Obama Is Not Only A Liar, He is a Coward

“The essential question is whether, in America, the people’s psychology has been so successfully warped, the individual’s spirit so thoroughly trounced, and the civil society’s institutions so effectively overwhelmed that revival is possible. Have too many among us already surrendered or been conquered? Can the people overcome the constant and relentless influences of ideological indoctrination, economic manipulation, and administrative coerciveness, or have they become hopelessly entangled in and dependent on a ubiquitous federal government.” — Mark Levine, Ameritopia

Today during his conveniently called press conference to compete with the Republican Super Tuesday primary President Obama when asked a question about Bill Maher’s misogynistic remarks about conservative women and his acceptance of his $1 million dollar contribution to his Super Pac Obama called for an end to the press conference and walked of the podium. He did not have the guts to answer the reporter’s question. Yet he did have time to say how proud he was of Sandra Fluke, the 30 year-old Georgetown Law student gender reassignment and contraception activist.

Sandra Fluke was a set-up by the Democrat party. Knowing that they were losing the church-state argument they changed the narrative to a women’s health issue by bringing an unvetted “expert” into a congressional hearing without allowing for the three day advance notice so the committee staffers could check her bona fides as an expert and gather information on her background.

Fluke was the sole witness who appeared on Feb. 23 before an all-Democratic panel chaired by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Fluke, the 30-year-old past president of Georgetown Law Students for Reproductive Justice, said she was testifying in support of the ObamaCare regulation that requires all health insurance plans — including those offered by Catholic universities — to cover sterilizations and all FDA-approved contraceptives. She said she wanted to tell the stories of some women at Georgetown Law who were affected by the fact that the student health-care plan at the Catholic university does not cover contraceptives.

This led to her bombshell unchallenged testimony decrying that a Catholic university was not supplying her with free contraception for her sexual life. They did not know that she was also an advocate for free transgender surgery, or in the new lexicon “sexual reassignment.” All of this was lost to the committee as she smugly gave her testimony, some of it right out of Media Matters an organization she has contributed to.

Fluke testified, "a married female student told me she had to stop using contraception because she couldn’t afford it any longer. Women employed in low wage jobs without contraceptive coverage face the same choice."

“You might respond that contraception is accessible in lots of other ways," Fluke told the Democratic panel. "Unfortunately, that's not true."

CNSNews.com confirmed, however, that the Target store at 3100 14th St., NW, in Washington, D.C., which is 3 miles from the Georgetown Law campus, offers Tri-Sprintec, the generic form of the birth-control pill Ortho Tri-Cyclen. Target sells a month's supply of this birth control pill for just $9 to individuals without health insurance coverage for the pills.

A CVS pharmacy only two blocks from the Georgetown Law campus also sells a month's supply of the same generic birth control pills for $33.

Enter Rush Limbaugh who fell into the Democrat trap and called her a prostitute and a slut. This is what the left wanted. They now had a cause — the Republicans war on women. Truth matters not here, it’s all about perception and the right once again is losing the battle to the superior forces of the media, the entertainment industry and the left. But what is the real truth behind Sandra Fluke?

President Obama injected himself Friday into the controversy over Rush Limbaugh's comments about a Georgetown University student who spoke to lawmakers about birth control, calling the 30-year-old woman to thank her for "exercising her right as a citizen to speak out."

But Limbaugh stood his ground, using his nationally syndicated radio show to mock Obama's call and charge Democrats with trying to exploit the controversy to make up for "failure on their decades-long abortion push."

"It just isn't the winning issue for them it used to be. If it were, this wouldn't be about contraception, this would be about abortion," Limbaugh said Friday.

The president called the student, Sandra Fluke, on Friday afternoon to express his disappointment in the "personal attacks" against her, White House Press Secretary Jay Carney said.

Limbaugh, on his radio show earlier this week, had called Fluke a "slut" following her comments in favor of mandatory contraceptive coverage.

"The fact that our political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough. It is worse when it's directed at a private citizen who was simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy," Carney said.

He said Obama called Fluke to express disappointment about the attacks and "thank her" for exercising her right to speak out.

The phone call came as lawmakers across Capitol Hill were weighing in, and as the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee incorporated Limbaugh's comments into its fundraising campaign.

Limbaugh, on his show Friday, charged that Democrats were only elevating this issue because they're losing the argument on abortion.

"Now what's happening here politically, with the elevation of contraception here to such prominence in the national debate to me, it is evidence that the Democrats, the left have encountered utter political and moral failure on their decades-long abortion push," Limbaugh said.

Limbaugh also pointed out that Democrats had not spoken out about over-the-top comments made by other media personalities like Bill Maher, who tweeted that "Jesus just f----- Tim Tebow bad" during the Christmas Eve Broncos-Bills game and reportedly called Sarah Palin a "c---" last year.

"So I ask Jay Carney," Limbaugh said. "Will President Obama now give back the 1-million-dollar donation that Bill Maher gave his Super PAC?"

Kirsten Powers, a Fox News contributor and Democrat Party strategists claims Rush Limbaugh isn’t the only media misogynist. In her recent column in the Daily Beast Ms. Powers, a person I rarely agree with wrote:

“Did you know there is a war on women?

Yes, it’s true. Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher, Matt Taibbi, and Ed Schultz have been waging it for years with their misogynist outbursts. There have been boycotts by people on the left who are outraged that these guys still have jobs. Oh, wait. Sorry, that never happened.

Boycotts are reserved for people on the right like Rush Limbaugh, who finally apologized Saturday for calling a 30-year-old Georgetown Law student, Sandra Fluke, a “slut” after she testified before congress about contraception. Limbaugh’s apology was likely extracted to stop the departure of any more advertisers, who were rightly under pressure from liberal groups outraged by the comments.

Let it be shouted from the rooftops that Rush Limbaugh should not have called Ms. Fluke a slut or, as he added later, a “prostitute” who should post her sex tapes. It’s unlikely that his apology will assuage the people on a warpath for his scalp, and after all, why should it? He spent days attacking a woman as a slut and prostitute and refused to relent. Now because he doesn’t want to lose advertisers, he apologizes. What’s in order is something more like groveling—and of course a phone call to Ms. Fluke—if you ask me.

But if Limbaugh’s actions demand a boycott—and they do—then what about the army of swine on the left?

During the 2008 election Ed Schultz said on his radio show that Sarah Palin set off a “bimbo alert.” He called Laura Ingraham a “right-wing slut.” (He later apologized.) He once even took to his blog to call yours truly a “bimbo” for the offense of quoting him accurately in a New York Post column.

Keith Olbermann has said that conservative commentator S.E. Cupp should have been aborted by her parents, apparently because he finds her having opinions offensive. He called Michelle Malkin a “mashed-up bag of meat with lipstick.” He found it newsworthy to discuss Carrie Prejean’s breasts on his MSNBC show. His solution for dealing with Hillary Clinton, who he thought should drop out of the presidential race, was to find “somebody who can take her into a room and only he comes out.” Olbermann now works for über-leftist and former Democratic vice president Al Gore at Current TV.

Left-wing darling Matt Taibbi wrote on his blog in 2009, “When I read [Malkin’s] stuff, I imagine her narrating her text, book-on-tape style, with a big, hairy set of balls in her mouth.” In a Rolling Stone article about Secretary of State Clinton, he referred to her “flabby arms.”When feminist writer Erica Jong criticized him for it, he responded by referring to Jong as an “800-year old sex novelist.” (Jong is almost 70, which apparently makes her an irrelevant human being.) In Taibbi’s profile of Congresswoman and presidential candidate Michele Bachmann he labeled her “batshit crazy.” (Oh, those “crazy” women with their hormones and all.)

