*BREAKING NEWS*

"I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal."

- Barack Hussein Obama

Berlin, 2008

In a shocking development, reported by scientists in Australia, then confirmed by their colleagues across the globe, beleaguered Earth herself seems to be readying itself for the ascendancy of Senator Barack Hussein Obama to the position of President of the United States of America.

Since 0500 GMT yesterday, the oceans have dropped an average of 14.5 inches worldwide. An advisor close to the Obama campaign, who spoke on condition of anonymity, confirmed that this was indeed the moment that the final poll results were in, and the Senator's win appeared finally to be inevitable.

"We kept trying to tell people", he said. "Maybe they will finally hear Mother Gaia's voice crying out now".

An Unprecedented Change:

Dr. Sydney Perthman, a climatologist and geologist working with the Australia Survey Project, spoke about the shocking findings. He and a team of researchers have been in the Australian outback since 2004, monitoring satellite images of Australia's coastline and comparing them with on-the-ground data and GPS locations.
"It was bizarre...shipwrecks have been popping up for the last couple of days at low tide. I don't know how to explain it." Dr. Perthman was reluctant to confirm whether he thought that Senator Obama's rise to power and prior promises about its effects on climate had anything to do with what he's been seeing. "It's a bit early for that sort of speculation", he said.

Change that brings Hope:

The ocean levels aren't the only thing changing. After recognizing the clear parallels between the dropping oceanic levels and improvements in Obama's chances, a series of other Obama prophecies have been examined. It appears that sick people, who have been without any care since mid-January of 2000, are now being seen by doctors again. Doctor groups are overjoyed. Adam Freidman, MD, assistant to the President of the American Medical Association, said "We've been sitting around for 8 years - just hoping and praying for something to do. Doctors had almost lost all touch with reality. Our art was dying. Then yesterday, like a flick of a switch, sick people. Lots and lots of sick people. All getting care. I don't know where they've been. I guess just riding out the last eight years in sick misery. Thank God it's better. This is truly a hopeful change!".

It doesn't stop there. In a stunning reversal to the lay-offs and corporate greed that have been the hallmark of recent months, the largest 10 companies in the U.S. announced that they would be offering 6- to 7-figure salaried V.P. positions to hundreds of currently jobless people. The time of the announcement sent shivers up the spine of the new VP for management at Pfizer corporation, Mark Groves, sitting on his old park bench covered with a newspaper - "This is just unf******believable, man. Truly, bro".

Stories are also coming out of the Brazilian rainforest as missionaries and environmentalists reach communication. They report that the rain forests, previously thought lost to irresponsible agricultural expansion, have experienced what has been described by some as a "Jack and the Beanstalk" kind of overnight growth. "The earth is actually starting to heal itself", said one ecologist with National Geographic Society's permanent facility in the region, "thank God America made the right choice."

Hope that brings change:

An unorthodox theory has been proposed by Dr. Charles Swootz, a professor of applied psychology at MIT. "It is at least possible that Obama has actually been correct in saying what had previously been thought a simple rhetorical flourish. We have been researching the possibility that positive thoughts effect the environment. Perhaps with this election process, the American people have actually begun to change their environment - through hope".

A muslim cleric, Louis Farakhan, disagrees. "The Earth simply is receiving its Mahdi - it's messiah. This was all foretold. The oceans and trees are celebrating with all humanity, the arrival of The One. Oh, and just wait until Inauguration Day - the crippled will walk, the blind will see...Oh. And whitey will be destroyed."

Regardless of the cause, this turnaround is truly phenomenal. We await more information.

The Fix is In. Those of You Who Love Liberty - Brace Yourselves

I shall not openly admit that this is over. Though it appears that things look bad. The Enemies of the Constitution have apparently gained the opportunity to "remake" our 232-year-old Republic into something that our forefathers would not have recognized. "How?", you ask? Through a successful combination of

(1) 50 years of race-baiting,

(2) 40 years of class-warfare-baiting,

(3) a government complicit in a fraudulent election a la A.C.O.R.N., and

(4) a public, largely so media-obsessed that they presented no resistance to the smooth operation of the empty eggshell of a campaign run by a self-described Marxist, class partisan, and terrorist symptathizer.

