Ask a lib to explain their favorite Obama policy.  Go ahead, ask them.  Then once they're finished elaborately complaining about how "eight years of failed Bush policy" caused the mess we're in, then ask them to explain it again, but this time without talking about Bush.  Don't worry, they won't be able to do it.  That's because modern American liberal ideology is nothing more than repackaged, watered-down Socialist drivel:  "Spread the wealth."  "The Government is our only hope."  "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs."  This is the ideological basis of Obama's vision for the future of our country.  But as well-intentioned as it seems, we know that Socialism doesn't work. 

So now that Obama, the mainstream media, and the American left don't have Bush as their whipping boy to draw our attention away from actually talking about their fundamentally flawed ideology, what are they going to do?  We already know the answer - all we have to do is look at the modern American liberals' playbook...

Saul Alinsky, radical liberal and political mentor of many prominent Democrats today, including the Clintons and Obama, wrote the liberal playbook, "Rules for Radicals."  In his book Alinsky describes methods to effect political change by any means necessary, no matter how despicable or sleazy, as long as the end result is what you want.  We've seen this sort of reasoning in our history before:  A book, "The Prince," written by Niccolo Machiavelli around 1513, contained the same sort of advice about how to gain power, and keep it.  Alinsky's book provided the tactic that Obama and the left used against our last President to win the election:  "Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it."  In other words, if you can't win based on ideology, then make it a popularity contest.  But now that Obama's the Prom Queen, and there's nobody left to pick on, what's the left going to do?

Their solution is easy, and they've already done it:  Pick the most prominent Republican icon, focus lots of negative attention on that person, and most importantly, blame the failures of government on them.  Any guesses as to who the new target of the libs' Machiavellian trash-talking is?  Here's a hint:

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done,"
    -- President Barack Hussein Obama

According to the Alinsky playbook, the intent is to move the debate away from your unpopular ideology (i.e., Socialism), and keep the dullards (i.e., you and me) focused on the "Ooo! Shiny!" things (i.e., the interpersonal conflicts, arguments, and scandals), so we don't start asking the important questions, like, "Sooo where does all the money for the stimulus come from?" and,  "How exactly does spending get us out of a mess that we got in to by spending?" and, "How, exactly, do you 'cut' taxes for someone who doesn't pay any to begin with?"

Just watch.  Rush is about to become the new Bush.  If Republicans don't toe the Socialist Party line, it'll be blamed on Rush, because he's been brainwashing them.  If some unconstitutional, lib's-pet New-New-Deal bill doesn't get passed, Obama or Pelosi or Reid will blame Rush for muddying the waters and preventing true "bipartisanship."

Modern American liberals and the Democratic party are ideologically, intellectually, and morally bankrupt.  Their only hope is to turn our government into a reality-show farce so we don't realize just how dangerously wrong their vision for our nation is.

Keep an eye on this one.  It appears that the closely-contested Senate race in Minnesota between far-left court-jester Al Franken and Republican Senator Norm Coleman is getting weird.  The initial election results put incumbent Sen. Coleman ahead by 725 votes, but since the final tally was within one-half of one percent, it triggered a recount.

Now, election officials have been tasked with double-checking their tallies before the official recount, and something strange has been going on...  All the mistakes that are reported?  They all come from liberal enclaves in MN, and they all, inexplicably, break 100% in favor of Al "Stuart Smalley" Franken, reducing Sen. Cole's lead to only 206.  In fact, WSJ has a great article about this - you should read it, but here are a few good ones from it:

In a normal audit, these mistakes could be expected to cut both ways. Instead, nearly every "fix" has gone for Mr. Franken, in some cases under strange circumstances.

And this:

Mr. Franken's gains so far are 2.5 times the corrections made for Barack Obama in the state, and nearly three times the gains for Democrats across Minnesota Congressional races. Mr. Lott notes that Mr. Franken's "new" votes equal more than all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the Presidential, Congressional and statehouse races combined (482 votes).

And the clincher:

This entire process is being overseen by Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie ... an ally of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, or ACORN, of fraudulent voter-registration fame.

