The REAL Inconvenient Truth

Recall the teachings of the Pontiff of Global Warming Propaganda, Al Gore, for which he received acclamations, millions upon millions of dollars, and even an Academy Award. His documentary, “An Inconvenient Truth,” spelled out, in no uncertain terms, the apocalyptic doom that awaits Planet Earth and its denizens unless we all reduce our collective carbon foot print.
While Gore is definitely the most “prophetable” of the doomsayers, he is certainly not the first. In fact, Gore’s propaganda is nothing more than a re-tooling of the same alarmist nonsense that the communist wackos in academia were regurgitating to the world thirty years ago.
From 1968 to 1985 Paul Erlich predicted that:

• Without forced population control “hundreds of millions of people are going to starve to death.” (The Population Bomb, 1968)
• That “England will not exist in the year 2000.” (Ibid)
• “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct. Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish.” (1969)
• Because of “overpopulation” there will be a scarcity of food causing the death rate to “increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next 10 years.” (1970 interview in Mademoiselle Magazine).
• “By 1985 enough millions will have died to reduce the earth’s population to some acceptable level, like 1.5 billion.” (1969)
• “By 1980 the United States would see its life expectancy drop to 42 because of pesticides, and by 1999 its population would drop to 22.6 million.” (1969)

Of course within a few years it was obvious that Erlich’s predictions weren’t going to come true… ever. No one with any common sense was going to alter his or her lifestyle to accommodate Erlich and his communist friends, so the liberal elitist communists tried a different approach. In 1972 people and groups like the Club of Rome began predicting the coming new ice age. It seems there was so much carbon going into the atmosphere it was blocking out the sun’s warming rays, and soon habitable farm regions would be frozen over and become unable to produce food and other resources. (Erlich was quick to jump on the bandwagon). The world was warned that it was about to run out of food, oil, gas, lead, zinc, copper, tin, and uranium.

The leftist Carter administration issued a global forecast predicting that “the world in 2000 will be more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically … and the world’s people will be poorer in many ways than they are today.” Once again it didn’t take long for most people to realize that the once “settled” science of global cooling was nothing more than bovine excrement.

By the 1990s and the ascendancy of another Democrat president the” Prophecy” was altered again, but this time the end as we know it would be ushered in by man-made “global warming.” A supposed hole was found in the ozone layer over portions of the southern hemisphere. Global Warming Enthusiasts went wild with more dire predictions. Governments used the man-made threat to raise taxes and alter industry. Some businesses were unable to absorb the cost of these “necessary” changes and are no longer with us today. As temperatures warmed in the mid to late 90’s the liberals clamored for more “change,” more government intrusion.
Today, thanks to some Russian hackers, we now know the REAL inconvenient truth: that the socialist-minded purveyors of global warming have been purposefully manipulating data to “trick” people into believing in “climate change.” They even went so far as to destroy the original temperature data from the last 40 years; they only have the temperature data that they altered by recording temperatures that were cooler than they actually were 30 to 40 years ago, and temperatures that were warmer than they actually were up to 10 years ago, simply to make it look as if the world was genuinely heating up. The truth is that their record keeping has been a sham all along. Their new scientific method (taught now to all school children it seems) is akin to telling us that “the science is settled: 2 + 2 = 5!”

What you need to know is that this “Climate Change” propaganda is being shoved down your throat for a very simple reason: wealth redistribution. The rest of the mostly-socialist world is poor precisely because they are socialist, or some form of Marxist. The same communists who were peddling the B.S. thirty years ago are still the ones peddling it today for the sole purpose of taking your money from you, under the guise of helping others around the world. Al Gore is now a billionaire due to his climate change peddling. Too many turds; frozen turds; boiling turds. Sure, there are some new faces in the crowd, namely the Obama administration, but the propaganda is still the same crap.
I think we need to give our current government a good flushing come 2010 and 2012.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell - Libs attacking again!

Read this article!

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/11/11/DADT_Likely_To_Be_Part_of_Defense_Bill/
Ok… this is how the Dems do things. Imagine what is going to happen next year when conservatives oppose this measure. The Democrats will claim that the Republicans are weak on national defense. They will claim that the Republicans care more about ideology then they do the troops in the field in places like Afghanistan and Iraq. The Lame-Stream Media will side with the Democrats. This is exactly how they handled the federal budget during the Reagan years: after shelving 7 out of 8 of Reagan’s budget proposals, then attaching pork barrel projects that Reagan was forced to veto, and then claiming Reagan cared more about ideology than the nation.

And according to Frank, he’s only doing what they always do. I agree, if by “they” he means lousy liberal Democrats who care more about ideology then they do the morale of our troops, i.e. our nation.

This article claims that Clinton’s “Don’t ask don’t tell” policy was a ban on gays serving openly in the military, which is completely wrong. There has ALWAYS been a ban on gays in the military because that particular mental disorder affects, dramatically and negatively, morale. The Clinton administration allowed gays to serve in the military – they just had to keep their disorder, or sickness, or “preference” to themselves. In other words, his policy was a first step towards removing the ban against people who suffer from this mental disorder. I served our nation in the U.S. Navy for 6 years. Nothing destroyed morale more than the escapades and flamboyant attitudes of the effeminate. We had to share berthing spaces, restrooms and work spaces with them and our only two concerns were: 1) that they kept their sick personal lives to themselves, and 2) that the military take every precaution to ensure that straight soldiers, sailors and marines don’t get infected by aids, which still affects, predominantly, gays. Of course, the only way to ensure #2 is to ban gays completely from the military. In a nutshell, the Clinton administration only helped to weaken the military in order to score brownie points among his pink constituents. Of course, since Clinton was a draft dodger it’s doubtful that he cares about weakening the military.

I was serving at the time that “Don’t ask, don’t tell” became official policy. Trust me when I say, the over whelming majority of military personnel were against this policy – and knew that it was just the first step – or rather, another incremental step in the overall process of liberalizing away our nation’s moral principles towards Socialism. And the gays that were serving? They were thrilled. They were jubilant…and for the same reason. And make no mistake about it, while no one was asking, they were all TELLING, vociferously. The Clinton policy would be more aptly named, “Don’t ask, don’t yell.”

