No Running Near The Talent Pool...

The recent, ‘almost a car bomb’ incident in Times Square is garnering a lot of attention. Understandably, there's a fairly pronounced risk associated with detonating an explosive in the middle of a packed New York City. Yes, there’s live coverage galore, but for all the wrong reasons. I thought about this for a while, and I’ve come to the conclusion the always-present, always limp-dick media heavies are wasting their time.

I’m an erstwhile ‘journalist’ (I even have a slightly dulled Bachelor's degree to prove it), so I have an odd sort of predisposition toward analyzing stories and their relative newsworthiness. Is a story interesting? Is it topical to current events? Does it compel the reader to search for more information? Will the story stand on its own, or will it have to be padded, gun-decked and pencil-whipped without shame?

Those are the lead-off questions (or variations on a theme) that editors in news rooms often ponder the moment a story hits. In the case of the SUV-bomb, parked and waiting to dole out fierce retribution to New York’s population of infidels in payment for America’s outrages committed against Islam, there would seem to be plenty of newsworthiness to go around, right? Well, sort of.

There’s the trusty old ‘clash of the cultures’ angle;

'The lone freedom fighter, striking a blow for oppressed Muslims everywhere, and doing it in the heart of the Great Satan’s back yard (Lefties love this stuff)'.

There’s the obvious vulnerability of American citizens to terrorist attack -- a real grabber on the best of news story days.

Wait – sorry. I didn't want to say ‘terrorist attack.’ I meant to say,

“Isolated, alleged act of potential violence, as-yet unproven, and totally unrelated to any blatant cow-towing or ass-kissing we’re working with the Islamic Republic of Iran.”

That's better -- can't be throwin' the "T" word around lightly, you know.

And the political slant, let’s not forget that. The President, now gratefully distracted from those pesky details of that thing happening down in the Gulf of Mexico, will surely face heavy public scrutiny from detractors, aiming to connect his administration with another episode of embarrassing security failures.

Naturally, questions about the President's overall grooviness will be countered by somebody at the Washington Post, who'll write:

“If the President’s crack security forces, headed up by Homeland Security Secretary, Janet “don’t call me Cabbage Patch again” Napolitano hadn’t pounced so quickly and effectively, it would’ve been 9/11 all over again,” blah blah yadda yadda yah.

It won't matter that Car Bomb Boy was sitting in his seat aboard an Emirates Airlines A330, taxiing merrily along on his way down to runway 31R at Kennedy Airport before somebody figured out who he was (a big shout-out to the TSA blue shirts who passed him through without blinking an eye).

But all this is hardly surprising, nor does it dig deeply enough into the story to root out the real reason the Times Square bomb scare is so interesting. Nowhere have I seen a newspaper, television network or blog site identify the part of the story that’s really compelling, which is, of course, the state of affairs within al Qaeda’s terrorist hierarchy.

Why is that important to a car bomb story? Here’s why: they must be running out of ideas, or worse yet, qualified car bomb guys, to have mounted so stupidly planned and amateurish an adventure as this.

Somewhere in the Middle-East, huddled in a Bedouin’s tent, four or five al Qaeda big-shots are squatting, shoveling dates and rice into their faces with greasy hands and foot-long beards. They’re disgusted, embarrassed and just plain pissed-off. An underling is reading from an Al Jazeera account of the search for, and ultimate arrest of, our little Pakistani-connected terrorist wannabe.

The story details evidence collected by New York authorities, which further shows just how idiotic the plan really was. Suddenly, one of the al Qaeda masterminds looks up, greasy mouth agape, still full of half-chewed, curried goat meat, and says, “Are you kidding me?” The others pause and look at each other with raised eyebrows, hoping somebody will have an answer.

“You mean to tell me this moron tried to ‘blow up’ New York City with a shitty, pre-owned Nissan SUV full of firecrackers and a couple of bags of Turf Builder? Seriously?”

Silence for a moment, then a lieutenant finally says,

“Well, yeah, Chief – he parked it right in Times Square where a lot of infidels hang out; it was a really good spot!”

The Chief blinks a few times, puts his grubby food down on the dusty floor of the tent, and shakes his head.

“What the fuck is going on here?” he thunders, “You idiots are making us all look bad!”

The lieutenant hopes to quell the Chief’s rising anger. “He’s not one of the first-string bomber dudes, but we figured we’d give him a chance to prove himself – he seemed so genuine in his desire to kill infidels, we just couldn’t tell him ‘no.’ And anyway, his uncle Raheem has a discount store in London, and they can get Nike stuff really cheap, so we told him he could have a go.”

The Chief is dumb-struck.

“HE USED FIREWORKS AND LAWN FOOD, YOU STUNNED PRICK!” he yells. “What happened to integrity around here, anyway? We brought down hotels! We brought down embassy buildings! We used their own airliners to bring down the World Fucking Trade Center, and this jerk-off just lights an SUV on fire?!!!”

“Hold on, Chief! We told him to get his bomb design blueprints from our secret web-site – they have a link on MSNBC’s home page and everything! Just because he took a few short-cuts doesn’t mean it was a total failure!”