Everywhere ACORN and Democratic power are combined, there's the whiff of voter fraud.  But no, no, they didn't cause it - in fact they condemn it!  It just seems to inexplicably follow them around wherever they go. 

Wow - they're starting, and just in time, too.  Just in case The Chosen One loses, we're already seeing the, "Republicans stole the election!!" news coverage.  This one is especially marvelous:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/politics/AP/story/754952.html

The title is what did it for me:

"Computer expert denies knowledge of '04 vote rigging in Ohio"

Seriously?  Don't idiot journalists know that we're on to their rhetorical tricks yet?  Here, lemme write a few headlines that, while (probably) true in fact, would "imply" a totally different story:

"Obama denies that he murders homeless people for fun."

"Biden denies stealing taxpayer money for personal uses."

"Pelosi denies that she is an active member of the Communist Party."

"Barney Frank denies receiving over $10 Million from Franklin Raines in exchange for protection from regulation."

...

Hey, mainstream media, when did you stop beating your wife?

Let me ask all you McCain supporters out there a few questions:

1) Do you support McCain, even though he supports abortion rights, including partial-birth abortion?
2) What do you think about McCain's policy of imposing a strict timeline for the withdrawal of our troops from Iraq, and the fact that he opposed the surge?
3) What do you think about McCain's choice of Joe Biden for Vice President?

...

I'm going to guess that you're shaking your head in confusion.  Fear not, there was a reason for those questions.  Here it is:

As far as talk radio goes, I love listening to Howard Stern almost as much as I love listening to Rush Limbaugh.  I came across an audio clip from the Howard Stern show where they interviewed people who support Obama.  But Howard's correspondents pulled a little trick during their interviews:  They replaced Obama's policies with McCain's, and asked if Obama supporters support them.  They even replaced Obama's Vice Presidential candidate with McCain's, and also asked if Obama supporters support her (yes, "her!").

You would think that a person who said, "I support candidate X because I agree with their policies!" would know what those policies were.  You would think that a person who supported a particular candidate would know who their Vice President was going to be.  But if you applied this litmus (i.e., "idiot") test to the supporters of Barack Obama, you would also be wrong:

Hear for yourself.

I don't know exactly how to react to this.  Apparently, Obama's supporters don't care what Obama does, just so long as he's elected.  I'm guessing that Obama voters like this would go into a McDonald's and order a Personal Pan Pizza with a side order of Nachos BellGrande, and then wouldn't complain when they get a Big Mac with fries.

...

All joking aside, the downfall of modern American conservatism is the fact that modern American liberal ideology (i.e., the repackaged, slickly-marketed remnant of Global Communism), is more easily communicated due to the fact that it's primarily emotion-based, and doesn't require a lot of (or any) thinking.  It would be easy to redirect our efforts towards "repackaging" conservatism in a form that's more easily digested by the 30-second-sound-byte crowd, or "marketing" conservative messages targeted at various demographics.

But the core values of modern American conservatism require respect for free thought and rationality - in other words, "Make up your own mind!"  In order to replicate the Hollywood-style success of the Obama campaign, we'd have to ignore the very principles on which our nation was founded.

I'd rather we lose an election than win one by tricking people into voting for us.

A recent Time magazine article had this to say about the Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac financial meltdown and bailout:

"Devastated by a legacy of bad management, rampant fraud and inept Government supervision ... had fallen into insolvency as of the beginning of last year. Because the U.S. failed to own up to the problem and launch a major rescue soon enough, the cost has now grown higher than almost anyone had imagined. Says Michigan Democrat Donald Riegle, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee: "We've never faced a problem of this scale. The answers aren't going to be happy ones." Last week President Bush came forward with a long-awaited bailout plan in which he sought to spread around the unhappiness in an evenhanded way. Said Bush: "Nothing is without pain when you come to solve a problem of this magnitude.""

The cause of this crisis?  Inappropriately risky investment in housing loans and other real estate, allowed by lack of government oversight of the accounting practices of the companies at fault.  A number of U.S. Senators had received contributions from the companies in question, and that was thought to have influenced them to oppose regulation.