Chris Matthews’s sickening misogyny was made famous in 2008, when he obsessively tore down Hillary Clinton for standing between Barack Obama and the presidency, something that Matthews could not abide. Over the years he has referred to the former first lady, senator and presidential candidate and current secretary of state as a “she-devil,” “Nurse Ratched,” and “Madame Defarge.” Matthews has also called Clinton “witchy,” “anti-male,” and “uppity” and once claimed she won her Senate seat only because her “husband messed around.” He asked a guest if “being surrounded by women” makes “a case for commander in chief—or does it make a case against it?” At some point Matthews was shamed into sort of half apologizing to Clinton, but then just picked up again with his sexist ramblings.

Matthews has wondered aloud whether Sarah Palin is even “capable of thinking” and has called Bachmann a “balloon head” and said she was “lucky we still don’t have literacy tests out there.” Democratic strategist Jehmu Greene, who is the former president of the Women’s Media Center, told Fox News’ Megyn Kelly in 2011 that Matthews “is a bully, and his favorite target is women.” So why does he still have a show? What if his favorite target was Jews? Or African-Americans?

But the grand pooh-bah of media misogyny is without a doubt Bill Maher—who also happens to be a favorite of liberals—who has given $1 million to President Obama’s super PAC. Maher has called Palin a “dumb twat” and dropped the C-word in describing the former Alaska governor. He called Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann “boobs” and “two bimbos.” He said of the former vice-presidential candidate, “She is not a mean girl. She is a crazy girl with mean ideas.” He recently made a joke about Rick Santorum’s wife using a vibrator. Imagine now the same joke during the 2008 primary with Michelle Obama’s name in it, and tell me that he would still have a job. Maher said of a woman who was harassed while breast-feeding at an Applebee’s, “Don't show me your tits!” as though a woman feeding her child is trying to flash Maher. (Here’s a way to solve his problem: don’t stare at a strangers’ breasts). Then, his coup de grâce: “And by the way, there is a place where breasts and food do go together. It’s called Hooters!”

Liberals—you know, the people who say they “fight for women”—comprise Maher’s audience, and a parade of high-profile liberals make up his guest list. Yet have any of them confronted him? Nope. That was left to Ann Coulter, who actually called Maher a misogynist to his face, an opportunity that feminist icon Gloria Steinem failed to take when she appeared on his show in 2011.

This is not to suggest that liberals—or feminists—never complain about misogyny. Many feminist blogs now document attacks on women on the left and the right, including Jezebel, Shakesville, and the Women’s Media Center (which was cofounded by Steinem). But when it comes to high-profile campaigns to hold these men accountable—such as that waged against Limbaugh—the real fury seems reserved only for conservatives, while the men on the left get a wink and a nod as long as they are carrying water for the liberal cause.

After all, if Limbaugh’s outburst is part of the “war on women,” then what is the routine misogyny of liberal media men?

It’s time for some equal-opportunity accountability. Without it, the fight against media misogyny will continue to be perceived as a proxy war for the Democratic Party, not a fight for fair treatment of women in the public square.”

I pasted in Power’s full column as I felt she had a great deal to say that I agreed with. For a committed liberal Democrat to take off on her own compatriots was quite refreshing.

Let us avoid offering Fluke too much sympathy. She paid for the bed; now she gets to lay on it. Fluke — who we now know was never some shrinking violet dragged into the spotlight of purported conservative sexism; but was, and is, another sad sack who sold her soul to Pelosi and her minions — will come to regret allowing the Democrats to turn her into a Muppet. But, that’s the price of doing business with the dark side, Sandy. When they’ve moved on to the next weird little prop in their crusade for control, Fluke will be left counting No. 2 pencils in the basement of the House Minority Counsel’s office and reminiscing about how cool it was being important for a few months.

A couple of weeks ago, the unhinged Democratic spokes mouth and Kennedy fetishist Chris Matthews told Mimi Alford to “shut up.” Alford published a book detailing her life; and in the course of doing so, revealed some borderline pornographic albeit unsurprising details about the late President John F. Kennedy.

The woman dared to point out that one of the great icons of liberalism ran the White House like a junior varsity Playboy mansion and Matthews and the liberals went at her like they were David Brock and she was a kilo of pure Bogota nose candy. Granted, JFK fit her in between romps with Marilyn Monroe and half the gun molls on the Eastern Seaboard and she survived; so she should probably count her blessings. And yet, liberals are outraged by Limbaugh’s remarks.

The breathtakingly unfunny Bill Maher — who continues to exist on pay cable for no reason I can discern — used language about Sarah Palin which makes “slut” seem like a compliment. Of course Maher, who is one of the loudest mouthpieces in the Democratic ranks, talks like that a lot. In fact Maher is likely the crudest of the liberal sock puppets; and he is lauded for his crudeness. And yet, liberals are outraged by Limbaugh’s remarks.

The liberal storm troopers who think spectacularly sexist — and shockingly sexualized — remarks about Sarah Palin, Jan Brewer, Michele Bachmann, Laura Ingraham (at whom Ed Schultz directed the EXACT SAME EPITHET), Michelle Malkin, Ann Coulter and any other woman who dare to disagree with the white male millionaires who control the Democratic Party are acceptable, are outraged by Limbaugh’s remarks. Spare us all your phony feminism, Democrats. You’re only fooling yourselves.

Nonetheless, calling the latest prop in the Democrats’ Cirque de Hypocrisy a “slut” was artless and crude. That sort of language is best left to the slimy underbelly of American political discourse; like the liberals who are outraged by Limbaugh’s remarks.

You may say that I am using a moral equivalency to defend Rush Limbaugh, well I am not. What Rush did was stupid and gave the liberals a way to divert the losing argument over the Obama administration’s plan to force a religious group to go against the tenants of their faith — something forbidden by the First Amendment. Rush’s comment’s allowed the left to pose a victim in Sandra Fluke and create a poster child for “women’s health.” Like a rabbit Rush fell into Pelosi’s snare.

Don't expect MSNBC or other liberal media outlets to showcase Georgetown University senior Angela Morabito anytime soon. The conservative student may attend the same school as feminist activist and law student Sandra Fluke, but, as Morabito makes clear in a March 2 post at The College Conservative, they're worlds apart in their worldview:

“…. Having been told by Congress to more or less shut up and go home, Sandra found a sympathetic ear in Nancy Pelosi. She is not going to find one on the Georgetown Campus. She is wildly out of step.

Senate Democrats needed a show pony for this circus – and they knew they could find a liberal woman on a college campus who would willingly trot around the ring. That’s why Nancy & Pals created a photo op with all the props – the microphones, the podium, an air of pretense, and the all-important liberal media – for Sandra to tell her “story.” And it is just that – a story, told on a stage.

But Nancy Pelosi and the Liberal Media should know that they can no longer rely on college campuses as an endless source of liberal support. My colleagues and I at TheCollegeConservative are creating a new wave on campuses across the country. Every day we make it a little safer to be conservative – out in public – without fear of bad grades as a result of our views. Sandra should know we have no fear in calling out a classmate for thoughtless liberal ideology.

Sandra Fluke doesn’t speak for me. Or for Georgetown.

She doesn’t speak for those of us who worked hard to be able to choose to come to a great institution with a great tradition of faith and scholarship. She certainly can’t speak for the Jesuits who dedicated their lives to God and Education with a long established set of rules. There are only ten of them, and Ms. Fluke would do well to give them a quick read.