And at a time when we should consider expanding the ban to include Muslims, why is Barney Frank so eager to get this passed next year? With the economy in the dire shape that it’s in; with REAL unemployment at 17.5%, higher even than at the outset of the Great Depression, our nation at war with jihadists inside and outside of our country, why is repealing “Don’t ask, don’t tell” so important? I think you’d have to be a completely witless moron not to see that Frank knows the Democrats are out next year, and he’s desperately doing anything he can to ram through the most destructively liberal legislation while he has the chance.

No News Is Good News

White House senior adviser David Axelrod kicked off the latest Democrat campaign strategy on October 18th by telling ABC’s George Stephanopoulos that the Fox News Channel is “not really a news station.” The sentiment was summarily repeated by numnerous White House officials from Chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to White House senior advisor Valerie Jarrett to (inhale) Assistant Deputy Secretary of Energy for Fossil Energy and my good friend, Christopher Smith.
As with most liberal, Democrat offensives, truth appears to be a casualty in this war of words.
Granted Fox News leans to the right, and heavily, but despite the accusations made by those on the left of Fox’s inaccuracies, Fox has been far more accurate than any other cable news network and mainstream news organizations like ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, NPR, Time Magazine, News Week, The New York Times, the Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, the Chicago Tribune, etc. The truth itself, it would appear, is part of some “vast right-wing conspiracy.”
The last time I checked, government scandal or the appearance of impropriety by government agencies and employees was news. Watergate was big time news. The pardoning of Richard Nixon, reported on viciously by those mainstream news organizations already listed, cost Gerald Ford the election in ’76. Yet these same “news” organizations sugar-coated the disaster that came to be known as the Carter Presidency. They left no stone unturned, even imaginary ones, when trying to pin Iran-Contra on Reagan. It was Reagan “shutting down the government” for vetoing the pork-laden Democrat budgets, and not the fiscal irresponsibility of the Tip O’Neal gang. George Bush senior was excoriated by the media for raising taxes while Bill Clinton was treated with the softest pair of kid gloves ever imagined. It wasn’t that he committed the felony crime of perjury that was important; it was that the “vast right-wing conspiracy” wanted to punish him for being on the receiving end of some extra-marital attention.
Is mass voter registration fraud by ACORN, a supposedly unbiased organization for which Barack Obama worked not news? Or the fact that ACORN representatives (in ALL locations tested) were willing to assist a supposed pimp and prostitute establish a residence to use as a brothel? Or that they were willing to help given that the prostitutes in this establishment were going to be 13 year old girls, and illegal immigrants? Or that these ACORN employees were also willing to help them commit tax fraud and keep them from getting caught? Or that ACORN was going to receive 8.3 Billion tax dollars from the Obama administration under the guise of “stimulus” spending? Is it not newsworthy to provide video-tape footage proving the racist beliefs of government employee Van Jones who was appointed by the President without Congressional approval? Or how about all the Obama administration officials who have been exposed as tax cheats who are now too numerous to mention?
And did I mention the government takeover of one industry after another? Healthcare “reform” that really is going to cost what conservatives and Fox News say it will? And that will contain provisions to fund abortions just as conservatives and Fox News said? And that will provide measures to extend healthcare to illegal immigrants just as conservatives, Fox News, and Joe Wilson said!?
In my book, all of this information, brought to light by Fox News and suppressed by all other “news” organizations, is not only news, it’s exactly what people want to know if and when it occurs. It’s why Fox news is beating the pants of all others; the viewers aren’t as stupid as the Obama administration seems to think we are. Liberals don’t like Fox News and Talk Radio because they ARE news organizations – and they are effective. If Fox News isn’t news, than the old adage is perfectly true: No news is good news!

Ideological Agreement - Sort Of

People on either side of the political spectrum are voicing outrage over the disclosure made by Irene Vilar in her new book “Impossible Motherhood: Confessions of an Abortion Addict” in which she confesses to committing 15 abortions in a 17 year span – almost one per year, almost every year of her adult life. She tried to get pregnant just so she could get abortions!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1220095/American-abortion-addict-15-terminations-17-years-publishes-memoir.html
Here are a couple of the statements of outrage:

“What a stupid selfish woman. I am pro-choice yes, but this takes the mick. Abortion is not birth control and it shouldn't be used as such.” - Rachel, Plymouth.

“I'm not against abortions, but this is just messed up. Who in their right mind would purposely get pregnant just to abort the child and then have the nerve to write a book about it!?”- Dee, Cardiff

I for one am glad that both sides, excepting the most rabidly fanatical leftists of course, have been so vocal in their disgust, so glad in fact, that it is very difficult for me to risk trampling on that bi-ideological spirit by saying what follows. But then again, I am only stating the obvious.

The leftists who have expressed outrage still appear to be confused. On the one hand, as you have seen from their comments, they are disgusted by the actions of Irene Vilar, yet they all proclaim their support of the “freedom to choose.”

This is a clearly disingenuous position that the liberals accept and promote because they have divorced the rhetorical description – “freedom to choose” - from the specific action of “abortion.” One must really wonder if liberals really believe in the “freedom to choose” because, generally speaking, they work to block choice on almost every other issue, such as voucher programs that give parents the ability to choose their children’s schools, curriculum, teachers and text books.
Choice in healthcare – that is, allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines – is blocked by the very same liberals and their special interests that work so hard to suppress school choice.
One hallmark of liberalism is that concepts leftists promote, such as “choice,” or “fairness,” or “liberty,” are very often not at all what they clamor for. What choice does an unborn child have? Is it fair to use the weight of the federal government to plunder from (tax) an earner, ostensibly to spread the wealth around to those who haven’t earned it? Is emancipation from all moral restraint really the kind of liberty we should be championing?

Here’s a question: Why are these liberals who support a “woman’s right to choose,” upset with Irene Vilar? Her actions represent the logical conclusion of the abortion mentality and, mark my words; she will not be the only one. She was only exercising a so-called “right” that they still admittedly support!
What is it that they find so disgusting? I’ll tell you. They know in their twisted heart-of-hearts what abortion is. The “freedom to choose…(wait for it!)… to abort unborn children” is not the same thing as choosing to have a tumor removed. There’s a unique and innocent human being involved who doesn’t get to have a say in the matter. They are outraged because they know the action itself is reprehensible. Liberalism is the salve for the conscience that permits them to judge whether or not the unborn are indeed human beings based upon the desire, or lack thereof, to give birth, and not upon scientific facts. The question I would pose to all of my liberal friends is: What difference does it make to you if it’s 1 or 2 abortions, or 15?