...

Actually, that's a quote from a "recent" Time article published in 1989 in the wake of the S&L scandal.  After the collapse and bailout of the S&L industry, and the imposition of regulation and oversight of accounting practices that would prevent future harm, guess who stepped in to take over?  If you guessed Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, go to the head of the class.

Now, you'd think that we would have learned about letting big segments of the financial industry conduct themselves with little-to-no oversight, but Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac's status as Government Sponsored Entities guaranteed no governmental oversight.  Democrats, such as Maxine Waters (D-CA), Gregory Meeks (D-NY), Lacy Clay (D-MO), Artur Grey (D-AZ), and Barney Frank (D-MA) defended Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac famously in hearings in 2004.  They were "pissed off," called the hearings a "lynching," and insisted that there was nothing wrong with the conduct of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  If you watch the video, you'll see Democrats accusing Republicans of calling for oversight as "looking for an excuse" to shut down FDR's pet project.

Given our recent history of massive failures in this very industry due to fraud and misconduct, you'd think that our legislators would have been thinking, even the Democrats, "Huh...  Something about this seems kinda familiar...  Maybe we should check into it."  But no, this time it was different, because these GSEs were created with the intent of providing "affordable housing," in the form of affirmative action-style lending.  And then again, four of the "Keating 5" were Democrats, so maybe they suspected where the trail would inevitably lead this time around, too. 

To put this in perspective, the "Keating 5" received around a total of $1.3 Million, while the "Fannie and Freddie Three-Hundred-and-Fifty-Two" received just under a total of $5 Million.  209 were Democrats, receiving total contributions of about $2.8 Million, and 143 were Republicans, receiving a total of around $2.0 Million.  The S&L bailout cost taxpayers just over $100 Billion, whereas this mess is going to cost us seven times that.  I guess Frank Raines knows how to make smart investments after all.

At this rate, the next Democrat-caused financial sector scandal should cost us a trim $4.9 Trillion.  German philosopher Friedrich Hegel was right:

"The only thing we learn from history is that we learn nothing from history."

Karl Marx once said, in defense of Communism:

"The idea that individuals are going to have enough knowledge, and enough savvy, and enough insight, and frankly enough guts to make choices all by themselves is pretty much a pipe dream."

No, not really.  That was ABC's medical correspondent, Dr. Tim Johnson, a few days ago.   The story was about a family, the Joneses who have a daughter diagnosed with ADHD, and their struggles to pay for her medication.  His above comment was a response to a statement about McCain's healthcare plan:

"John McCain thinks they should be in charge," McCain's senior policy adviser, Doug Holtz-Eakin, told "Good Morning America." "So specifically, under his proposal, they'd be able to go to another HMO, maybe even an HMO in Delaware or Kansas or West Virginia -- places where ADHD is covered by law."  The ability to purchase insurance from out of state and carry it from job to job is a key component of the McCain plan."

Hey, sounds pretty good to me.  But it gets even better:

"The McCain campaign added that the senator would give a $5,000 tax credit to every American, allowing each to buy his or her own insurance."

Or does it?

"ABC News' medical correspondent Dr. Tim Johnson thinks it will not help much."

Really?  The only reason I haven't switched from my current health insurance to a Health Savings Account (with an accompanying $30-$50/month high-deductible health insurance plan) that will allow me to save the money I don't spend on healthcare every year, up to $5,000 in an IRA, cover me for all costs in the case of catastrophic health issues, and will never, ever, cost me, out of pocket, more than about $5,000 a year (as an individual) is...  Drumroll please...

I need about $5,000.

See, the idea is that you start a Health Savings Account.  It's like a "second IRA," where you can contribute some maximum amount each year, and from which your healthcare costs are taken.  Some HSAs even provide you with debit cards that can be used at your doctor's office.  Whatever you don't spend, it's yours!  It's taken from your HSA.  Anything more than that is covered by your High-Deductible Healthcare Plan (HDHP).  Now, don't get too excited - most HSA's, since they bring along with them the tax benefits of a normal IRA, require that you purchase, and provide proof of, an "HSA-Compatible insurance plan." 