No, I shall not openly retreat. As a former Marine, I prefer to "attack in a different direction" (Col. Lewis B. "Chesty" Puller, Korea, 1951). I also swore an oath to "defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Because I take that very seriously, and because I sincerely believe that Barack Hussein Obama and the rest of his socialist atheist democrat colleagues are a threat to our Constitutution, I will try and prepare you all for what an Obama Administration can and very well may do to (and despite) our beloved Constitution.

Incidentally, here's a much better and more comprehensive treatment of Obama's record on the Constitution than I could ever produce.

Chris of Rights blog (excellent reading, incidentally)

_____________________________________

If the campaign and his past votes, statements, and actions are any indication, we can expect

1. An administration that squelches free speech (especially free speech that is disagreeable to him - that's "hate speech", by the way, punishable by law).
2. We should prepare, once again, to defend our right to bear arms - quite literally to the death, if necessary. May God forbid.
3. We should prepare for a further erosion of our civil liberties and civil rights...unless, of course, we are one of the "Special Americans" identified as fertile ground for unquestioning Democrat votes - homosexuals, minorities, atheists, and communists.
4. We should brace for a massive expansion of the central government and
5. We should prepare to see a massive increase in the amount of money we must give them to spend on their pet causes that undermine our economic and physical security.

Those of us who continue to believe in the ideals upon which this country was founded must make a decision, now. What will we do to best serve our nation and our families? Wait for the mid-term elections and hope for a 1994-style Gingrichesque backlash? Go survivalist and await the nearly inevitable decline of our society when Reed, Pelosi, Frank, Schumer, and Obama can not resist the temptation to raise taxes? Secede?

I don't know what to do or what to advocate. But I do know this. I will continue to teach my son about the country as it should have been. He needs to know what was great about our Republic before we gave it away to the worst kind of American - one who wants to make us mediocre like everybody else. And I will remain ever-vigilant, hoping to see some sign of life - like the first tender green shoot to spring up in the wasteland following a volcanic eruption or something - the undeniable evidence that Freedom and Liberty are growing in a new land. Then I will go there and help, and teach my children to help. And we will try not to repeat the mistakes that have led to this tragic loss of Liberty. Maybe we'll get it right next time.

Is it too late to give Hawai'i back?

I was perusing www.rove.com looking at our dire straits when I noticed something interesting. Everybody's favorite socialist leads in Hawai'i by 41 percentage points. What accounts for that? If you already live in paradise, what can Obama offer you? I suppose you could always hope for more free time to enjoy your surroundings. Come to think of it - that would be pretty sweet...no job to worry about, your bills payed by the "rich" mainland suckers...They already have more than their fair share of the honeymoon industry eternally wrapped up. And they probably like him because he spent a couple of months there on sabbatical from his childhood in the Asian madrassahs.

So allow me to be the first to say that I am starting the movement to give Hawai'i back to the Hawai'ians. I will no longer willingly financially support their non-stop luaus, lousy college football, and snobby insistence on pronouncing their state name with its original inflection. I guess they could remain as a territory, but that would give them at least some voting rights, and they've demonstrated that they don't deserve to participate with the rest of us grown-ups. I mean, even Massachussetts only gives a little over 20 points to the commie. Shameful.

So stock up on bananas and mosquito nets, Hawai'i. A veritable typhoon of ill will is on its way.

The Straw Man Debates, No. 2: Socialists are Ignorant

MOCKBADOC: Any political or social movement has to start with the recognition of a problem. Socialism is no different. If you read about the history of the Socialism movement, it started with the recognition of an inherent inequality between the workers and the people who benefited from their work. It must be understood, however, that the times in which this realization was made were fundamentally different from our own.

Flowerchild: What do you mean, exactly?

MOCKBADOC: Well, let's look at the places where socialism really took root - Europe in the 1800s. The biggest hotbeds of political unrest were Great Britain, Russia, and Germany. In all these cultures, the power was wielded by a noble aristocracy, and the vast majority of the population lived not as citizens, but as subjects.

