Flame Wars

We might be facing the most embarrassing moment in the history of human civilization. A couple of decades from now, some history book might appear with the following entry: “World War III Sparked by YouTube Video.” It’s a silly pretext that could easily be a story line for a “South Park” episode, but in this case, truth is stranger than fiction. If you buy into the ridiculous media reports, you’re supposed to believe that angry Muslims in Egypt, Libya, and throughout the Middle East exploded into deadly violence on Sept. 11 in reaction to a YouTube video they found insulting. Incredible but true.

Not only is the media sticking to this ludicrous story, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney remains firm that the violence “is in response not to United States policy…but it is in response to a video.” Incredible but true. If that’s not enough to stretch your credulity beyond the limits of reality, consider that Susan Rice, US Ambassador to the UN is promoting her version of this fiction of the absurd which she described as a “spontaneous response” to a “very offensive video.” Incredible but true.

It’s sad to think that the Obama Administration and the media have taken us for witless dupes gullible enough to swallow such a poorly conceived political fabrication. It’s more than just 180 degrees opposed to anything remotely plausible. Even in the Bizarro World they’d be scratching their heads saying “this too far out to be true.”

Here in the age of viral videos and pop culture memes, you might nevertheless assume that no thinking person could possibly believe that international relations are driven by YouTube videos and fringe-cult bloggers. Yet the Obama administration seems to have reduced US foreign policy to a social networks flame war. God help us if we’ve gotten that stupid.

Liberal Journalist Misplays Race Card Badly

When it comes to the race card game, you can’t win with a liberal. If you’re conservative, you’re racist no matter how you play it. As the 2012 GOP Convention progresses, this liberal con game is once again in play. You’d think Republicans would have learned by now. When it comes to issues on race, you may as well be playing Three Card Monty with a downtown street hustler. No matter how you play it, you will lose.

During the convention, the Dems and their compliant media toadies have used a ruse that everyone should be well aware of by now. Republicans get accused of pandering to minorities when they’re included, and accused of purposely excluding them when they’re not. Republicans are racist either way, in this liberal heads-I-win-tails-you-lose shell game.

Yesterday, karma may have finally caught up with the liberal media when Yahoo’s Washington Bureau Chief David Chalian was fired after he was recorded at the Republican National Convention saying the GOP was “happy to have a party with black people drowning.” Racist, idiotic, and just a little bit confusing. Was Chalian implying that only blacks were going to drown as a result of hurricane flooding? What about whites—wouldn’t they drown too? Or does he believe that whites are more buoyant with better swimming skills than blacks? We’ll probably never know what was really going through that liberal muddled mind.

One thing that would make the incident deliciously complete would be if the Romney campaign offered Chalian a job. In fact I’d recommend that the RNC make a big public deal out of it. They could release a statement saying, “We’re dedicated to putting Americans back to work, not firing them.”

Hey, if there were some such thing as Fantasy Politics similar to what they have in professional sports, that’s how I’d play it.

The Bets Are In, The Stakes Are High

When Barack Obama made his since-gone-viral “you didn’t build that” speech (Twitter #YDBT) he turned over a very telling card in a socialist hand that he’s been building since his 2008 campaign. Now that DC Hold’em 2012 is in full play, the cards are taking shape for everyone to see.

As you might recall during the 2008 campaign, Obama told Ohio resident “Joe the Plumber” that we needed to “spread the wealth.” There were plenty of savvy political players who believed that he had just tipped his hand, yet the suckers remained at the table and checked their bets. Then days before the election Obama raised the stakes and said that he intended to “fundamentally transform America.” The chumps stayed in the game, and Obama took the White House.

Now that Barack “Hawaiian Slim” Obama continues turning over his cards, one might wonder why there are still dupes at the table ripe for fleecing. The answer comes in three words: Government funded entitlements. Obama is no doubt pleased with the progress he’s made in the fundamental transformation he’s sought: a new class of Americans who are not only beholden to the State, they’ve embraced their servitude. Obama said it himself. “It’s working.”

Back in the old days, slaves didn’t like being slaves. They aspired to liberty—even willing to risk their lives for a chance at freedom. But the 20th century gave us the insidious promises of socialism, a flawed system that continues to attract the slow learners on the Left. Barak Obama is betting that he can still keep enough pidgeons in the game who’ll buy into his shady hand.