HDHPs are relatively inexpensive - for a single person, you can find them for less than a hundred bucks a month.  For yourself and your family they're a bit more expensive.  If you shop around a bit, you can even find plans that'll cover 100% of the cost of any medical care defined (by the insurance company, of course) as "Preventative," including routine checkups, and things like that.

The actual dollar amounts vary over time as they're adjusted by inflation and other factors, but the equation has remained more or less steady over the lifetime of this alternative to traditional health insurance:  The annual deductible for most HDHP's matches, to the dollar, the annual maxium contribution to your HSA.  So, all you have to do is to choose to invest that maximum HSA contribution (which a person working at McDonald's could do) every year, and pay your monthly HDHP premiums (it costs about as much as having a cell phone or internet).

Now, the only trick is the first year...  Unless you already have an HSA containing the maximum annual contribution, you're going to be paying purely out-of-pocket for your medical expenses that first year (up to the maximum deductible), plus making your contributions for next year into your HSA.  This lack of "startup funds" is the reason I've opted to stall my transition to an HSA+HDHP, while I'm still eligible for healthcare that's cheaper (but only because *you,* taxpayers, are subsidizing it).

McCain's $5,000, "that will not help much," according to ABC, is actually all we need to free ourselves from third-party insurance, and take control of our healthcare expenses.  The fiction is that it's all just too complicated for us to make rational choices about health insurance, and it's all too expensive for us to afford.

Well, I've made a rational choice about the future of health insurance for my family and me, it's not that expensive at all, and all that I have to do is to have the discipline to save a little bit of money each year.  We save money for cars, TVs, XBOXes, vacations, retirement, and a bunch of other things that don't mean squat if we're not healthy.  Why is it such a stretch to think that we should save money (that we might even get to keep) for our health, and the health of our family?

One final word from Dr. Tim Johnson, ABC's medical correspondent about health insurance:

"It's much easier for people to have group insurance through their employer who does the hard legwork in negotiating with the insurance companies."

Hey, I just did most of the "hard legwork" in figuring this out, and I'm sure not your employer.  There's no "group" involved, just you and your family.  Don't take my word for this - do your own research and make your own decisions.  The links I've provided are just a start.  Just do an internet search for terms like "HDHP" and "HSA."

John McCain thinks that you "should be in charge," of your own health, and that's the right answer.

Apparently, there's nothing worse in the world of politics than changing your mind. I've been paying attention to the Democrats' Official Presidential Campaign Press Office (i.e., the media) and their reaction to the overwhelming success of Sarah Palin's appearance at the RNC this week, and most of their criticisms have been pretty laughable so far:

  "Her son is not her son!"

  "But, but, but...  She's a *girl*!"

  "McCain just picked her because she's pretty."

  "Why, she barely has more experience than a freshman Senator- Uh.  OK, never mind about the experience thing."

But there's one criticism that's a little different, because there are actual facts and things that have been said that seem to indicate... Gasp!  Maybe the libs are right on this one!  Anyway, here goes:

BACKGROUND

So I took a little time and did a small bit of research because it bothered me that the libs are claiming that Sarah Palin "flip-flopped" on the "bridge to nowhere" in Alaska.  Here's her political career in a nutshell.  This will be important later on. Remember, especially the year 2006, when she became Governor:

1992-1996: City Council of Wasilla 

1996-2002: Mayor of Wasilla (She was Governor for as long as legislated term limits allowed.  During this time she cut many public works programs, and reduced her own salary as Mayor.  Beat that, Congress.)

2002-2003: Unsuccessfully ran for AK Lt. Gov.

2003-2004: Appointed to the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation Commission (Resigned over "lack of ethics" by the commission, and accused other commissioners of illegal activities, for which they were eventually fined, and booted off the commission). 

2004-2006: Worked for a conservative PAC in Alaska.