Flowerchild: So?

MOCKBADOC: In a culture that is aristocratic, there are two distinct classes of people - the nobles and the non-nobles. A typical worker could never hope to achieve much of anything that was outside his or her class. If you were unlucky enough to be born the son of a coal miner, you were incredibly unlikely to become anything else. The acquisition of property and the securing of a good education and the means with which to use that education to better yourself all were controlled and doled out by a central, often tyrannical power class which received that power through no work of their own, but as a birthright.

Flowerchild: I don't see how this is relevant.

MOCKBADOC: Exactly my point. We in the U.S. saw this inequality as problematic almost a century before these other countries, and we decided on a course to stop it - our Revolution against Great Britain. We solved this problem of inescapable class structure by giving all our citizens (ideally) access to whatever they could achieve by their own hard work. We abolished royalty. The people who became wealthy in our country did so by working hard and making good decisions. In this way, we solved the problem the Socialists sought to solve, but by a different, and I believe a superior method.

Flowerchild: But we still have poor people. We still have those who work but don't get to succeed. Surely some sort of leveling of the playing field must be done.

MOCKBADOC: You seem to believe, like many liberals, that Socialist countries have solved the problem of having poor people. You are wrong. In the U.S.S.R., people were assigned to duties based on what their government thought their capabilities were. They earned little or no income, and as such, had no chance of rising to a higher level. In fact, the whole idea of rising to a better life was anathema to the Communists, because to do better for yourself meant that their "egalitarian society" was made void. So, if you were assigned the job of coal miner, you could hope for nothing but to remain a coal miner for life. You were still poor, you just had the twisted comfort of knowing that all your peers were poor, too. Except, of course, for the Party Elites. They had a pretty sweet deal.

Flowerchild: Okay. I'm really going to have to insist that you get to what this has to do with us.

MOCKBADOC: All I'm saying is that we don't live in autocratic 19th century Europe. If you are a coal miner and hate it, you have the choice to use your liberty to get out. Additionally, you have immensely better conditions than they did. Finally, you make an income that you can use however you want. You can buy a new house, a new car, whatever. This is hardly the hopeless set of circumstances that were being fought against by the original socialists. And to try and make the case that the workers need to rise up against the bourgeois in this time, and in a country where opportunity exists for anybody that wants to exercise their liberty, is more than silly. It's idiotic.

Flowerchild: Why shouldn't workers demand better pay, then? And what about all the people that make huge salaries, like oil and gas executives, while the roughnecks bear all the life-and-limb risks and make only a small salary? And what if you're born into a poor family? Surely you can see that you have a harder time becoming a millionaire as an inner-city kid than as a Rockefeller, right? I just think that everyone should have a truly equal opportunity to make it big. I'm not a Communist. I just think that everyone should have a truly equal opportunity.

MOCKBADOC: You just walked right into it. There is no way that you can ever achieve the sort of equality you are speaking of without taking rights away from people.

Flowerchild: That is a ridiculous claim.

MOCKBADOC: No. It is the exact reason that Marx called the kind of socialism that Europe still practices today a "halfway point" between aristocratic capitalism and true equality through complete Communism. No half-measure of Communism can benefit anyone. Take education, for example. We've spent several decades trying to ensure that every single person who wants to try college can get a college education. The result? Lots of jobless people with degrees, and a critical shortage of skilled workers like machinists and carpenters. These good-paying jobs must be sent overseas while the people with a B.A. in political science work to pay off their college loans as managers at Taco Bell. We've flooded the market. The fact that people can't see this is proof that socialists are ignorant.

Flowerchild: So what are you suggesting? That only certain people get access to a college education?