If she wants a more liberal sex life, she can go to Syracuse. (Syracuse, I must apologize – but we are in March and basketball matters – sorry you got caught up in this.)

Sandra doesn’t even speak for all skanks! She only speaks for the skanks who don’t want to take responsibility for their choices. That’s a tiny group of people. Hey Sandra! How about next Saturday night, you come hang out with me and my gay boyfriends! Your hair will look fabulous and you’ll get to see great musical theatre! Oh, and odds of you getting pregnant? Zero percent.

Even the oh-so-left HuffPo called Sandra out on her media sluttery: ”Fluke got the stage all to herself and was hailed as a hero by the crowd and Democratic lawmakers on the panel, all of whom rushed to appear on camera with her at the end. “Excuse me. I’d love to get a picture with our star,” Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) said as she pushed her way through the packed room to Fluke.” Star of what? Star of the bedroom sex tape? When did Georgetown Law start admitting Kardashians?

Sandra, we might be on the same campus, but we are not on the same planet.

Sandra told some sob stories about how contraception isn’t covered by the Jesuit institution we attend. (Maybe they don’t cover it because, you know, they’re a Jesuit institution. Religious freedom? Anyone? Bueller?)

A student group called Plan A Hoyas for Choice staged a demonstration against the university health plan last year, duct taping their mouths and chaining themselves to the statue of Georgetown’s founder on the university’s front lawn. Then, a funny thing happened – nothing. We left them there. Now Sandra has chained herself to the sinking ship of Pelosi Liberalism. She will always be remembered as a Welfare Condom Queen.

Let’s talk priorities here. It costs over $23,000 for a year at Georgetown Law. Sandra, are you telling us that you can afford that but cannot afford your own contraception? Really? Math was never my strong suit, but something about Sandra’s accounting just doesn’t seem right.

No one forced Sandra to come to Georgetown. And now that she has, Sandra does not have to depend on the university health plan. She could walk down the street to CVS and get some contraception herself. Or, go to an off-campus, non-university doctor and pay for it out of pocket. (Or, you know…maybe not have so much sex that it puts her in financial peril?)

Funny how the same side that cries “Get your rosaries off my ovaries” is the same side saying, “on second thought…please pay for me to have all the sex I want!” The people who espouse “pro-choice” “values” are the same people who say religious institutions have no right to choose.

Imagine if someone else had asked the government to cover a different activity. Let’s say I want to go rock climbing. It’s my body and my choice and I want to climb all the cliffs I can! Imagine if I went to the government and asked it to pay for helmets and ropes and band-aids I’ll need to safely climb rocks every day of my life. What would everyone say?

“It’s your choice to do that- no one’s forcing you to scale cliffs. So, either quit it or pay for it yourself!”

This is the reaction we should have had to Sandra Fluke.

Sandra, I hope you take to heart our school’s motto of “Cura Personalis” – care of the whole person. You are so much more than your reproductive organs. Please, have some self-respect and take responsibility for your choices instead of having to beg the government for help. The government should not be able to force a religious institution – like the one we attend – to pay for the things they don’t believe in. That is pretty clear in the first amendment. But since you missed the ten commandments I can’t expect you to read the Bill of Rights either.

I believe in Georgetown. I love this school. And I know that we are so, so much better than what Sandra Fluke would make us out to be.”

All Rush or any other commentator had to do was contact Ms. Morabito or the Campus Conservatives and read her post and Sandra Fluke would have been totally discredited without bringing the wrath of the radical left to Fluke’s defense. You see, there are other voices at Georgetown, voices we do not hear in the media. It’s time for people of integrity and morals to fight back against what Kirsten Powers calls the misogyny of liberal media men. But we have to fight back with conviction and intelligence.

The Myth Of The Volt

“…every individual necessarily labors to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other cases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.” — Adam Smith

The system in which the invisible hand is most often assumed to work is the free market. Adam Smith assumed that consumers choose for the lowest price, and that entrepreneurs choose for the highest rate of profit. He asserted that by thus making their excess or insufficient demand known through market prices, consumers "directed" entrepreneurs' investment money to the most profitable industry. Remember that this is the industry producing the goods most highly valued by consumers, so in general economic well-being is increased.

One extremely positive aspect of a market-based economy is that it forces people to think about what other people want. Smith saw this as a large part of what was good about the invisible hand mechanism. He identified two ways to obtain the help and co-operation of other people, upon which we all depend constantly. The first way is to appeal to the benevolence and goodwill of others. To do this a person must often act in a servile and fawning way, which Smith found repulsive, and he claimed it generally meets with very limited success. The second way is to appeal instead to other people's self-interest. In one of his most famous quotes:

“ Man has almost constant occasion for the help of his brethren, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can interest their self-love in his favor, and show them that it is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. Whoever offers to another a bargain of any kind, proposes to do this. Give me what I want, and you shall have this which you want, is the meaning of every such offer; and it is the manner that we obtain from one another the far greater part of those good offices which we stand in need of. It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love.”

For Smith, to propose an exchange is to attempt to show another that what you can do, or what you have, can be of use to the other. When you carry out the exchange, it means the other person recognizes that what you can do or that what you have is of value. This is why so much of a person's self-esteem is bound up in their job — a well-paid job is supposed to be a sign that others value your contribution and find it worth exchanging their own resources for.

Last week President Obama gave appeared at a campaign rally at the GM plant in Detroit where he praised the bailout and the wonders of the Chevy Volt, GM’s electric car. He claimed that after he left the White House in 2017 he would buy a Volt.

The next day GM announced it was closing the Volt line and laying-off 1,400 UAW workers. You see the $42,000 Volt is just not selling, at least to the general market.

General Motors reported Chevy Volt sales of 1,529 for the month of December. The still unimpressive number is an improvement over previous months, but the gains were mostly driven by fleet sales. According to GM, 992 of the Volts sold were to retail customers while 537 went to fleet purchasers.

GM says the fleet sales were to corporate buyers and not to rental companies. The number of Volts sold to townships receiving federal grants remains unknown. The corporate sales claim makes sense as crony company, General Electric, starts to make good on its promise to buy thousands of Volts. Of course, GE benefits by selling charging stations for the vehicles.

Another interesting statistic on Volt sales can be derived from the inventory figures and number of Chevy dealerships with available Volts. GM now claims that 2,600 dealerships across the nation have Volts for sale. Given the 992 figure for Volts sold to retail customers, we come up with an average of approximately one third of a vehicle sold by each dealership per month. It is ludicrous for GM to continue to tout Volt sales figures as a success given the fact that about two thirds of dealerships offering Volts were unable to sell even one during the month! With supply now well over 4,000 units, lack of inventory can no longer be blamed for the dismal sales figures.

It remains to be seen what type of tricks the Obama Administration and GM might have up their sleeves when it comes to fluffing Chevy Volt sales figures. Both the Administration and GM have staked a lot of credibility on the vehicle claiming that it was to be a game changer for GM as well as a "moon shot." Considering that taxpayers are subsidizing vehicles like the Volt to the tune of billions of dollars, it is understandable that critics of the vehicle want to know the truth about the projected high demand for the car that has yet to materialize. GM is sticking to its guns claiming that 60,000 Volts will be sold in 2012 after having missed 2011 sales goals by a wide margin. They have not, however, said who will be buying them.

Anyone who has observed the hype revolving around the Chevy Volt since the time preceding its rollout to now should question the credibility of sources that proclaim the vehicle a success despite evidence that indicates otherwise. A further instance of suspicious support for the Volt was evidenced when Consumer Reports (CR) recommended the vehicle, which is based on the Chevy Cruze platform, only to report that the Cruze expected reliability is well below average. In fact, the Cruze was rated the worst value for small cars by CR. And while the recommended rating for the Volt had been highly publicized, there are few internet articles referencing the worst rating for the Cruze.