2006-Pres: Governor of AK

THE ISSUE

In her acceptance speech at the RNC, she said the following:

"I told Congress, thanks but no thanks on that bridge to nowhere"

But a USA Today article titled "Palin Backed 'bridge to nowhere' in 2006" says this isn't true:

"While running for governor in 2006, though, Palin backed federal funding for the infamous bridge, which McCain helped make a symbol of pork barrel excess."

Of note, this was followed in the article immediately by a typical drive-by media non-sequitur smear:

"And as mayor of the small town of Wasilla from 1996 to 2002, Palin also hired a Washington lobbying firm that helped secure $8 million in congressionally directed spending projects, known as earmarks, according to public spending records compiled by the watchdog group Citizens against Government Waste and lobbying documents."

Earmarks and Lobbying are apparently OK for any politician whose name has a (D) suffix, but not for us.  Oh.  Thanks, USA Today.  We didn't realize that.  Then she was quoted as saying the following, which is actually quite a reasonable opinion to have, given her position as gubernatorial candidate, and therefore, national advocate, of Alaskans:

""We need to come to the defense of Southeast Alaska when proposals are on the table like the bridge, and not allow the spinmeisters to turn this project or any other into something that's so negative," Palin said in August 2006"

But when it became a national issue, with national media attention (does anyone want to guess what would have happened if Alaska had a Democratic Governor and Congressmen at the time?), according to her communications director, Bill McAllister, she realized the following:
 
"she saw that Alaska was being perceived as taking from the country and not giving."

So she subsequently stopped work on the bridge.  This was the right decision, for the right reasons.

ANALYSIS

Now for some more interesting facts.  I present them in order to allow you to make your own decisions about this issue, not to convince you of one thing or another.  We're not always right, Republicans don't always do what we think Republicans ought to do, and people make decisions that we consider to be foolish, misinformed, immoral, and just plain stupid.  The trick is not to use a person's mistakes as ammunition to tear them down - the way to improve ourselves as people, individually and as a nation, is to candidly look at the things we've done and learn from them:

1.  First, this bridge "earmark" had been something in the works for three decades before Sarah Palin was elected Governor.  The efforts were led by Alaskan Congressmen. They were all Republicans.  (Alaska hasn't had a Democratic Senator since 1981).  What those Congressmen said was:

""We worked 30 years to get funding for this priority project."  U.S. Sen. Ted Stevens and Rep. Don Young, both Republicans, championed the project through Congress two years ago, securing more than $200 million for the bridge between Revillagigedo and Gravina islands."

Their intent was to spur economic growth in a sparsely-populated area of Alaska (population of about 50-70), and thereby improving Alaska's ability to contribute to the nation's success, by providing it means of transportation that would connect it to the nearest airport.  My opinion?  (Sorry, I promised, I know...)  Spending over $200 Million to help fifty people is pretty silly when you look at it from a larger scale.  Or pretty much any scale.

2.  The 2005 travel infrastructure bill (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users), that contained this earmark was a lot like a big money bag that was essentially left unwatched by the very people that we elect to watch the purse-strings of the big "moneybag" we give them each year.  Put in that position, which of us would have had the strength of character and commitment to selfless service to take our hands out, and say, "Wait a minute - this is absurd.  I'm not taking any because this is against my principles as a conservative steward of this money."? (Hint:  He's running for president, and his name doesn't rhyme with "Yo Mama."). 

To demonstrate exactly how much of a "maverick" a representative must have been to vote against this bill, the vote in the Senate was 91 to 4.  The vote in the House was 412 to 8.  For the record, the other three senators who voted against this bill were Senators John Cornyn, R-TX, Judd Gregg, R-NH, and Jon Kyl, R-AZ.

3.  Sarah Palin was elected Governor of Alaska in 2006.  When was this bill signed into law?  August 2005.  She had no power to influence the passage of the bill, or the execution of the law until a year after its passage.  She stopped the utilization of those earmarked funds and redirected them into something useful that still fulfilled the intent of the people she lead and represented:

"Ketchikan desires a better way to reach the airport, but the $398 million bridge is not the answer. Despite the work of our congressional delegation, we are about $329 million short of full funding for the bridge project, and it's clear that Congress has little interest in spending any more money on a bridge between Ketchikan and Gravina Island. Much of the public's attitude toward Alaska bridges is based on inaccurate portrayals of the projects here. But we need to focus on what we can do, rather than fight over what has happened."

and: 

"Gov. Sarah Palin said Friday the project was $329 million short of full funding.  'We will continue to look for options for Ketchikan to allow better access to the island,' the Republican governor said. 'The concentration is not going to be on a $400 million bridge.'"