MOCKBADOC: Yes I am. The ones that show aptitude for college-type pursuits. In the same way, people who are skilled and have a passion for carpentry or mechanics should be allowed to do those things. We have allowed ourselves to become victims of a sick mindset, preached to us by the liberal intelligentsia, that only intellectual pursuits are valid or have value. Because they look down on machinists as being some sort of sub-human, then we have begun to act that way, too. Go to any construction site. What do you see? Latinos. Are they inherently better carpenters, masons, plumbers, and electricians than their American competitors would be? No. It's just that all the people who would have made a very good living doing these occupations are off in some junior college somewhere struggling in vain to be accountants or something. To believe that you can make a happy accountant or doctor out of everyone is ignorant, and shows a thinly-veiled contempt for everyone who doesn't go to college.

Flowerchild: So let me get this straight. You want to rob poor kids of the chance to go to college, and instead assign them to a life of construction work. Real compassionate.

MOCKBADOC: First of all, who said anything about the poor? Lots of poor kids could go to college, if they show through their test scores and interests that they have the raw material to be doctors or architects or accountants. Lots of rich kids, on the other hand, might end up choosing to be electricians or carpenters. And again, you tip your hand. Your disdain for construction work is evident when you say things like that. I can tell you, people who are good at construction make a very good living, and have a good lifestyle free from college debt.

The trick is to realize that all jobs have value and to make all these jobs attractive to the people that are inclined to do them.

Flowerchild: How do you plan to do that, then?

MOCKBADOC: If people who are naturally inclined to be doctors get the opportunity to be doctors, and people who are naturally inclined to be machinists get the opportunity to be machinists, then we will be the proud home to the very best doctors and to the very best machinists on earth. People who hire machinists will be able to attract the best of the best by paying more. In this way, the market benefits the employer and the employee alike. The worker is thus empowered, making socialism unnecessary.

I advocate excellence. Socialists elevate the idea of "equality" as if by making everybody equal, you make everybody happy. I disagree completely. I think that forcing people to be something they are not makes them unhappy. In fact, I think that forcing people to do anything at all is evil, and should be avoided. Additionally, I disagree with the entire premise that you can ever achieve true equality. Even under the most "equal" of systems - Communism - there were still people who did construction and people who were engineers. Was this equal? No.

This is why I think socialists are ignorant (but not the only reason). They think they can insure that all people are happy by forcing their views on everybody. I prefer to have the freedom to choose for myself what makes me happy, then go out and get it. Anything that stands in the way of that is a "human rights violation", to use the language of your twisted philosophy.

Flowerchild: You, my friend, are a fanatic, a loon, and a philosophical dinosaur. You should be careful. You'll be one of the first sent to one of Obama's re-education camps.

MOCKBADOC: I'm sure you're right, friend. I'm sure you're right.

The Straw Man Debates, No. 1: Socialists are Cowards

MOCKBADOC: "Socialism, more specifically inc0me redistribution (the seizing of one citizen's property for the purpose of giving it to another citizen) is cowardly."

Typical, mindless, backbiting, sniping, cowardly, stupid socialist liberal (a.k.a. flowerchild): "How can you say that? Some of the best countries in the world are socialist - like France, the U.K, our dear neighbor to the north, Canada...pretty much all our allies. Are you literally calling their people and their goverments cowards?!?. Are you?"

MOCKBADOC: "Umm. Yes. Actually, yes. That is exactly what I am saying."

flowerchild: "I can't believe my ears. You are really going to have to back this up, dude."

MOCKBADOC: "I'll be glad to try, but I doubt seriously that a communist sympathizer like yourself will be willing to listen. Nevertheless, I love a challenge, so here goes.

Resolved: Socialists are Cowards. I submit that socialism is the misguided attempt to remove the element of risk from life. Socialized medicine makes everyone have the same crappy healthcare. Why? Because socialists would rather give everyone lousy health care, just so long as they all have some of that lousy health care. By promising people that despite their circumstances, they will never have to fear for anything, they simultaneously (1) align themselves eternally with all lazy and unmotivated people, (2) give themselves a vested interest in creating ever more lazy, unmotivated, dependent-type people, and (3) have to come up with a way to pay for these ever-increasing promises. The last part is easy enough, at least for a while. They'll just take it from someone else.