The Faces of Conservatism ~ Smartuckus Fends Off Race-Card Attack...AGAIN

Racial tension is nothing new, but based upon the goings-on in the media - namely the hysteria coming from the left – it appears as though such tension is getting worse since the election of the first black President. Conservatives rightly point out the Left’s obsession with race and the absurdity of the accusations of racism levied against conservatives whose only "crime" is to disagree with the Obama administration. Liberal black leaders go so far as to say that using the term “socialist” to describe Obama’s policies is tantamount to using the “N” word.

On September 11th of this year I wrote about Gertrude Baines, one of Obama’s supporters who had passed away from old age. She admitted to voting for Obama because of race, and the article I referenced mentioned her favorite foods: fried chicken, bacon, and ice cream.
Earlier today a liberal (who I must call "anonymous liberal" because he/she lacked the courage to provide a name) expressed offense, suggesting that my blog post was “racist and inflammatory,” apparently due to the old racial stereotype concerning fried chicken and watermelon. The poster indicated that such racism was “typical” of conservatives. (See for yourself: http://smartuckus.blogspot.com/2009/09/obama-loses-another-supporter.html#comments).

The only thing typical was the liberal’s lack of integrity and propensity to play the race card. Obviously the moron took my remarks out of their proper context. And to that moron I would like to say: I’ll bet you wish you would have read the article, don’t you!? Well, you can’t have it back now. Everyone gets to see that you are an idiot. And as I pointed out in my response, he (or she) was not the first person to accuse me of racism over that particular blog, and for the very same reason. But the first anonymous comment was so profanity-laden it was unsuitable for publication.

Conservatism is not racism. Allow me to illustrate. Senator Robert Byrd (Democrat, West Virginia) was a card-carrying member of the Ku Klux Klan. Liberals support him to this day. Senator Albert Gore Senior (Democrat, Tennessee) voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. He gets a free pass in the annuls of time because his son is the pontiff of the eco-religionists. Neither of these men are (were) conservative.
On the flip side, here are the faces of a few conservatives:

Clarence Thomas, Supreme Court Justice, and one of my personal heroes.

James Golden, Producer and call-screener for the Rush Limbaugh radio show - yes, the RUSH LIMBAUGH radio show. He goes by the name Bo Snerdley.









Michael Steele, Chairman of the Republican Party

Michelle Malkin, conservative author and TV personality.

Walter Williams, Professor Emeritus George Mason University, author, and radio personality.



Are these the fces of some "good-'ol-white-boy" political party? I think not. And there are many more: J.C. Watts, Harry Alford, Michael Medved, Mark Levin, Mona Charen, and Alan Keyes just to name a few. Conservatism, contrary to how it is portrayed by hateful and small-minded liberals, embodies a set of principles that are common to the most diverse group of people. Conservatism is focused on the merits of a person's actions, and not the color of his skin.

Whoever you are "anonymous liberal," put that in your sock!

And The Award Goes Tooooo...!!!

A friend of mine asked me, sarcastically, about the “big announcement” today. You know, that Barack Hussein Obama (Mmmm mmm mmm!) had won the Nobel Peace Prize? He went on and on about how it was ridiculous for this reason and for that reason; his halted speech - an indication that he expected me to jump in and commiserate with him - became animated and perplexed by my silent and widening grin.
“You have it all wrong,” I told him. This is a remarkable accomplishment – one that no other human being could have pulled off.
When I think of esteemed past winners of the Nobel Peace Prize I am reminded of great people like Jimmy Carter, who may yet (current president not withstanding) go down in the annuls of time as the worst United States President ever), Al Gore, the “Global warming kook” – see Hillman, I really can spell the word kook! - Yasser Arafat, a Palestinian terrorist, and a host of other liberals who have spent a lot of time and hard work on symbolic (and virtually meaningless) gestures.
True to his (self-imposed?) messianic image, Barack Hussein Obama (Mmm mmm mmm!) won the award without having done anything! That’s right! He has been awarded for accomplishing nothing! He was nominated for the award in early February after a whole eleven days in office. At the time, the biggest news story was that Rush Limbaugh had stated he wanted Obama to fail.
Perhaps I am not giving credit where credit is due. After all, Obama did work from early November ’08 until January 20th in his capacity as “President-Elect.” He even stimulated the economy by having some sign making company make him a sign that read, “The Office of the President-Elect.” Is it possible that he was awarded the prize for his having accomplished absolutely nothing during that whole phase of his career? Maybe.
All-in-all it’s not a bad start for Obama. He’s won the U.S. Presidential election and the Nobel Peace Prize, (not to mention an honorary degree from the University of Notre Dame) within the same calendar year, and I for one think that his performance thus far – not as President of course – makes him a shoe in for an Academy Award!! He is far more convincing in his role than either George Burns or Morgan Freeman.

The good news for conservatives is that this new anointing could not come at a worse time for the Obama administration. They know that he has done nothing to deserve the award – although most people think the award is meaningless nowadays given the list recent winners. Mark my words; the White House is reeling over the embarrassment. You can bet that Obama’s own staff (not the Kool-Aid drinking sycophants) is starting to snicker behind his back.

Vast RIGHT-wing Conspiracy?

