, and even more important, morally superior they are, spouting their messages of "Hope" and "Change," while engaging in smug group think and issuing gutter-speak proclamations about how stupid are those that disagree with them. But we must not let them get away with it.

That is why I am even bothering to respond to this small-minded criticism from this person known to me only as "B-Dup." He took his valuable time to call me out as an "asshole" with a feeble attempt at building himself up while tearing another down. The fact that his critique says more about him than it does about me seems not to have entered his mind. In fact, I should appreciate the link to my site that is included in his critique, for it may undoubtedly drive some traffic to my little relatively unknown blog. An army of B-Dups may only succeed in increasing my exposure. Now that would be irony.

It's a new year, and time for the conservative resurgence. 2009 brought us a liberal president, a liberal congress, and a socialist agenda that threatens the very core of our American values. Self reliance was down played for a mantra of "where's mine?"

But 2009 also was a year that awakened many who were politically sleeping. The Tea Party movement arose, comprised of many conservative heartland Americans who previously trusted that no matter what happened, our American values would stay intact. But when faced with the first liberal president since Carter, these Americans realized that they can no longer count on minor swings of the pendulum. The massive sweep to the left has energized these Americans, and many will step out to vote in midterm elections to try to stop the socialist agenda.

That is a good thing, but we must be mindful to keep our eyes on a unified goal. There is talk of a "third party" movement, referred to as the "Tea Party." Let us not fall into a trap of splitting our conservative votes at this time. A third party of conservatives in 2010 would have the unintended effect of entrenching the very liberal Democrats by splitting the conservative vote, and ensuring continued socialism of America.

I am not against a third party movement, but I do not support such a thing in 2010. Our goal this year should be to elect as many conservatives as possible, and that means that the Republican Party is the obvious choice. If we wish to organize a third party such as the "Tea Party" or some other conservative party, I am all for it. But in the short run, we must not allow the Democrats to continue running the show. If there is a third party candidate who can achieve a victory over a liberal Democrat, fine. But if a third party candidate would ensure a loss for both the third party and a republican, we must choose the Republican.

Remember, even though many Republicans fall short of the conservative ideal, not a one voted for the Health Care abomination. Republicans will not vote for higher taxes. For the most part, they will fight this current government expansion. There may be a few exceptions (Olympia Snowe of Maine, perhaps), but overall, they will protect our American values. Let's make 2010 the year that the liberal experiment was put to rest, and maybe in 2012, we can talk of a real viable third party. For now, let's hope this is the year of the elephant.

Once again, thanks to American Digest for turning me on to this video. If you haven't read American Digest, it is one of the most thought provoking blogs out there.