In conclusion, socialists are cowards because (but not only because):

(a) they refuse to confront either themselves or their constituents with the hard facts of life for the grown-up world that

(1) life is difficult and risky and

(2) sometimes you have to look someone right in the eye and ask for help like an adult, and

(3) stealing is wrong, even if it is done through subterfuge and obfuscation by way of your socialist congressman,

(b) they have created a self-perpetuating machine of dependency that will guarantee their continuation in government long beyond the natural time of death of their ridiculous philosophy, and

(c) they know how viscerally we, as freedom-loving people, detest their sick and twisted philosophy because it is antithetical to all that we stand for and have ever stood for, they always hide their true intentions which include the creation of an omnipotent central government (run by them, of course) and taking and giving as they see fit, without regard to fairness or equity, but instead with regard to what serves them best.

flowerchild: Good Lord. Where do I begin? Let's start with the first point. I'm not sure that socialists are trying to save everybody from risk, but nevertheless...Isn't the quest to remove all risk and fear from people's lives a noble one? Surely you can see the wisdom in trying to do that, right?

MOCKBADOC: It is an illusion, and a dangerous one. First of all, let's be accurate. When you take money from someone who makes more, you've just increased their risk. It would be pretty silly for someone to argue that you should work your tail off and go into debt just simply to get to a place where the socialists take half of everything you and your family have, right? That isn't fair. It is favorable to one group of people over another. It is exactly like racism, except that is is based on class. In the same way that you would agree with me that there shouldn't be "Whites Only" drinking fountains or "Irish need not apply" places of employment, then surely there shouldn't be "Poor Only" elements of government. Our government shouldn't show favoritism to anyone, regardless of age, race, ethnicity, sex, gender...or income." And no. It is never noble to take from one to give to another. It neither ensures equity (one has been disenfranchised in favor of another) nor the nobility of the recipient. One who depends on and is beholden to another forever for their very existence is no longer a citizen - he is a slave."

flowerchild: "Slave? Okay now. That's a bit strong, don't you think?"

MOCKBADOC: "I certainly don't think so. But you tell me - what's your definition of a slave?"

flowerchild: "A slave is:

(1) a person held in servitude as the chattel (property) of another or

(2) one that is completely subservient to a dominating influence.

Surely you aren't suggesting that the rich are slaves under socialism, are you?"

MOCKBADOC: Surprisingly, no. I am suggesting that everyone is a slave under socialism. The poor are slaves because they are quite literally held as the property of the government. They have no hope of success by their own hard work or merits. Conversely, their only hope to avoid total ruin is the continuation of the government that feeds, clothes, and shelters them. In this way, they are robbed of their free-will and their potential, and become enslaved.

The so-called "rich" under socialism, on the other hand, have been allowed only the illusion of riches and self-determination, only to have them taken away at the whim of the government. In this sense, the entrepeneur is the slave of the masses. If the poor outnumber the rich, then the poor have the power to simply vote the entrepeneur into the poor-house. This kind of power over another is nothing if not slavery."

flowerchild: "That is a bit stark, I think. That kind of power is simply our democracy at work. That is hardly slavery."

MOCKBADOC: "I disagree on both points. First of all, we were never founded as a democracy as is often uncorrectly suggested, but as a Constitutional Representative Republic. Under this form of government, the power does not simply rest with the majority - a circumstance that was foreseen by the Founders to have exactly this kind of effect - but is shared between the people individually and collectively through a brilliant system of houses and branches of government, so that the desires of the masses are tempered by the also-important needs of the nation as a whole, then are made (ideally) to be consistent with the intention of the Constitution. We are not a democracy. We never have been. Look it up, if you don't believe me.

Secondly, I would ask you this question. How much slavery is too much? Is a little bit of slavery okay? How much is okay? How much institutional racism is okay? It is impossible to define, isn't it. The correct answer is that no amount of slavery or racism or domination or tyranny on the part of our government toward any single citizen is okay. We must fight slavery, racism, and tyranny at each and every moment we find it in ourselves or in our government. Imprisoning or enslaving people because you have no faith in their ability to do it for themselves is elitist, condescending, and contradictory to our way of life. Every person should be seen equally in the eyes of the law and government.