How can CR recommend the Volt based on reliability expectations when such a limited number of Volts have been sold and they have such a negative opinion on a vehicle with the same platform? And why has CR changed their opinion since the time they originally proclaimed that the Volt "didn't seem to make a lot of sense?" In addition, CR has displayed a double standard regarding how it responded to battery safety issues for the Volt (CR stated the public had to adapt to a new technology) compared to how it responded to Toyota's unintended acceleration investigation when it pulled the recommended rating from Toyotas.

Speaking of suspicious activity, an interesting statistic was revealed on GM's sales conference call. Government purchases of GM vehicles rose 32% from last year. This represents yet another conflict as the Obama Administration has a vested interest in GM's success as it spends more taxpayer dollars to help support the company as 2012 elections near.

For those Volt apologists who want to celebrate the insignificant sales growth of the car, have at it. The wealthy retail purchasers of the Volt can afford the high price tag of the vehicle. The country, however, no longer can. The $7,500 tax subsidy that goes to wealthy buyers should be ended. If this car and others like the Fisker and Tesla offerings which cost close to $100,000 each are as popular as advocates say they are, taxpayers should not have to give buyers $7,500 to drive sales. And if they are not popular, then all the more reason to stop bilking taxpayers out of billions of dollars to enrich crony corporations under the guise of green initiatives.

The Chevy Volt was just given the European car of the year award at the Geneva auto show. So what. No one in the U.S. is buying the car. The market is rejecting this government sponsored vehicle. On the other hand truck and SUV sales are up. No matter how Obama touts this “green car” the people are not buying it even with gasoline at $5.00 per gallon. This is just another way of the government masterminds coercing the people to buy something they do not want.

The Gimme Generation

“…legal plunder can be committed in an infinite number of ways. Thus we have an infinite number of plans for organizing it: tariffs, protection, benefits, subsidies, encouragements, progressive taxation, public schools, guaranteed jobs, guaranteed profits, minimum wages, a right to relief, a right to the tools of labor, free credit, and so on, and so on. All these plans as a whole—with their common aim of legal plunder—constitute socialism. — Frederic Bastiat, The Law

In golf, a gimme is a shot that the other players agree can count automatically without actually being played. When a player has only a very short putt left to play, other players may grant a gimme (i.e. one stroke is counted), but the ball is not actually played. A gimme is a time-saving convention under the tacit assumption that the putt would not have been missed—e.g. when the ball is only a few inches from the hole.

Gimmes are not allowed by the rules in stroke play, though the practice is common in casual matches. However, in match play, either player may formally concede a stroke, a hole, or the entire match at any time, and this may not be refused or withdrawn. A player in match play will generally concede a tap-in or other short putt by his or her opponent.

The word is a colloquial contraction of the phrase "give me".

On February 24 the Orlando Sentinel reported:

“The launch of an expensive new basketball shoe — timed to Orlando's hosting of the NBA All-Star Game — triggered a melee Thursday night at Florida Mall that was quelled by deputies in riot gear.

The wild scene erupted about 9:45 p.m. as hundreds of people packed the mall's parking lot, hoping to buy the new shoe at midnight. As the crowd grew, a large contingent of Orange County deputy sheriffs arrived, braced for problems.”

Riot police had to be called to an Orlando mall on Feb. 23. Why? Because an unruly crowd of would-be shoppers couldn’t wait to get their hands on the new Foamposite One Galaxy by Nike.

In case you’ve never heard of it (I hadn’t either), this is a special-edition basketball shoe that Nike introduced just days before the NBA All-Star Game. The House of Hoops by Foot Locker at Florida Mall had ordered a bunch of the shoes and announced that they would be sold (at $220 a pair) on a first-come, first-served basis at midnight.

Hundreds of people showed up long before the sale was to begin. Police were called to maintain some semblance of order. But well before the sale began, several hundred people rushed the door.

Law enforcement officers in riot gear pushed back the crowd. The store decided not to open that night at all. By Friday morning, Foot Locker announced that it was canceling the All-Star weekend shoe release at six other malls because of “safety concerns.”

So a near-riot broke out because some spoiled brats couldn’t wait to get their hands on a $220 pair of basketball shoes. Isn’t that ridiculous?

Frankly, we shouldn’t be surprised. This is just one more consequence of the entitlement philosophy our children have been taught. It’s been going for several generations.

Let me begin the litany of who’s to blame with these kids’ teachers. What sort of messages have they been sending their young wards? How much of our history have they been teaching them? What kind of character have they been building?

Nationally, teachers’ unions collect hundreds of millions of dollars every year from mandatory dues. They spend a ton of it lobbying for laws they want passed. Or, as they’ve proven in dozens of States, battling legislation they oppose. They are an almost perfect example of the “I want mine, and I want it now” philosophy — no matter the cost to the overburdened taxpayers who must foot the bills.

The teachers’ unions defend a status quo that produces 1 million high-school dropouts a year and a graduation rate of less than 50 percent for black and Hispanic students. What sort of education do the kids who do graduate have? How much of this country’s history have they learned? You don’t want to ask. Heck, half of them can’t write a literate sentence or give the correct change for a $20 bill. But the can shell out $220 bucks for a pair of basketball shoes. Where do they get the money from? Of course if you use food stamps for your groceries you can probably save a few bucks for designer shoes.

But let’s not let the parents off the hook. How many of them are delighted to let the schools take all responsibility for training and teaching their young? How many try to give their kids everything they want, from the latest cell phone and video game to $150 jeans and $200 tennis shoes?

In fact, how many of those same parents bought more house than they could afford, then decided that somebody else had to pay for their mistake? Five of our largest banks have been pressured into creating a $26 billion kitty to help bail them out. Of course, this won’t begin to paper over the problems. So you can expect a lot more hands to be out, demanding that someone come to their rescue.

And let’s not forget about one of the most feared and powerful voting blocs in this country: our senior citizens. Any politician with the temerity to try to modify some of the entitlement programs that are bankrupting this country is sure to face some of the most vicious and dishonest advertising campaigns this country has ever seen. Remember the Democrats’ response to Paul Ryan’s efforts to reform Medicare? Their “throw grandma off the cliff” TV ad was a classic of the type.

Ryan did not want to end Social Security and Medicare for those who are receiving it or for those about to receive it. He wanted to institute changes that would insure the survival of the programs for those who are paying into it now. A more detailed discussion of this issue is for another time, but a condemnation of the entitled class cannot go forward with mention of the problems facing these two programs in the future.

The demagogues on the left learned long ago that if they can portray an opponent as wanting to “eliminate Social Security” or “slash Medicare,” they are almost certain of victory. So what if they are creating obligations this country can’t afford to keep? They want political power now — no matter the obligations that will be passed down to our children and grandchildren.

The “Age of Entitlement” isn’t limited to a bunch of spoiled teenagers threatening to riot if they can’t get the brand-new basketball shoes they want. You’ll find plenty of members in every age group in this country.

How much of a stake do these people have in preserving and protecting the system, when they pay almost nothing into it? Nearly half of the adults in America don’t pay a penny in income taxes. What do they care how much your taxes have to go up to provide them with the goodies they are certain they deserve?

How about Sandra Fluke the Georgetown law student who wants someone to pay for her sexual escapades? She believes she is entitled to $3,000 worth od birth control pills during her college studies. I am sure she will be asking for more after she graduates, like forgiveness of her student loans.