The fear-mongers are at it again. A couple weeks ago Jimmy Carter came out from whatever spider hole he’s been hiding to portray those opposed to creeping socialism (you know, the kind espoused by the Obama administration) as racists. Now, according to Bill Clinton, the “vast right-wing conspiracy” is at it again: http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/09/27/clinton.conspiracy/index.html.
It’s funny; not only is there no such conspiracy on the “right,” all evidence illustrates that the vast conspiracy exists on the left. Indeed, the diabolical forces we know as liberalism have been at work for over a century, and the leftists have gained power and control over just about every institution we Americans hold dear.
Our traditional churches have suffered the effects of liberalization to the point that they resemble, doctrinally, the antithesis of those traditional religions. The Catholic Church was a once respected institution; loved by many, despised by many, but always respected. Who can say that today? The great liberal experiment known as Vatican II has turned the Church upside down. It has become the laughingstock of the world. Its corrupt bishops and cardinals, including the current Bishop of Rome, have protected predator priests instead of their child victims. Who would respect any institution whose leadership included Joseph Ratzinger, Roger Mahoney, Walter Kasper, Bernard Law, Francis George, and a host of others who knowingly violated every Catholic moral principle by not only hushing up the crimes of their subordinate priests, but allowed them to continue to “serve” and “minister” to children.
Our schools are nothing but centers of liberal indoctrination. While government beauracies are in charge, and with ever-increasing property tax rates, most parents simply can’t choose which school to send their children, which text books should be used, nor which teachers should (and shouldn’t under any circumstance) be employed. The teachers unions and school administrators are liberally educated and are exerting more and more influence over children and young adults than ever before, no doubt emboldened by the election of our most radically liberal president ever. The communist propaganda piece, “The Story of Stuff,” is making its way into public schools around the country, and parents are not informed or given a choice to exempt their children from the propaganda. And who can deny the blatant indoctrination discovered at the B. Bernice Young Elementary School in Burlington, NJ: http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&rls=com.microsoft:en-us&resnum=0&q=Mmm+mmm+mmm.+Barack+Hussein+Obama&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ei=Me_ASvS7IJXe8Qb3kNSpAQ&sa=X&oi=video_result_group&ct=title&resnum=4#. And people wonder why sane parents around the country did not want their kids to watch an Obama speech to school children? While it’s true that Reagan and Bush both gave speeches to school children, the interest among school administrators was non-existent. One could not say the same of the Obama zealots parading as teachers and administrators in today’s public schools.
Our government has become precisely what our founding fathers sought to prevent. Activist judges legislate from the bench; the Legislative Branch - rather than work for the people - is willingly enslaved by special interests, working hard to line their pockets and maintain power while depriving hard working Americans of their rightful gains, and our President is hotly engaged in spreading government control over every sector of our economy and our lives, from the banking industry take-over of 2009, to the automobile industry take-over of 2009, to the thus far) attempted take-over of the healthcare industry. Truly what has been a quiet and incremental take-over by liberals is now a full-fledged assault. There is a conspiracy, but it is, without question, a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Obama Loses Another Supporter

It’s a sad day in the world. For the 3rd or forth time this year the oldest living human has passed away. To make matters worse, Barack Obama lost a voter. Gertrude Baines was 115 years old, and as this article (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D9AL80900&show_article=1) explains, she had outlived everyone in her family.
Besides the obvious, there are a couple of note-worthy things in the article, one being that under a government plan Mrs. Baines might have been considered a liability, having sponged off the government for so many years – at least for her social security and Medicare. At 115 years of age she’s been drawing benefits for 50 years! That’s 46 more years than the system was meant to support her – 46 years of welfare! Not that I would have changed that - I’m sure Mrs. Baines was a sweet old lady - but it makes me wonder how her life, especially her quality of life, would have been altered had Democrat authored and controlled Socialized Medicine been in play for those years. Would she have been able to afford her fried chicken, bacon and ice cream with all those “sin” and “sugar” taxes? Key to the currently proposed leftist plans is an emphasis on prevention, which would have undoubtedly excluded Mrs. Baines favorite foods. Under any Democrat plan she may have decided life wasn’t worth it a few decades ago – but not to worry, she would have received her end of life counseling 50 years ago too.
It was interesting to learn that Mrs. Baines voted for Obama “because he is for the colored.” And John McCain wasn’t? I suppose that if we can forgive her having lived on the government dole for so long we can also excuse her racism. Hopefully the next election will be about real issues and not any of the candidates’ skin color or gender. We lost our oldest human relative – that’s sad. But at least Obama has one less supporter.

More "Fear-Mongering" from the Right!

“The Pandemic Response Bill (2028) was passed by the Massachusetts state senate and is now awaiting passage in the House. This bill would give state authorities the ability to forcefully quarantine citizens in the event of a health emergency, compel health providers to vaccinate citizens, authorize forceful entry into private dwellings and destruction of citizen property and impose fines on citizens for noncompliance.
If citizens refuse to comply with isolation or quarantine orders in the event of a health emergency, they may be imprisoned for up to 30 days and fined $1,000 per day that the violation continues.” (WorldNet Daily: http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=108604)

Why such drastic (and unconstitutional) measures? The proponents of the bill will claim that these measures are for the good of the people, but we’d be foolish to forget that Massachusetts is also the only state in the union that has adopted socialized medicine, and is of course suffering the fiscal fallout for having made such a stupid choice. The state run healthcare system is innately incapable of sustaining itself in the event of a medical pandemic.
This cuts right to the heart of the current healthcare debate, not to mention every bit of incrementalized socialism adopted by this nation under the guise of “reform” in the last 75 years.

When Social Security was being debated prior to its passage in 1935, people like James A. Emery, chief counsel for the National Association of Manufacturers, Thomas A. Jenkins, Representative of Ohio, Allen Treadway of Massachusetts, and John Taber of New York were some of its most vocal critics. They were the political/social oracles of their day, predicting that Social Security would become a welfare program within a decade (which it did), that it would undermine or cause the elimination of better private pension programs then in existence (which it did – when was the last time you heard of a pension plan offered by a company not affiliated with a union?), that creating a government run pension would create dependency on government and a national attitude of entitlement (which it did), and that it would shrink the economy and increase unemployment (which it did – unemployment went from 17% to 25% before settling back down to 17%). Despite the modern misinformation that passes for History these days, the New Deal and all of FDR’s creeping socialistic programs did not end the Great Depression - in fact they probably made it last longer. It was World War II that saved our economy. All of the predictions of FDR’s opponents have come true despite the Roosevelt Administration’s promises and reassurances to the contrary.

So too will come to pass all of the dire predictions of Obama’s opponents. Government control of healthcare will lead any state body to trample the constitutional rights of the people in order to keep costs down. If the legacy of FDR’s agenda doesn’t convince you that government run programs are a bad idea, then the current police state being created in Massachusetts should!

Shamalot – no more.

The Democrats no longer have 60 seats today. One of their number - Senator Ted Kennedy - has gone on to face his eternity. Let’s hope that God’s mercy toward him is greater than Kennedy’s toward the unborn. I take no pleasure in his passing, but maybe Divine Providence has had a hand in his timely removal from the Senate.