The Chief tries to calm himself. It always goes in one ear and out the other with these fools, he tells himself. Have to speak slowly – s l o w l y. Keep the voice down; concentrate!

“Look,” he says, “I’m not trying to discourage initiative or anything, but there are larger problems at issue here. Ever since our glorious victory at the Twin Towers, we’ve started to slide. Osama, peace be upon him, has gone into hiding because every American devil on the planet wants to kill him.”

“You mean Obama?”

“No, Osama! O-s-a-m-a! Osama bin Laden? The Boss? Big guy with effeminate mannerisms and really huge lips, remember? Pays all the bills? Hello, numb-skull?”

“Oh,” the lieutenant says, “I just thought you meant…”

“Keep quiet, dumb-ass!” The Chief’s patience is going away. He continues.

“Just because the Boss has been forced to lay low for a while doesn’t mean we’re free to send anyone we want to do these jobs. There are standards, ya know, and there’s gonna be hell to pay when he hears about this!”

The Chief has everyone’s attention now – he knows a timely application of bin Laden name-dropping works like a charm.

“First, you sent that dumb-ass British guy with the scraggly beard and steel wool hair – the one who thought burning his shoe on an airplane was a good idea? What was his fuckin’ name…

“Reid.”

“Yeah, ‘Richard Reid,’ the ignorant prick. He’s an idiot! But then you scrounged up some Nigerian kid and told him to line his drawers with explosives! I don’t know which is worse, the fact that you were stupid enough to dream up a plan like that, or that he was too stupid to tell you all to piss off! Did you happen to notice how bad that made us look?”

The lieutenant and the others can only look down at their reeking sandals – no way they’re getting off easy this time. The Chief is on a roll.

“And now, you let a complete half-wit buy a car, on Craig’s List, no less, and build a shitty excuse for a bomb that didn’t do anything except smoke up the place and stink to high heaven? And you let him do this in Times Square to boot? Where every American will get to see this and have a great snicker?”

“Well, the plans looked pretty authentic when we reviewed them, and he even had this…”

“Shut up, stupid!”

“Yes sir.”

“Now, you ignorant shit-stains had better listen to me and listen good. NO MORE MORONS, do you hear? They’re laughing at us in Kabul, and they’re laughing at us in Karachi – the infidels are laughing at us in Kalamazoo, dammit! The next time you send a car bomb dude to America, he better have his head and his ass lined up, understand? I’m gonna hear no end of shit from the Boss as it is…”

The Chief gets up to go outside for a pee, leaving the lieutenant and the lieutenant’s lieutenants behind to reflect on their future with the company, and the obvious, career-limiting consequences if the next attack doesn’t bring spectacular results. And that brings me to the point.

Either one of two possible scenarios dominates my view of this lunacy. The first is probably more serious than the second, but it circles a possibility that al Qaeda might not be what it once was. We don’t get the full intel brief on the impact of Predator drone assassination hits (nor should we, for that matter).

We can only enjoy hearing about another dink getting his pre-paid, one-way ticket to "Allah’s Paradise Bar and Grill" when a Hellfire missile shows up. It’s at least possible the net effect of continued attacks on terrorist leadership structures has had a deeper result than we know. Saddam had everyone thinking his linen closet was packed to the rafters with WMD, and we all believed it, so why would this be any different?

You can recruit new morons every day, but you can’t stick them into senior roles (with the necessary risk exposure) overnight. It takes time to build a proper al Qaeda ‘career,’ and a lot of that seems to have been rooted in old boy network sentiment. “He’s been around for a long time, so he gets to be the big-shot.” They don’t get their stripes by blowing themselves into shreds and tatters at age 22.

The second possibility is slightly more rewarding, from a mean-spirited point of view like mine. Maybe, just maybe, the thinning of the ranks has resulted in a necessity to throw in the Junior Varsity losers. Perhaps they don’t have many decent car bomb dudes just now, and until they train a new crew, the dullards and glory-seeking amateurs will have to suffice.

The possibility doesn’t bode well for the Movement’s international operations, of course, but it might be a signal to the West to pour on the firepower now, while we have the chance. The obvious answer is, and has always been, kill every al Qaeda guy you can find. Use any method you can, profile and discriminate, persecute and torture, make them watch re-runs of The Flying Nun – everything’s ‘on the table’.

You would think there would come a point at which there isn’t enough senior planners to keep things running, and the lack of discipline among the newbies will ultimately lead the hunters to the whole lot of them in the end.

Kill off the big-shots faster than they can be created, and shooting the underlings won’t be so difficult, and serious attacks on the West may decline perpetually.

All of which begs these two questions:

Are the al Qaeda boys running out of talent, or are they just getting a lot more stupider? I would like to think it’s the latter, but reality is easier visited on the former. Makes me want to become a lobbyist for Raytheon (or whomever constructs Hellfire missiles) when I grow up.

There’s a splendid irony to all this, too. How nice that the stupidity of TTNG (Terrorists, The Next Generation) is becoming more pronounced than the stupidity of the Obama administration’s Homeland Security pretenders! Is there hope for us yet?

Brevity, Watson, brevity...

