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.

Obama economic advisor Robert Reich recently made a few comments about economic stimulus.

At one point, he advocated paying out stimulus money for jobless relief in...  Food stamps.  Yes, as Reich calls it, it's "a two-fer."  Because people need food, and we need to make sure they spend that money, so we'll pay them in food stamps.  Here's the quote:

"Food stamps. Talk about a way of getting money to people they will spend, they will spend -- you know, the more people are in need the more likely they are to turn around and spend whatever money they get. Again, a two-fer."

No seriously, how about we pay people in "_____" stamps?  That way the government can totally control everything we buy.  There's no "saving" anymore, just "stamps."  Need shoes?  Well, just spend your "shoe stamps."  Need a high-definition TV?  Well, just pool your family's "LCD TV stamps," and get one.  Forget "money" or "gold," or "objective value."  It's all stamps.  Stamps, stamps, stamps.  Need to mail a letter?  Go to the Post Office with your "Stamp Stamps" to buy some stamps.  Need to buy some of those ink-stamps for your office?  Well, just go to Office Depot with your..  uh..  "Stamp Stamps..."

OK, so there are still a few kinks to be worked out, but this system is genius, and so is Rob Reich.  All Hail Obama the Emperor.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/01/22/obama-adviser-stimulus-shouldnt-only-aid-white-male-construction-work

Apparently for the first time in fifty six years and fourteen presidents, President Obama chose not to attend the official Salute to Heroes Inaugural Ball.  Half of the surviving Medal of Honor recipients were there, but I guess Beyonce, P. Diddy and Queen Latifah were less boring than those crusty old "heroes," so Obama went to the "Neighborhood Ball" instead.

http://www.blackfive.net/main/2009/01/the-one-blows-o.html#comments

Priorities, priorities...

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.