To quote an old phrase, anyone who promises to rob Peter to pay Paul can always count on the vote of Paul. And my friends, there are an awful lot of Pauls and Paulines in this country now.

And there are a lot of people willing to promise them almost anything in exchange for their votes.

We’ll find out in November who will win the next round in this ongoing struggle.

Remembering Andrew Breitbart

“I want to remind you that success in life is based on hard slogging. There will be periods when discouragement is great and upsetting, and the antidote for this is calmness and fortitude and a modest yet firm belief in your competence. Be sure that your priorities are in order so that you can proceed in a logical manner, and be ever mindful that nothing will take the place of persistence.” — Walter Annenberg

Yesterday the conservative movement lost a great fighter by the untimely death of Andrew Breitbart. Andrew Breitbart died at the age of 43 from a massive heart attack while walking near his home in Beverly Hills.

Breitbart was, as many youth are, a liberal all through college. It was during the confirmation hearings for Clearance Thomas that he began to see the total hypocrisy of the left and the liberal bias in the media. He claimed that at the beginning he was rooting against the confirmation of Thomas, but as the hearings progressed he began to anger at the beating Thomas was taking from the Democrats and the media. What infuriated him the most was the absence of any defense of Thomas by the NAACP and other black leaders? In an interview with Sean Hannity last year Breitbart said he became incensed at the way the media and Democrats were piling on this good and honorable man.

Breitbart eventually began to realize that he was a conservative and that he wanted to do something with his like that would be important. He stated that one day while driving along in his car he was praying to God for guidance in his life and begging God to show him the purpose he should dedicate his life to. It was within two weeks of this event he met Matt Drudge and went to work for him developing his web site.

Working with Drudge gave Breitbart the skills and passion for using the internet as a counter to the left-wing main stream media. Soon after his tenure with Drudge he went to work for the Huffington Post, a job that allowed him to hone his skills and bring him into conflict with the Post’s left leaning journalism.

It was now time for Andrew to develop his own web site and he started sites like Breitbart.com, Breitbart TV, Big Journalism, Big Government, and Big Hollywood.” It was through these sites he began recruiting people of like mind who would assist him in getting the conservative message out to the public.

His friends saw him as a fearless truth-teller and provocateur. (The word “fearless” will have to be retired from overuse when all of his obituaries have been written.) His enemies, and they are legion even in death, saw him as the most vile creature who ever slithered upon the earth.

Within hours of the news, Twitter lit up with repugnant and ghoulish statements from left-wingers celebrating the premature death of a man with four small children. I won’t repeat them because the printable ones aren’t representative, and the representative ones aren’t printable.

Jonah Goldberg, a personal and professional friend of Breitbart writes in National Review Online:

“Andrew relished such attacks, truly, because they proved to him that he was having great effect in his work and that his opponents had run out of serious arguments.

This is not to say that Andrew was beyond criticism. He made mistakes. He took full swings at some pitches he should have just let go. He overstated some things that needed to be said, and said some things that didn’t need to be said at all. He was a human run-on sentence who showed deference to no punctuation mark save the exclamation point, a conservative Tasmanian Devil from the Bugs Bunny cartoons we both grew up on, whirling and whizzing through anything in his path. Giving him a dose of Ritalin to treat his hyperactivity would be like throwing a glass of water on a five-alarm fire.

But the hatred his enemies had for him overshot his faults like a dart thrown past the board and over the moon. Others will talk of his accomplishments: working for the Drudge Report in its infancy, creating websites and businesses, pioneering new forms of media, and exploiting the inherent weaknesses and pieties of the old media. And many who knew him will talk of his personal kindness: how the only times he slowed down were when he needed to lend an ear, do a favor, or talk about how much he loved his family.

Those things matter more than the politics, but they are not what made him a public figure. If being kind and loving your family made you famous, countless plumbers, carpenters, and accountants would be famous too.

No, what made him a public figure is what drove him to leap into battle day after day. Andrew had profound contempt for those on the left who claimed a birthright to a monopoly on virtue and tolerance.

He rejected in the marrow of his bones the idea that conservatives needed to apologize for being conservative or that liberals had any special authority to pronounce on the political decency and honesty of others.

Indeed, when liberals called him (or his heroes) racist, Andrew paid them the compliment of taking them seriously. He truly felt that to call someone a racist was as profound an insult as could be leveled. To do so without evidence or logic was a sin.

He believed, rightly, that much of establishment liberalism hurls such charges as a way to bully opponents into silence, and he would not be bullied. That was why, for instance, he offered a reward of $100,000 (payable to the United Negro College Fund) to anybody who could prove tea partiers hurled racial epithets over and over at black congressmen walking past them to vote on ObamaCare, as several alleged. No one got paid because the charge — recycled over and over by the media — was a lie.

The Internet was a boon to Andrew because it exposed liberalism’s undeserved monopoly on the “narrative” — one of his favorite words.

60 Minutes won awards for hidden cameras, but when he used the same technique to embarrass liberals, such tactics were suddenly proclaimed ethically beyond the pale. The joke was on the scolds because they had to cover the stories anyway. And the stories got results. Congress defunded ACORN. Heads rolled at NPR. Andrew understood that news and arguments change politics if you can get the news and arguments to the people — and if you don’t let those who don’t like what you say define you.

Whatever his faults, that was my friend’s great and remarkable strength: He never let the bastards get him down. That took away his enemies’ greatest power, and they hated him all the more for it.”

Jonah Goldberg is right on target. Breitbart was showing the way to deal with the left-wing media, especially the bloggers. He was not afraid to take them on and expose their bias and lies. He also provided inspiration to other conservative journalists and bloggers.

He was on the forefront of reporting several controversies, notably the salacious tweets former Rep. Anthony Weiner had sent to young women before his resignation.

Breitbart became embroiled in a controversy of his own, though, for his reporting on a web video of Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod. The edited video appeared to show Sherrod making a racist comment, but the full tape later put the remark in context and made clear that Sherrod was actually talking about bridging racial differences. Sherrod was fired after the edited video surfaced, and later filed suit against Breitbart.

Breitbart, though, went on to report on one of the biggest congressional scandals of 2011 — the tweets sent by Weiner to young women he met online. The former New York congressman, who is married, adamantly denied the reports at first, before admitting to them in a tearful press conference and resigning.

One of Breitbart's most memorable moments came when he commandeered the podium before Weiner's final New York conference, holding court with reporters and demanding an apology from Weiner — while Weiner waited to attend his own press conference.

Goldberg recalled how one of Breitbart's favorite pastimes was to retweet the nasty things other people said about him. "He considered it a badge of honor," Goldberg said.

According to Joel Pollak, the editor of Breitbart TV, Breitbart was a big baseball fan and fanatical Dodger fan. Pollack claimed that Breitbart wanted to be a scout for the Dodgers and give them advice on the talent they should be looking. This passion for talent gave Breitbart the ability recognize talented and passionate players for his endeavors. Pollack claimed, in an interview on Fox and Friends, that Breitbart was quick to recognize talent and bring them on board. This is how he built his organization.

As Bill Whittle, of PJ Media, claims, Breitbart will be sorely missed. Yes, there is a growing cadre of conservative journalists and bloggers and they are having an impact of the leftwing media. It is a “to the death” fight for the soul of this Republic and we have lost our General Patton.

Should We Pay for Sandra’s Sex?

"When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men living together in society, they create for themselves, in the course of time, a legal system that authorizes it and a moral code that glorifies it." — Frederic Bastiat

Sandra Fluke is a student at Georgetown Law. She’s also a “reproductive rights activist” who agrees wholeheartedly with the Obama administration’s controversial contraceptive mandate. Her reasoning, though, is likely to enrage some critics.