Kennedy was a primary supporter of “healthcare reform.” (English translation: Socialized Medicine). Virtually everything Kennedy said was either a lie or it was simply not true. Chappaquiddick was not the beginning of his surreptitious career as many people might think. As early as 1964-65 Kennedy was working hard to alter the makeup of the United States. His Immigration Reform Act of 1965, under the guise of equality (which we all support), paved the way for many of the immigration problems we face today.

In 1965 Kennedy stated his bill “contrary to the charges in some quarters, will not inundate America with immigrants” and “will not cause American workers to lose their jobs.” Well, that is precisely what happened. Kennedy was the main force behind the amnesty granted in 1986 that was supposed to end illegal immigration and penalize businesses that hired illegal immigrant workers. Well Senator Kennedy, we’re waiting!

Kennedy also confidently predicted that no immigrant under the new system would become a “public charge.” Ha-ha. That one is laughable. Today there are so many immigrants drawing welfare in one form or another we can barely count them. We have more people on welfare today than entire populations of some other countries. Indeed, people immigrate here legally or otherwise specifically because of welfare programs that liberals (especially the extreme left-wingers in the ACLU) work hard to make available to them.

Most recently Kennedy wanted to convince us that healthcare, even for those here illegally, is an inalienable right. He told his constituents: “contrary to the charges in some quarters” healthcare reform [sic] will reduce the costs of healthcare without compromising quality of service. Given his track record, not to mention that of his fellow liberals, do you really believe a single (slurred) word that came out of his mouth?

So long Ted!

None So Blind As Them That Won’t See

New York Governor David Paterson thought he had an ace up his sleeve, but it turns out that all he had was the race card. Racism among Democrats has been particularly noticeable now that the Democrats have captured majorities in both houses and the White House, whether it’s Pelosi condescending to Alford, or Paterson blaming his failure on the racism of his constituents.
On Friday August 21st Paterson lamented that the chorus of people who believe he should not run for election next year want to keep him out of the race, not because the economy in New York is worse than in other states, or that the average New Yorker pays more in taxes than do people from just about anywhere else on the planet (and for ever-diminishing results), but because he is black!
“We’re not in the post-racial period,” said Mr. Paterson, according to an article posted on The Daily News Web site, which cited an interview the governor provided to a radio program hosted by Errol Louis, a Daily News columnist.
“The reality is the next victim on the list, and you can see it coming, is President Obama, who did nothing more than trying to reform a health care system,” Mr. Paterson said.
Nothing more than trying to reform a health care system? That’s like saying we tried to eradicate AIDS by eliminating all those infected with HIV. But alas, that’s not the point here. The point is that I am sick and tired of all the racism coming from pretend victims of it. Paterson didn’t stop there though. He stated on Monday, August 24th: "Part of what I feel is that one very successful minority is permissible, but when you see too many success stories, then some people get nervous." Paterson may be blind, but he is not color blind. And to be honest, I don’t think he is very intelligent. I am not sure which is the greater tragedy. If only he could understand that people don’t care about his skin color – they care about the color of money, and too much of it is being taken from them because of fiscally irresponsible policy.
If it isn’t people like Barbara Boxer condescending to Harry Alford, it’s people like Paterson claiming victim status when in reality he’s only a victim of his own poor performance. And this isn’t anything new. Remember Georgia Representative Major Owens claiming in 1994 that 200 million Africans were killed on route to the United States? That the ecology of the ocean was forever changed and as a result sharks are still swimming the route of the the slave ships in search of human flesh?

This sort of thing would be truly hilarious if it wasn’t for the fact that these ridiculous claims impede race relations. Mindless comments such as these give fodder to hate groups like the KKK and any other stupid skin head operation out there. And by questioning them; by pointing out how ridiculous claims like this are, one risks being branded a racist by other kinds of hate groups like Nation of Islam, ACORN, or for that matter, the Democrat party.

Just Trying To Do My Part

According to Fox News, "The White House is under fire for a blog post asking supporters to send "fishy" information [regarding the healthcare "reform" debate] received through rumors, chain e-mails and casual conversations to a White House e-mail address, 'flag@whitehouse.gov'."

Well, I think it's a good idea! Forget Fox News! I wanted to do my part to pass on the names of web sites that contain suspicious and misleading information, so I sent the following email:

Comrades,

Please focus some of your attention on the following web sites and persons of interest who are passing along information that is both false, and damaging to the President and his goal of Socialized Medicine.

http://www.democrats.org/ is a fairly pernicious site because although it looks semi-official, it is full of misleading statements concerning the public option and those who are against it.

http://www.dailykos.com/ - the people here are not only spreading lies about the healthcare debate and those opposed to socialized medicine, they also are very angry and have no sense of humor at all. Dishonest and hateful? Not a good combo. Perhaps they need to be watched a little more closely. If Janet Napolitano is right, this outfit must be made up of a bunch of angry white veterans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ - these guys were a little better. I believe the indignation described by David A. Harris over President Obama being compared to Adolf Hitler was justified: those two look NOTHING alike. However, I think that it is disingenuous and even racist to make comparisons like this based on looks. The fact that Obama is a dyed in the wool socialist (Nazi IS an abbreviated form of National Socialist German Workers' Party after all) lends a lot of weight to a comparison based on political ideology. And couldn't you say that Hitler started off as a community organizer?

And I would be remiss if I forgot to pass along a most troubling site; http://www.moveon.org/. But I probably shouldn't say anything disparaging about your most influential investor.

Robert Gibbs is the face of a propaganda machine that spews misinformation on a daily basis. You might want to give him a once-over.

Yes, something is definitely fishy over at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Kind of makes you think that Mrs. Paul is the First Lady, and not the lovely Michelle Obama.

Bill Maher: Possibly the vilest human being on the planet.

My wife and I were channel surfing the other day and we did something that we swore we would never do (again); we stopped surfing long enough to see what socialist provocateur Bill Maher was talking about. As usual, he was emitting the same kind of inflammatory propaganda that was popular in Germany circa 1939. I am not saying that Maher is an anti-Semite; I am saying that he is a foul, loathsome, offensive, and deceitful socialist.