When you evaluate her reaction, consider the fact that she inherited, not created, an embarrassing pork-barrel almost-scandal and was forced to deal with it, and make hard decisions for which she would be (and is being) held accountable.

4.  And just for some perspective, the money for the bridge came from the so-called, aforementioned "Highway Bill," allocating just under $300 Billion (with a 'B') funding for transportation infrastructure among all fifty states, as well as a typically egregious amount of earmarks for "pet projects" and "special interests".  John McCain was one of the most vocal critics of the ridiculous earmarks included in this bill, which was passed by a Republican legislature, and signed by a Republican president.  Now, according to a Washington Post article from around the same time:

"The vast majority of the measure is geared toward road construction and public transit projects,"

but that,

"hundreds of millions of dollars will be channeled to programs that critics say have nothing to do with improving congestion or efficiency: $2.3 million for the beautification of the Ronald Reagan Freeway in California; $6 million for graffiti elimination in New York; nearly $4 million on the National Packard Museum in Warren, Ohio, and the Henry Ford Museum in Dearborn, Mich.; $2.4 million on a Red River National Wildlife Refuge Visitor Center in Louisiana; and $1.2 million to install lighting and steps and to equip an interpretative facility at the Blue Ridge Music Center, to name a few.'"

Here's the actual bill: [CLICK HERE] which includes the "earmarks."  See if you can find a few (hundred) that might make you a little angry.  Seriously, look through the list of dollar amounts, and for what they're being spent just to get a sense of how Congress treats our money.  It's like one of those "Cash-Grab" game shows where contestants are put into a phone-booth-sized chamber to see how many dollars they can grab before time runs out.

CONCLUSIONS

Like I said before, make up your own minds on this one.  It's not as simple as the media says it is.

In the course of researching the so-called "controversy" about the "bridge to nowhere," I managed to learn a little about the history of the U.S. Interstate Highway system, and how the annual "Highway Bills" have been some of the most despicably-abused, pork-stuffed appropriations bills we've always passed into law.

Except for one momentous year:
 
In 1987, despite blistering criticism from the press, Reagan vetoed a similar, $88 Billion "Highway Bill" because it contained over 150 "special projects," saying, ''It is distressing that Congress would turn legislation needed to meet nationwide highway and transit needs into a vehicle for special interest projects..."[1] and, more succinctly: "I haven't seen this much lard since I handed out blue ribbons at the Iowa State Fair."[2]

This was the first time in U.S. History since the inception of the perennial "Highway Bill" in 1916, that we did not pass one (I could be wrong on this...  Check it out yourselves.).  As Senator Moynihan (D-NY) said in 1987, "A year without a highway program is like a year without a summer."

But our highways didn't explode or rot away in 1988, and we're still taking cross-country trips in our cars today.  Vetoing earmark-filled "highway bills" was something that only one president had the intestinal fortitude to do, and only one of our current Presidential Candidates has the integrity to vote against them.

I don't think that Sarah Palin has done the perfect, right thing in every decision she's made in her recent, short career as a leader.  But few leaders in our history ever have.  I haven't always agreed with John McCain's Congressional voting record.  But since when has any effective leader made everyone happy?

What we need from our elected leaders is to know that they share our core values and ideals.  We need to know that they're willing to fight for our best interests.  And we need to know that they can admit when they've been wrong. 

Despite the media's efforts to the contrary, the "Bridge to Nowhere," demonstrates that both John McCain and Sarah Palin possess these qualities. 

The "Bridge to Nowhere" has, in fact, led me to the conclusion that John McCain and Sarah Palin are just the kind of leaders our country needs.