During a testimony in front of the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee on Monday (a meeting that was held by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi), Fluke — who was coincidentally the only witness heard — described the financial constraints that purchasing birth control puts on her peers.

“Forty percent of the female students at Georgetown Law reported to us that they struggled financially as a result of this policy,” Fluke said, referring to the fact that the university doesn’t pay for contraception. “Without insurance coverage, contraception, as you know, can cost a woman over $3,000 during law school.”

She detailed, among other stories, how one woman felt “embarrassed” and “powerless” at the pharmacy counter when she “learned for the first time” that contraceptives weren't‘t covered by the university’s health care plan.

Watch her complete testimony, below:

CNS News’ Craig Bannister, though, challenged Fluke’s $3,000 figure and came up with some pretty interesting numbers:

“$3,000 for birth control in three years? That’s a thousand dollars a year of sex – and, she wants us to pay for it. [...]

At a dollar a condom if she shops at CVS pharmacy’s website, that $3,000 would buy her 3,000 condoms – or, 1,000 a year…

Assuming it’s not a leap year, that’s 1,000 divided by 365 – or having sex 2.74 times a day, every day, for three straight years. And, I thought Georgetown was a Catholic university where women might be prone to shun casual, unmarried sex. At least its health insurance doesn’t cover contraception (that which you subsidize, you get more of, you know).”

Rush Limbaugh took off on Sandra during his radio show.

So, poor ole Sandra wants to have sex and wants us to pay for her birth control pills. If she is having sex and we are paying isn’t that the definition of prostitution? What is amazing is how this misguided girl is willing to go on public television and claim she needs her sex life subsidized by the school she is attending. Doesn’t she realize that Georgetown is a Catholic university and that she is demanding them to do something that goes against the tenants of the Catholic Church? Why not go to a Jewish university and demand they out pork on the cafeteria menu.

There is nothing stopping Sandra from going to a secular school for her law degree where she might be able to get her contraception medication for free. But no, Sandra wants it her way. She wants the Catholic Church to bend to her way of life. This is what progressives do.

In the liberation tradition, the dream is a liberation from all effort, a paradise on earth — a Utopia. The sweated laborer dreams of turning the tables on his employer and making him sweat. The housewife dreams of making her husband a drudge. The underprivileged minority dreams of privilege. The artist dreams of creative paradise. The businessman seeks liberation from the terror of failure. And the politician's eyes gleam.

The most glaring difference in the two traditions is over sex. Conservatives at our best want sexual freedom, the right to freely give your love and fidelity to one other in the central human drama of sexual reproduction. Liberals want sexual liberation, the right to opt out of the drama of sexual reproduction and separate sex from its curious connection with children. Liberals insist that we talk about contraception, abortion, gays, lesbians, and trans-genders and trundle out The Way We Never Were, according to author Stephanie Coontz, whenever conservatives start to talk about the collapse of marriage among the lower classes.

The trouble with liberation is that its dreams can be realized only with force, and so wherever it has been tried, the liberation movement has trod a trail of tears, a road back to serfdom. That is why liberal reformers want to force the Catholic Church to bend to their will. You can't have wall-to-wall sexual liberation if serious Christians are left with an opt-out.

The free man is joyful in taking responsibility; the liberated man is terrified of it. The free man is a risk-taker; the liberated man is a risk-avoider. The free man's word is his bond; the liberated man's word is a whine. The free man takes the blame; the liberated man lives to blame. The free man asks only to serve; the liberated man demands to be served. The free man lives to give back; the liberated man scorns the "give-back."

Conservatives have our own little yearning for liberation. We would like to be liberated from the tyranny of liberal cultural hegemony. But this is a weakness, for freedom has never promised liberation.

It is almost a divine witness that the two popular movements of the Obama era so exactly impersonate the ideas of the two traditions. The Tea Party takes its name from a protest against government-sponsored monopoly and privilege. The Occupy movement takes its name from the plan of every dawn raider: invade, occupy, and plunder.

We should thank President Obama for forcing us to choose between freedom and liberation. Usually liberal politicians try to muddy the waters, and they cloak their liberation in the language of freedom just like FDR and his Four Freedoms. They want us to think that America is still free when they pile on the compulsory and mandatory government programs. The dreadful fear that Obama stirs up in conservatives is this: what if Americans this November openly choose liberation instead of freedom? What happens to America then?

It's a fearful thought. But free men and free women have never believed in giving in to fear.

Sandra wants to be a liberated woman, but she wants someone else to foot the bill. She wants, in the words of Bastiat, plunder.

Obama’s Transformation

On September 17, 1787, at the conclusion of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Delegate James Wilson, on behalf of his ailing colleague from Pennsylvania, Benjamin Franklin, read aloud Franklin’s speech to the convention in favor of adopting the Constitution. Among other things, Franklin said that the Constitution “is likely to be well administered for a Course of Years, and can only end in Despotism as other Forms have done before it, when the People shall become corrupt as to need Despotic Government, being incapable of any other.” — Mark Levine, Ameritopia, Epilogue.

At the conclusion of the Second World War the United States was the most respected and powerful nation in the history of this planet. The United States was not only the most powerful nation it was also the most generous, especially to the vanquished. We rebuilt Germany under the Marshal Plan and gave millions to Great Britain, France, Belgium, and The Netherlands to rebuild their damaged infrastructure. Under General MacArthur we rebuilt Japan into an industrial power that would compete with us to this day. No victor in history has been this forgiving and generous to the nations it vanquished. We were not conquerors. We beat the forces of evil, rebuilt their nations and went home to live our lives in peace.

America's once-exalted position as the unquestioned leader of the free world has been greatly and deliberately eroded. A nation respected not only for its military and economic might, but more so for its dedication to the ideals of individual freedom and liberty is rudderless and adrift on a sea of uncertainty. As a result, the United States and the rest of the world are facing the most precarious and potentially dangerous period since the 1930s.

Barack Obama and his regime have accomplished much of what they set out to do — namely, the transformation of American society and an end to the pre-eminent status of the United States. They have had a singleness of purpose and allegiance first and foremost to a confused and muddled ideology and not country.

When the leadership of a great nation exhibits this trait, the consequences can be catastrophic. The product of a lifetime of leftist indoctrination, Barack Obama has, as the basic foundation of his disorganized and uncertain belief system, a conviction that the United States has been the epitome of oppression and arrogance throughout its history.

Beyond that one tenet, Obama wavers between acceptance of crony capitalism and European-style socialism rather than rigid socialist/Marxist theory. This may be anathema to the hardcore left whence he came, but nonetheless it reflects a firm rejection of the principles of individual liberty and freedom as outlined by the nation's founders.

In short, Barack Obama is a leader without a core. Thus, he is able to rationalize the need to say or do anything as long as the end justifies the means. He therefore cannot be nor is he trusted by other leaders on the world stage, as he is devoid of character and integrity.

Coupled with his nonexistent executive experience and lack of accountability over his lifetime, he has placed the United States in a most precarious position in world affairs. In a young century that has already been beset with economic turmoil, the proliferation of nuclear weapons, unprecedented terrorist activity, and a rapidly changing world order thanks to enormous advances in communication and information, the American people could not have chosen a worse leader.