Maher’s HBO show is a delusory diatribe that feeds the moral and intellectual worthlessness of his fellow socialists who watch it. What aroused the ire of my wife and I was his incendiary attack on the insurance industry, portraying it as a greedy institution, accumulating wealth on the backs of the suffering and the miserable. Illustrating the absurd hypocrisy of the extreme liberal, he expressed a yearning for the return of once abundant Catholic hospitals that treated the poor and the needy; Catholic hospitals that were a part of a once great institution that Maher’s style of vicious liberalism helped destroy decades ago. Indeed, wasn’t it Maher ridiculing all religions, especially Catholicism in his flop of a hateful movie, Religulous?

True to his deceptive nature, Maher offered up a false chestnut of a statistic to prove that healthcare in the U.S. needs to be socialized: "When it comes to life expectancy, the United States is ranked 50th!"
The underlying suggestion is that the U.S. healthcare system is inferior to other nations such as Canada, which is socialized. Why is the life expectancy lower? Because of infant mortality rates. And the infant mortality rates are higher in the U.S., not because we have more babies dying, but because of how most other nations calculate that particular statistic. In some countries, a severely premature infant is labeled a fetal death instead of an infant death. Not in the U.S. In many nations, if a child dies within 24 hours of birth, it is labeled a stillbirth. Not here. Social and cultural factors - including maternal drinking, drug use, and age - are key to infant mortality and have little to do with access to or quality of health care. In America, infant mortality rates are sky high (five times the national average) on Indian reservations (which have publicly financed health care by the way through the Indian Health Service) and quite low in places like Utah and Washington.

Furthermore, there are other international comparisons that are more useful. Consider five-year survival rates after a cancer diagnosis. Unlike infant mortality, which is confounded by definitional and cultural factors, cancer survival rates are a pretty good measure of the quality of a health system. These numbers aren't perfect either. They are affected by factors like the uninsured in America (25 percent of whom are illegal immigrants) who tend not to get early screening for cancer and have more advanced cases at the time of diagnosis. The data that follow are accordingly all the stronger.
The journal Lancet Oncology has reported that American cancer patients live longer than those anywhere else on the globe. Betsy McCaughey, former Lieutenant Governor of New York and a health statistics numbers cruncher, interprets the Lancet's (and other) findings as follows:
American women have a 63 percent chance of living at least five years after a cancer diagnosis, compared with 56 percent of women in Europe. For American men, the numbers are even more dramatic. Sixty-six percent of American men live five years past a diagnosis of cancer, but only 47 percent of European men do. Of cancers that affect only women, the survival rate for uterine cancer is 5 percentage points higher in the U.S. than the European average, and 14 percent higher for breast cancer. Among cancers that affect only or primarily men, survival rates for prostate cancer are 28 percent higher in the U.S., and for bladder cancer, 15 percent higher.
The British Health Service keeps costs down by rationing care through long waiting lists for service. The Manhattan Institute's Dr. David Gratzer reports that an estimated 20 percent of British lung cancer patients considered curable when they were first placed on the waiting list for chemotherapy or radiation were incurable by the time they obtained treatment.
An argument often advanced by single payer advocates is that nationalized health care leads to more preventative care. But an analysis by the Commonwealth Fund found that American women are more likely than those in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand to get regular Pap tests and mammograms. In Great Britain, men do not start getting screened for colon cancer until age 75. In the U.S. men are urged to get their first colonoscopy at 50.

As usual, Maher (like every single liberal I know) won’t let the facts get in his way. He banties about words like "reform" to describe changes that are more properly called "destruction." My wife and I are going back to surfing past Maher’s show, not because we’re close-minded, but because we’re going to insure ourselves against the intellectual euthanasia he’s pushing.

The Devil is in the Details

When it comes to legislation coming out of Washington, discerning citizens of the United States (i.e. conservatives) are hungry for details. Despite the fiery rhetoric and the fabricated urgency of the Democrats - especially that of President Barack Obama - to pass legislation before even reading it (as was the case with the failed stimulus), word is filtering down to the masses that socializing medical care will have the opposite affect than that being promised by “the One.”
It isn’t conjecture on the part of Conservatives that government-run healthcare will be a disaster – the proof of that fact can be witnessed in every nation and state where it has been foisted on the people. People come to this country for medical treatment; they do not go to Canada or Great Britain.

Watching the healthcare debate is like watching a tennis match: ridiculous and impossible promises are served up by the liberals and the conservatives are volleying forcefully, the power of fact behind every sure swing. The score is currently Love – 40, but it isn’t over yet.

For the right side to win, people need to know the details! Hopefully it isn’t going to be good enough for the democrats to put a little “race card” or “poor card” spin on the ball like they usually do, (as was seen even from the President himself the other day, fielding a question about the Louis Gates fiasco when supposedly talking about his government run healthcare plan). There are actually liberally-oriented spectators in the stands this game. They include the unemployed, still waiting for their promised stimulus. They are the Hollywood types who are starting to realize that they will be taxed into relative (to their current status) poverty. They are accountants and economists who can’t reconcile Obama’s uncontrolled spending to any sort of fiscal responsibility unless they use the kind of funny math that Tim Geithner and Tom Daschle use to calculate their own personal tax debt. Now if we can just get the run-of-the-mill liberal out there to look at the facts instead of the buying into the liberal propaganda spoon fed to them by the loonies at Huffington Post and MSNBC, we might actually be able to use this attempted socialist take-over to our advantage.

"Dirty Harry" Alford

“I know what you’re thinking: did he fire six shots or only five?” Well, to tell you the truth, he pulled the rug right out from under Senator Barbara Boxer’s two leftist feet.

“Dirty Harry” Alford (as far as I know, I am the first to give him the moniker and I really hope it sticks), the CEO of the National Black Chamber of Commerce, eviscerated Senator Boxer during hearings for the so-called “cap and trade” bill, during which Boxer tried to give Alford a little black-for-black tit-for-tat. Oh, the arrogance of those liberals!

(See for yourself at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE_jGD5nZ6U&feature=related)

Of course, everything “Dirty Harry” Alford said was spot on. But another reason I want to make Alford my hero (move over Joe the Plumber!) is his recent comments on the Bill O’Reilly show. In response to O’Reilly’s comment that, “Senator Boxer would say she loves black people and would always vote to help them,” Alford responded, “She loves poor black folks, and she loves black folks in their place.”