Furthermore, don't blame democracy for the state of affairs. At one time in this country, a majority could be found that thought that black people were not smart enough to vote, hold office, etc. Was that okay, just because the majority thought it? Clearly it was not. We must fight the tyranny of the majority as well as the tyranny of the minority. Our government, as originally intended, allowed for this. Unfortunately it has been slowly destroyed and rendered nearly useless to anyone but those who run it.

To be so afraid of loosening the chains on the rich and the poor alike, socialists are truly cowards."

flowerchild: "What about the people that live under socialism but don't run it? Are they cowards, too?"

MOCKBADOC: "Only if they embrace it and do not fight it. If you are okay with having a bully steal another kid's lunch money and give it to you because he likes you better, then you are a coward. If you continue to empower that bully over years and years, then you are an unrepentant coward. If you refuse to recognize that it is wrong to bully anyone and take their lunch money to give it to their friends, that it is wrong to take from one and give to another using only your own sense of justice as a guide to what is fair and what isn't, then you are the worst kind of coward. You are a socialist (Democrat). You have no right to decide who deserves and who doesn't deserve. Who are you to make these kinds of decisions? How can you be so egotistical and sure of yourself?"

flowerchild: "Well, if you are so smart, then...how are we ever going to empower the less-fortunate?"

MOCKBADOC: "We can't. Who ever started this whole thing about one person being able to empower someone else anyway? Each person must do everything in his or her power to empower him- or herself. When there are shortfalls, that's what families and communities and religious organizations are for. Not giant unwieldy, impenetrable beaureacracies. All governments have to do is get the heck out of the way. People are capable of amazing things if simply allowed to thrive and required to pull their weight. If it were not so, the human race surely would have died thousands of years ago."

To be continued. Next issue - Socialists are Atheists.

Calling Time of Death on Free Speech

Joe the Plumber. Someday our great-grandchildren will know his name. It will be on the page in their textbook that covers the period in history when the First Amendment died.

And in the kind of stunning irony that only real history can provide, its murderers will be the same people who have argued most vehemently for free speech historically, the liberals.

The ACLU is silent, as Joe the Plumber's tax records are pored over, as his reputation is dragged through the mud, as his life and livelihood are forever changed for the worst. All because he asked a question.

We bloggers are next, no doubt. Anyone who has tax problems should certainly lose their right to comment on the nature of our Republic. Right, Congressman Rangel?

Sweet Justice: Finally the Capitalist Pigs will Pay

I am so excited about our next President. Finally, true justice will be lavished upon all his subjects. My personal favorite is how he is talking about punishing oil companies and anybody else who does especially well. He and the other democratic socialists will institute a "windfall profits" tax that will show them a thing or two.

I can't wait until those smug bastards can no longer profit from the record-breaking price of oil. All of their stupid speculation and exploration and environmental compliance...

You just wait, ExxonMobil. Pretty soon your executives and their families will know the true meaning of pain.

Obama's gonna change it! Obama's gonna lead us!

Sorry. I get so excited sometimes that I start singing along with the Obama children. Anyway, as I was saying, you and your capitalist swine families will soon make NOTHING! 'Cuz that's what "windfall profits" taxes do, you creeps! Your companies will be dealt with harshly beyond belief! And what'll you do then, huh?

What's that? Stop exploring for oil and gas so aggressively? Well, good! Then you'll really be hurting. You and all your stinking executive friends. And then...huh? What were you saying, you disgusting capitalist? The price of what? Gasoline??? But how would punishing you cause all of us to pay more, exactly? Less oil means less supply and more demand? More demand means higher price? I don't get it. You must be lying, because that's what you right-wingers do. You lie. Well, even if we do have to pay more for gas, it'll be worth it to see you fat cats suffer...what? Pass what on, exactly? So you are telling me that you will still make a ginormous salary despite taxing your windfall profits? How do you figure that, Einstein? Lay-offs? Passing the higher costs on to the consumer? Oh.

You people disgust me. You just wait. Our glorious leader will find a way to thwart you yet.