Barack Obama began his presidency by donning the hair shirt and groveling before the nations of world, begging forgiveness for what he perceived to be the sins of America's past. He did not care to understand that while allies may have mildly complained about past U.S. policy, it was out of a combination of envy and grudging respect. Yet it is America's enemies and their loud and false protestations that frame the basis of Obama's outreach and appeasement mindset. In reality, the world since the 1950s has looked to the United States for leadership and stability, not faux humility and self-flagellation.

This servile mindset by Barack Obama has projected an image of weakness which begets chaos, and chaos is what the international scene has become, be it in the Middle East, Asia, Russia, or Latin America.

In Afghanistan, by announcing a premature withdrawal date Obama has unleashed the Taliban and given them a green light to again subjugate the country. He has further exacerbated the situation by his innumerable apologies for the inadvertent burning of Korans defiled by Muslim prisoners. This has reinforced the image of not only a leader, but a nation of cowards in the minds of those who understand only strength and an indomitable will. The United States now has no option but to abandon its efforts in Afghanistan, as Obama did prematurely in Iraq, thus leaving both nations vulnerable to civil war and an Islamist takeover.

Barack Obama, determined to become the Muslim world's best friend, has instead unleashed the dogs of war in the Middle East. He has essentially told Iran that they are free to develop nuclear weapons and to meddle in the affairs of Lebanon, Syria, and whatever other country they choose. He has given tacit support to Hamas and the Palestinian Authority in their confrontation with Israel, as U.S. policy is to browbeat and intimidate the Israelis into accepting any agreement with them, all the while insisting on Israel's acquiescence to Iranian nuclear capability.

In his Cairo speech in 2009, Obama shamelessly blamed the West for all the current and historical conflicts with Islam and never once used the words "terrorism," "terrorist," or "war on terror." Earlier in the same year he met secretly with the Muslim Brotherhood, the progenitor of Hamas and al-Qaeda, thus legitimizing them with a wink and a nod.

Once the riots began in Egypt and other North African countries, regardless of what may have triggered them, the Islamists knew they had nothing to fear from the United States, as the American president and his administration had made no meaningful overtures to the true democratic movements in those countries. Obama chose instead to appeal to the radical elements, believing that by the sheer force of his personality and persuasion the Islamists would see the error of their ways.

While playing this game with Washington, the radicals knew that if they could get the population into the streets, they could maneuver the situation to their advantage. Today in Egypt, what began as student and middle-class demonstrations in the spring of 2011 has evolved into a government dominated by the Muslim Brotherhood and other radical Islamist groups. The same is now true in Libya and Tunisia and soon will be in Yemen, among others.

In an eerie replay of history, the Middle East has become the Balkans of 1912-14, wherein any inadvertent action or misunderstanding will trigger not only a regional, but also a global conflict. Whereas the spark that initiated World War I was due to the egocentric and nationalist ambitions of many European countries, the underlying factor of any major war in the Middle East will be the abandonment of American resolve and the erosion of its economic and military power.

Beyond the Middle East, Russia and China are more emboldened than ever, openly mocking the United States and its leadership. China has begun acting as if it were already the pre-eminent power in the Pacific basin, which is not surprising, considering the deference shown by President Obama to the Chinese leadership while begging them to continue buying American debt created by the incomprehensible fiscal policies of his administration. The other nations of the region are modifying their policies to deal with the reality of a vacuum created by American uncertainty.

Russia has succeeded in intimidating the United States into abandoning a crucial missile defense system and allowing Russia a free hand to effectively reconstitute the old Soviet Union while browbeating its neighbors in Europe. Hugo Chávez and his fellow travelers in South and Latin America have been given a tacit green light to continue their socialist rampage throughout the continent with no fear of any consequences from their neighbor to the north.

With his self-serving allegiance to those who worship the false god of environmentalism, Barack Obama has further aggravated the nation's precarious economic and security circumstances by refusing to develop the energy resources of the United States. Instead, the country is more reliant than ever on importing oil from those regions he has helped to destabilize.

American fiscal and monetary policy continues to wreak havoc in the global economy through historically overwhelming spending levels and the subsequent necessity of printing vast sums of money. As a result, there is now an open discussion of replacing the dollar as the global exchange currency. The United States, as the largest economy in the world, has a unique responsibility in the stability of the global economy. Instead, President Obama has myopically chosen to spread chaos as he promotes his profligate domestic spending programs which by necessity will cause the United States to greatly reduce its military budget and force a once-proud nation to go hat-in-hand to other countries, seeking financial assistance.

Today American foreign and domestic policy is adrift on a sea of uncertainty, as there is a dishonest occupant of the White House who has no coherence in his personal beliefs and convictions except that American exceptionalism is a myth and that the nation must be transformed into another failed Euro-socialist state. He has succeeded in making the world a much more dangerous place while dramatically eroding America's position of pre-eminence.

While the Republican Presidential candidates vie for top billing in Tampa, Florida, the Democrats have evidently convinced themselves that President Barack Obama is a shoo-in for another four-year occupation of the White House. Let me rephrase that: The Democrats are trying desperately to convince themselves that President Barack Obama is a shoo-in for another four-year occupation of the White House.

Isn’t it interesting, then, that their anointed savior can’t muster up approval ratings that consistently eclipse the 50 percent mark? Isn’t it more interesting that some polls show Obama packing his gear and clearing out in favor of — among other people — Congressman Ron Paul, a man about whom the media can hardly bring themselves to comment? Isn’t it even more interesting that the corporate media can’t (won’t) mention Obama’s anemic performance, but will offer fealty that borders on blasphemy?

The list of reasons why the thinking voter should eschew casting a ballot for Obama is nearly as long as a Russian novel, but you don’t have the time and I don’t have the bandwidth to enumerate them all here. Today, I offer eight solid reasons to defeat Barack Obama by supporting the Republican nominee, whoever that may be. You may use these eight reasons as talking points when chatting with your liberal friends.

8. Permanent Vacation. Spain, Hawaii, Martha’s Vineyard, more Hawaii, more Martha’s Vineyard, Aspen and even more Hawaii. Remember how much the liberals hated George W. Bush’s brush-clearing misadventures? At least he was pretending to work once in a while — at his own house. And don’t we all enjoy being lectured about our eating habits by the first lady — in between her 2,500-calorie fundraiser meals, of course. Hypocrisy is ugly. No wonder the Democrats are so damned hard on our eyes — even when they’re wearing diamonds from the Harry Winston Collection.

7. The Devil-May-ObamaCare. For a great socialist leap forward, the President’s reanimation of Hillarycare’s corpse has taken an oddly back-shelf position of late. It’s almost as if the Democrats don’t want us remembering that they ignored public sentiment, the rules of legislative engagement and one or two juicy parts of the Constitution as November rolls toward us. I suspect Obama may come to regret his decision to force churches to pay for abortions, but that’s presuming he develops a conscience and understanding of the 1st Amendment between now and Election Day. Knowing the liberal mindset, he’ll lose and blame the loss on us “God and guns” types.

6. Gassed Out. As much fun as the Democrats’ new sitcom “That was then; this is now” has been to watch, I just don’t see a real future for it. Their attempt to cut Obama loose from that $5 per gallon gas-price anchor he’s dragging around is sadder than Arianna Huffington’s wedding videos. When George W. Bush was President, exorbitant gas prices spurred Democrats including Senator Barbara Boxer and current Democratic National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz to hold shrieking press events in which they blamed Bush for everything short of trapping people in their homes. The corporate media obligingly reported the liberal finger-pointing with breathless vigor. Now, gas prices are evidently rising in a vacuum, with the same people suggesting Obama has “little control” over them. That was then; this is now.