(This is a must see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TM2CESBe6M)

Bingo! Not only is that a ringing indictment of Barbara Boxer, but the entire leftist establishment, which condescends to keep minorities dependent on government handouts. This is exactly the kind of backlash I wrote about earlier, and I think it’s going to really start catching on, and it would make my day to walk alongside “Dirty Harry” Alford.

"Crisis" Word Drinking Game!

I for one am getting really tired of all the doom and gloom. I remember part of the Democrat strategy during the '08 campaign was to portray Republicans as "Doom and Gloomers." To me it looks like Chicken Little is leading the Democrat party. According to Salena Zito at The post Chronicle (http://www.blogger.com/www.postchronicle.com), had we "played a 'crisis' word-drinking game,"(during any of Obama's speaches) we "would have temporarily lost all brain function by the end of them."
So why is it that every program the Democrats want to ram through Congress is designed to confront (yet) another looming catastrophe? According to Rahm Emanuel, Obama's chief of staff (Nov. 9th 2008): "Rule one: Never allow a crisis to go to waste." The Democrats have been faithful to "rule one" ever since, spinning every agenda item in the Socialist's Handbook into a crisis in order to convince people to expand government control (relinquishing their freedoms in the process), and giving up more of their money (or rather, other people's money) in the form of higher taxes. In February of '09 Barack Obama said that failure to act immediately on his economic aid plan:

"will turn crisis into a catastrophe and guarantee a longer recession. Millions more jobs will be lost. More businesses will be shuttered. More dreams will be deferred."

In reality, failure to act immediately meant that the pork-laden bill was never completely read by a single Senator or Congressman before it was passed without support from one House Republican. And to date, there has been a net loss of millions more jobs (unemployment nearing 10%).
Obama stated many times in the first few months of his administration that a government takeover of General Motors was the only way to save the country from another financial crisis. "GM can't be allowed to go into bankruptcy," he said. Yet come June, once GM was owned by the government and the UAW, having defrauded stock holders out of millions in the process, Obama was urging bankruptcy onto the very same company. Was the crisis averted, or created?

Al Gore said on July 7th 2009 that public awareness about the "catastrophe" of climate change is not high enough to pressure politicians into taking action. "We can berate politicians for not doing enough and for compromising too much and for not being bold in addressing this existential threat to civilization." Even Great Britain's Prince Charles stated last week that the earth had only 96 months (that's 8 years to you liberals) to survive if we (meaning tax payers of course) didn't do something to stem the tide of "Global Warming." [insert the words "the Angry Gods."] Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) chairwoman of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has intimated the same fears about the demise of the world as she continues to push for a cap and trade bill, despite the testemony of 650 scientists who challenge the claim that "global warming" [insert "the angry gods"] is man-made. Meanwhile, temperatures around the globe continue to drop to record lows.
Healthcare is the latest crisis, not the trillion dollar deficit and shrinking economy caused by these spending programs. (Yes, Bush had it wrong on this one too). And according to Vice President Joe Biden, if we don't spend trillions more on a national healthcare system the nation is going to go bankrupt. It's hard not to laugh about this, but it's true! Speaking to an AARP gathering (scaring old people silly no doubt) on July 16th '09 in Alexandria Virginia, Biden said:

"And folks look, AARP knows and the people working here today know, the president knows, and I know, that the status quo is simply not acceptable, It's totally unacceptable. And it's completely unsustainable. Even if we wanted to keep it the way we have it. It can't do it financially." And "We're going to go bankrupt as a nation."

Come again? How are we going to spend our way out of the red and into the black? In what strange universe is that even possible? Isn't it all the spending that's actually bankrupting us? Maybe I need one of the "52 per centers" to explain it to me, because the Donkeys in Chicken Little clothing running the socialist... I mean Democrat party sure don't make any sense. I may have to resort to playing the "crisis" word drinking game just to help get me through these difficult times.

Government Healthscare

Abby Goodnough, writing for the New York Times covers the plight of the Boston Medical Center, which finds itself on the losing side of “Universal Healthcare,” and is thus suing the state of Massachusetts to recover the millions of dollars it has been forced by the state to give up.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/16/us/16hospital.html?_r=1)

I am not writing in defense of the hospital – in my opinion they deserve exactly what they’re getting because they supported the state’s socialist coverage plan. You reap what you sow! It's not like there weren't thousands of people out there telling them that socialized medicine has not worked as promised anywhere it has ever been tried! And who is going to suffer as a result? Eventually all of the poor and uninsured will; all those that the state was supposedly going to help, because at this rate Boston Medical Center won’t be able to operate. The staff will be the first to flee, quality of care will suffer as a result, and then all but the poor will go elsewhere, maybe to hospitals in neighboring states. After various cuts the Center will eventually close, and the necrotic tendrils of the government plan will squeeze other hospitals out of existence too.

And this is the plan the Democrats in Congress (and in the Oval Office) want to imitate on a national level? I’ll tell you who is going to be really upset, the Canadians! They can’t be too happy about this at all. Where are they going to get health care once we adopt their system (and that of Massachusetts)?

The Gods Must Be Crazy

A shameful article this week from Joseph Miti in The Monitor (allAfrica.com) begins: “The Karimojong blame the spell of calamities like drought and disease to the ‘angry gods’. Little do they know that their area is suffering the consequences of a larger problem, climate change.”

It might just as well have been stated: “The Karimojong blame the spell of calamities like drought and disease on 'climate change'. Little do they know that their area is suffering the consequences of a larger problem, the angry gods.”

Environmental “scientists” use the term “climate change” now, because they can no longer use the term, “Global Warming.” Why? Because empirical scientific data shows that the earth is now cooling in harmony with our sun’s reduced solar activity, indicating that man has nothing more to do with global warming than all of the angry gods of Environmentalism combined. Not only have temperatures dropped to 1930 levels, but in 2007 it snowed in Baghdad for the first time in centuries. According to the National Snow and Ice Data Center at the University of Colorado, satellite measurements from January 2009 show an increase in arctic ice of over 200, 000 square miles over satellite data gathered in January, 1980. Antarctic sea ice in the austral winter was the greatest on record since James Cook discovered the place in 1770.