Not one to hedge his bets, Obama sweetened the pot with his latest declaration of “a new vision of an America in which prosperity is shared.” Can there be any doubt where he wants to take this country? A statist collective that would even impress Europe. Really, the only question that remains in this drawn out round of political poker is if voters in November will call his bluff.

Mitt Romney, This Man. . . This Monster!

When Harry Reid made the wildly incredible claim that Romney hadn’t paid taxes in 10 years, perhaps he failed to mention that the taxes in particular were tobacco and alcohol taxes. We all know what a dirty business politics is especially during campaigns, so the Dems must be tearing their collective hair out trying to find something dastardly with which they can smear their otherwise wholesome opponent.

In a recent column, Ann Coulter astutely observed that Mitt Romney is so deficient in the area of compromising scandals that the Dems are reduced to turning mild and ordinary behavior into something dark and insidious. But it takes a creative mind to turn the mundane into the ungodly, something I happen to think is right up my dark alley. Besides, I think I’ve got something that that has viral potential, and I’ve always wanted to go viral.

Who remembers Chuck Norris Facts, that internet phenomenon that helped create the concept of internet memes? It spread across the web in 2005 and made its way into the popular culture with lines like, “When Chuck Norris does pushups, he doesn’t lift himself up. He pushes the world down.” So let’s get started with the next internet sensation, “Mitt Romney Facts. (as told by the Democrat Party)”

• Mitt Romney saw an R-rated movie
• Mitt Romney was assessed a $1.75 library fine
• Mitt Romney once yelled at Mr. Rogers
• Mitt Romney opens up Oreos and eats the frosting first
• Mitt Romney was seen with the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue

Ok, I’ve got the ball rolling. Viral City, here we come!

When Liberals say . . . They Really Mean. . .

Conservative blogger John Hawkins said it much better than I could, but I’d like to add to his list of “10 Concepts Liberals Talk About Incessantly But Don’t Understand.” For example, when libs say “infrastructure” they mean “government funded projects that siphon away tax dollars and employ unionized government labor.” And when they say “the wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes,” they mean “take as much of their money as possible until they’re not wealthy anymore.” And by the way “wealthy” usually means “any conservative with money.”

Obamacare? Just say No!

I had a history teacher who used to say that you don’t have to do anything you don’t want to—but you should be prepared to face the consequences. He was usually talking about homework assignments, but there was always an implied message of the responsibility of rebellion: Defy the powers that be if you must, but always be aware of the results that will follow. In the wake of all of the nationwide protests over Obamacare, my teacher’s words remain prudent advice.

A number of GOP governors have publicly stated that they will ignore the recent Supreme Court Decision or refuse to implement the bill in whole or in part. I’m not yet buying it. You see, there’s a cynical little man that lives inside my skull that’s telling me this is nothing more than election year posturing designed to gin up their constituents. I doubt that any of these politicians have seriously thought this through.

Frankly, I would support such a defiant move, but I’d also suggest that a few governors put their heads together and discuss some strategy, tactics and a full range of possible scenarios. I’m not convinced that anything like that has occurred yet. Take a stand, yes, but make sure you completely understand the consequences before you refuse to back down.

A strong leader knows the difference between battles worth fighting and battles best avoided. And such leaders must choose wisely in deciding when to fight. I hope to heck that there are a few GOP leaders that are willing to see a bigger picture beyond cheap campaign gimmicks.

Flashpoint: U.S. Supreme Court


20 years ago, I recall predicting that if the US ever had a political crisis that threatened the integrity of the nation, it would begin at the Supreme Court.  The Constitution devoted only a small portion of the overall document in defining the judicial branch. Only three paragraphs (Article Three) out of roughly a half a dozen pages specifically cover the duties and function of the Court. I reasoned that this lack of detail would allow the Supreme Court to alter and enhance its powers. The Founders might have been astonished to find the extent to which the Judicial Branch has evolved over 200 years.

The recent SCOTUS decision on Obamacare is stark evidence that the judicial branch has pushed the envelope toward a national crisis. While I’m not yet convinced that we’re witnessing the proverbial straw that breaks Uncle Sam’s back, we could very well be watching a preview of coming attractions.

I can envision a flashpoint scenario that begins with a Supreme Court decision of a magnitude so outrageous that a number of states choose to defy it. Should the situation remain unresolved, government entities on both a federal and state level will be compelled to consider extraordinary and unprecedented measures. Political factions will join the conflict, and citizens will begin to choose sides— in short, civil war.