5. Hooray For Hollywood. Obama leans heavily on financial and propaganda support from the left coast as much as he does on anyone outside the offices of Goldman Sachs. Hollywood’s hypocritical horde has hardly hidden their disdain for non-liberals. But they seem to forget: Only liberals are dumb enough to vote based on advice from renowned thinkers like Sean Penn, Samuel L. Jackson, and Rosie O’Donnell. Sean, go back to Venezuela. Maybe Hugo Chavez will let you be his court jester. Rosie, have another sundae. Oscar host Billy Crystal cracked a joke during the recent Academy Award yawnfest in which he compared Mitt Romney, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich to a “dark knight, an American psycho and a charismatic crack addict.” The crowd roared with laughter. It probably took a whole team of writers to put their thinking caps on to produce a joke that wasn’t fit for amateur night at the Ha-Ha Hut. But, that’s what Hollywood does best — beat on Republicans.

4. Crony Capitalism. So, religious (read: Christian) organizations get stuck with the same onerous ObamaCare mandates that the Democrats’ union thug cronies managed to escape? All those exemptions and Obama couldn’t find one more for the people who believe abortion is murder? Meanwhile, General Motors is certainly heating things up since its bailout; those Chevy Volts are really hot — in a manner of speaking. And all those so-called “green jobs” projects have produced in spades, have they not? Granted, the “jobs” in question all went to bankruptcy lawyers; but at least someone benefited from Obama’s payoff to his cronies. It was certainly heartbreaking watching those poor attorneys wandering around outside the courthouse. “Will guide you through Chapter 7 for food.” A look at Obamanomics reveals the biggest beneficiaries are guys like Warren Buffett, George Soros and Jeff Immelt (not to mention Mark Rezko). When hypocritical billionaires are hurting, Obama is there for them. What a guy.

3. Let’s Hear It For The Girls! Tell you what, liberals. You keep Janeane Garofalo, Barbra Streisand, Sheila Jackson-Lee and — I’m guessing here — Janet Napolitano. We’ll keep Bo Derek, Anne Coulter, Michele Bachmann and Sarah Palin. Besides the fact that the combined IQs of the former group don’t equal any one of the latter, our women look like women. The best part is, none of five conservative women I mentioned would disagree with me. The former group would slap you with some kind of injunction for making a remark like that at the next Moveon.org meeting. At least our girls know where Mars is. For that matter, at least our girls know what Mars is.

2. On The Job. Unemployment has remained a thorn in the American economic side for the better part of Obama’s term. Factor in the number of people who are so discouraged by Obamanomics, and the number rises to close to 15 percent. That’s 15 percent of a workforce that easily exceeds 100 million people. Imagine everyone in the New York metropolitan area updating their resumes at the same time. Add the illegal aliens who the Democrats — and a fair number of the Republicans — won’t address in a meaningful manner, and the math gets even more discouraging. Of course, the Democrats will suggest that the illegals are doing only the jobs that no one else wants. I’ll admit, mowing Nancy Pelosi’s lawn doesn’t sound like a day at the beach, but where are these Americans who are happily living off the dole? I mean, outside Detroit.

1. It’s The Constitution. Four words: Attorney General Eric Holder.

Of course, I left off more than a few good reasons to avoid voting for Obama and/or his fellow clown car riders. Trying to pin down only eight was tougher than figuring out who the 10 biggest douchebags are at a personal injury lawyers’ convention.

This November’s Presidential election will indeed be a landmark event in American politics. Will we choose to play Horatio at the bridge, standing tall against the march of liberal statism? Or will we dive into the river, in which we will surely drown?

What Is The Real Price Of Gasoline?

"The people always have some champion whom they set over them and nurse into greatness. This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when he first appears he is a protector." — Plato

While politicians deflect, defend and blame and consumers grouse about Big Oil, large profits and offshore drilling, almost no one is discussing what’s really happening to the price of gasoline at the pump.

Conventional wisdom is that gas prices are shooting through the roof. But that’s not the case. In fact, gas prices are right at their historical average.

Gas prices are reflecting inflation. As I have explained before, inflation is not rising prices. It is an increase in the money supply. Rising prices are a product of inflation, and the increasing numbers on the signs at gas stations are a reflection of inflation. Or, to put it another way, they reflect a decrease in the value of the dollar.

This is explained in detail at Forbes:

“During the 493 months since January 1, 1971, the price of WTI has averaged Au0.0732/bbl. It has been higher than that during 225 of those months and lower than that during 268 of those months. Plotted as a graph, the line representing the price of a barrel of oil in terms of gold has crossed the horizontal line representing the long-term average price (Au0.0732/bbl) 29 times.

At Au0.0602/bbl, today’s WTI price is only 82% of its average over the past 41+ years. Assuming that gold prices remained at today’s $1,759.30/oz, WTI prices would have to rise by about 22%, to $128.86/bbl, in order to reach their long-term average in terms of gold. As mentioned earlier, such an increase would drive up retail gasoline prices by somewhere between $0.65 and $0.75 per gallon.

At this point, we can be certain that, unless gold prices come down, gasoline prices are going to go up—by a lot. And, because the dollar is currently a floating, undefined, fiat currency, there is no inherent limit to how far the price of gold in dollars can rise, and therefore no ultimate ceiling on gasoline prices.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke uses a “core CPI index” that excludes food and energy to guide monetary policy. From Big Ben’s point of view, rising gasoline prices are not a problem. For the rest of us, they are becoming a big problem.

Over the centuries, gold has been “the golden constant”. Eventually, all prices equilibrate with gold. This is why gold represents the best available standard in terms of which to define the value of a monetary unit. Forty-one years ago, when the value of the dollar was defined in terms of gold at $35/oz, WTI was selling for $3.56/bbl.”

The following is a simple version.

Since Jan. 1, 1971, the price of a barrel of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil compared to gold has averaged 0.0602 ounces of gold per barrel. Gold is currently trading $1,789 per ounce, and WTI is trading at $108 per barrel. That’s a ratio of 0.0603, and it’s right on the statistical average.

So who or what is to blame for “higher gas prices?” Look no further than the Federal Reserve, Ben Bernanke (and Alan Greenspan before him) and their money-printing policies.

Another way to look at the price of Gasoline is to compare it to the price of silver.

The real price of oil is $5 a barrel in real US silver coins from 1963. The real price of gasoline is down 50% from 1963. In 1963 a gallon of gasoline was three silver Roosevelt dimes ($.30). Today, in 2012, the real price of gasoline is two gallons at $3.77 per gallon ($7.54 less tax) for three silver dimes. In real money gasoline is 50% cheaper today in 2012 than it was in 1963. You can calculate the price of silver in your coins by clicking here.

We are misallocating our civilization based on fake counterfeit money and unlimited credit. The problem is not oil. The problem is fake counterfeit money that promotes misallocation of all our assets. It’s not an energy problem. It’s a money problem benefitting asset owners, banks, and government. The winners love this counterfeit fraud that drives their possessions, taxes, fees, and profits up, up, up. It’s all free money.

Losers are the bottom 80% have their time and money misallocated into wasteful social experiments. When these losers are fired at age 50 from a misallocated job they suffer greatly in restructuring and lose their homes and families because they can’t get a comparable job at their misallocated wage rate.

I did some checking using the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Inflation Calculator. In 1963 the average price for a gallon of gasoline was $0.29 per gallon (less taxes). Using the inflation calculator I got a price of $2.15 per gallon for 2012. If I add $0.65 for taxes (state, federal, and local) for California I get $2.80 per gallon. This is the price Newt Gingrich is advocating with his energy policy.

You see, gas prices aren’t rising. The value of those green slips of paper in your wallet is shrinking.