Only in a crazy religion like Environmentalism could “cold” mean “hot” and “hot” mean “cold.” Miti is obviously just another Kool-Aid drinker following in the footsteps of the Apostle of Environmentalism, Al Gore, whose proselytizing has parted many a fool from his money. I wonder how many enviro-acolytes we could bring back from the brink if we substituted the words, "angry gods" for "climate change"?

The Backlash is Looming

Get ready for the backlash. People are beginning to wake up and smell the …ahem … coffee.
A portion of the 52% crowd – those who voted for Obama in ’08 – is finally realizing that Obama’s machinations, (and those of the rest of the fringe left) aren’t bearing the promised utopian fruit for which they had the audacity to hope. Some of them may actually begin to connect the dots to see that the current administration’s socialist agenda is directly responsible for the worsening fiscal crisis we face. The Obama administration is making, in my opinion, a series of mistakes. I’m not just talking about the giant mistakes like seizing control of banks, mortgage companies, General Motors and of socializing medicine. I’m talking about the strategic political blunders they’ve made since winning the election, the first of which is that they haven’t stopped campaigning. We’re almost as tired of Obama’s televised addresses as we are of the Michael Jackson news coverage.
Secondly, his administration demeaned itself by attacking conservatives such as Rush Limbaugh and incessantly pointing the finger of blame at the “previous administration.” A poignant reminder: the “previous administration” defeated the recession it inherited from the Clinton White House by cutting taxes.
To make matters worse for the Democrats, everything they have worked hard to do illustrates perfectly well that they are every bit the socialists that conservatives have said they are. The largest spending bill in history (so far!) was voted on by both houses of (Democrat controlled) Congress without having been read. The public aren’t happy about how the money is being wastefully spent, especially since the economy is getting worse, not better. And with Goliath-sized deficits, no one is being fooled any longer by the press’s attempts to convince us that an economic upturn is just around the corner.
Despite the campaign rhetoric of its beguiling leader, this administration is far less transparent than any administration of recent memory.

On foreign policy it appears that Obama hasn’t met a socialist or tyrant he didn’t like yet. Israel is no longer the ally of choice in the Middle East it seems. Just as we are giving billions of stimulus dollars to corrupt domestic groups like ACORN, we’re also giving billions in aid to organizations who are nothing but front men for Hamas. And does Obama even realize that he’s walking around with Iranian egg on his face following the sham election of June 12? The bromides and promises of respect looked silly and uninformed as the regime's goons sped through Iran's streets on motorcycles beating demonstrators with batons. And just like socialist-dictator-to-be Hugo Chavez, Honduran president (and fellow socialist) Manuel Zelaya tried to illegally remove the term limits imposed by the Honduran constitution, for which Hondurans faithful to their constitution rose up and expelled him. True to his socialist nature, Obama is supporting Zelaya instead of the Honduran people and their constitution. At least the Democrat party had the common decency to introduce legislation to repeal our 22nd amendment, instead of just letting Barack redact it from our Constitution.

Obama’s excuses are starting to wear as thin as the color of his skin, and those who voted for him simply because he’s African American are going to be some of his biggest detractors come 2012. It is sad and unfortunate there are still people who judge others because of skin color, but the fact remains that everyone likes the color of money. As the government starts confiscating more of everyone’s money through new taxes, a lot of his 2008 supporters won’t even bother to make it to the voting booths in 2010 and 2012.

In Dependence Day

I just celebrated the 4th of July, and what a good time it was! But with the ascension of “The One,” and his administration’s systematic dismantling of our freedoms and rapid push toward socialism, it was perhaps our last, good INdependence Day.

I’m guessing that, if the current trend continues, the 4th of July will pass into the foggy mists of our distant memories. Rather than celebrating the birth of the greatest nation humanity has ever witnessed, I think that we are well on the way to eulogizing it. Instead of grilling hot dogs and hamburgers on the July 4th (grilling contaminates the atmosphere with co2 and must be done away with), we’ll be eating grass and shoe leather in solidarity with our fellow comrades around the globe on May 1st, the International Workers Day – our new fangled “In Dependence Day.”

And why wouldn’t we celebrate? The burdens of healthcare (rationing), child care (rationing), housing (rationing), food (rationing), and fuel (rationing) would all be taken off of our individual plates and placed firmly into the hands of the government of the United States of Amerika, of which Barak Obama will still be president, or commissar once they get around to changing the title. We’ll have the pleasure of contributing 80% of our time and income to a government that will take care of 60% of the people 75% of the time!

Michael Jackson, R.I.P.

Anyone that knows me also knows that I am not a fan of Michael Jackson. I did like the young, “cool” front man for the Jackson Five, but I got sick of him during the Thriller years. What was supposed to be a 15 minute video surrounding the hit song, Thriller, in my recollection, went on and on for about two straight years and spawned an inaesthetic fashion trend that went on even longer.

This year has been especially bad for Hollywood; Ed McMahon, David Carradine, Bea Arthur, Farrah Fawcett, Karl Malden, Dom Deluise, and of course, Michael Jackson… and the year is only half over!

We’re all saddened by these deaths. Yes, Jackson and company were talented, and in some cases part of the nightly T.V. routine, but is that really why so many people are grieving? The level of news coverage over Jackson is almost as bad as that for O.J. in ’95. They could probably beat it (no pun intended) if Jackson's L.A. funeral procession was slow, and the casket delivered in the back of a white Bronco (and in his case the glove DID fit), but is it really necessary? Seriously, just when I started to long for those tacky infomercials Billy Mays passed away, no doubt from boredom!
I'm inclined to think that the passing of Billy Mays may be far sadder and have greater ramifications because his heir apparent is Vince Shlomi, the Shamwow guy.

The real reason we are saddened by these deaths is that they remind us of our own mortality. It doesn't really matter how they died; only how they lived. Jackson and Mays departed this life at the somewhat tender age of fifty - Farrah went before her time too - reinforcing the image of Death as a thief in the night. So I am confused over the Jackson clamor and all the people trying to steal the spotlight. Don't they get it? Jackson’s death should be a reminder to us all to live every day as if it were our last.

Introduction

Hello World! At least what's left of it. This is my first - of many, I hope -blog post. My name is Chris, I am a conservative, and I just wanted to start out by saying "hello."
The purpose of my blog is to motivate conservatives into action, and to try to convince those who supported Barack Obama and all his fellow socialists that his agenda is bad for the nation, despite his artful rhetoric.