In the few hours since my last post, tens of complaints have been streaming in over the wires about the excessive length of my pointless, droning diatribes (that means you, Alex). I am launching an investigation into these serious charges as part of my new, carefully planned move to become 32% less tedious in 2010. My staff believes a thirty to forty-percent reduction in tediousness can be achieved by cutting my posts down to the size of most newspaper stories. My staff is also fond of watching re-runs of "The Flying Nun."

Since Alex, and other keen observers, has pronounced my piercing socio-political commentary as "a little bit long," perhaps he'll appreciate the terse, clipped nature of this public service message announcing my Reduced Tedium Initiative 2010, or "RTI 2K10."

I'm currently researching my next post, which I pledge will be "a little less long," just to make it easier for viewers to digest in one sitting. Complaining, know-it-all viewers like Alex, I mean.

Look for the new edition in a matter of days. (not available in stores...)

Questions, questions...

In the words of General Douglas MacArthur, an over-hyped blowhard only slightly less abominable than me, "I have returned." I won't waste your time telling you why it's been nearly a year since my last post. Suffice to say I was distracted by other concerns. Naturally, this is simply codeword play in a feeble attempt to avoid coming right out and admitting that I didn't give a shit. But now, it's time to re-ignite the Fire.

I take a minor hiatus, return to this worthless blog-type thing, and what do I find? A country even more polarized than it was when I dropped off the face of the Earth. Why? Because Senators and Congresscreatures from the Democratic Party are either deaf, indifferent or willfully negligent, depending on your point of view.

In this hectic week, the persistent health care reform debate, and subsequent passage into law by several swipes of Mr. Obama’s three hundred ceremonial pens (what’s with all the pens, anyway?) has made us unwilling onlookers yet again to what seemed an endless national train wreck as Democrat Representatives struggled to balance their professional survival with their, well, their professional survival. Huh? It sounds bizarre, but that is what we see.

Politicians are nothing if not self-serving, self-promoting, self-centered, self-conscious self-addicts. In short, they really do embrace the first rule of political life: Win and hold power. No one is surprised by this, and it's hardly a revelation, but its injunction points to an astonishing display of murder/suicide behavior that is equal parts aggravating and worrisome.

From one end of the Democrat side of Congress to the other, representatives found themselves in between the proverbial mortar and pestle. On the one hand, a significant majority of their constituents made it clear they’d had enough. They're outraged, and they're motivated to express that anger in voting booths next November. Two-thirds of Americans simply did not want this approach to health care reform, yet Dems in the House and Senate have given our people the collective finger. Those same people aren’t laughing, and they’re not in the mood for Congressional sleight of hand.

Their message was clear: 'stop shoving us closer and closer to the edge of an abyss no one wants to explore, or your job isn't worth a plug nickel.'

As this majority of the electorate holds in its hands the political careers of so many Representatives and Senators, simply because they outnumber the partisan liberal morons who will vote for Democrats without regard for consequence, that message holds weight. But there’s trouble in Beltway Paradise.

The Democrat leadership (so-called) in both Houses is adept and ruthless in the art of back office arm-twisting, and their agenda is markedly different. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D), California, and her bumbling counterpart in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D), Nevada, have no interest in the almost certain fate of their troops. Their expectations were stark and stone cold: 'vote in support of Obama-care or else – if you vote against us, your days as a Democrat politician are over, end of story.'

Not a comfortable spot to be in, but one they've occupied ever since the new Administration took office more than a year ago. In short, we've seen this before, but despite the GOP’s most fervent efforts to blunt Obama-care, passage was achieved after a stunning display of blatant, out-in-the-open corruption that would make the most callous Tammany Hall architect wince. Under siege from the voters back home (the precise reason the Tea Party movement sprung from the grass), yet threatened with excommunication from the liberal church, should they shrink from the task at hand, Democrat Reps were forced to choose between one brand of Hara Kiri over another. Either way, this would end badly for them, and it was clear they knew it.

At the eleventh hour, with a razor-thin vote hanging in the balance, a sub-set of the celebrated “Blue Dog Democrats” emerged as the last hurdle for Obama to gain passage, or the last hope of defeating the reform bill for Republicans in the House, depending on who you talk to. Led by Michigan Congressman, Bart Stupak, a small but pivotal group of pro-life Democrats momentarily held up the show over moral concerns that Federal money (our money, to be precise) would be used to pay for abortions.

Stupak’s crew balked at signing off on the bill, signaling the possibility of snatching victory from the jaws of defeat to hopeful, but still skeptical GOP Reps. In the end, the thin ruse was both transient and transparent. In the end, Stupak caved. So much for moral convictions. If you ever wondered about giving Blue Dogs a break, hoping they were reasonable, marginally honest people disguised as Democrats, wonder no more. They’re whores, no better than the radicals they pretend to be separate from.

As then-Prime Minister, Neville Chamberlain returned from a 1938 Munich summit with Adolf Hitler, he did so armed with a piece of paper proclaiming that Great Britain and Germany would never go to war with one another. “Peace in our time,” he said. When Nazi panzer divisions roared across the Polish frontier almost exactly one year later, signaling the beginning of the worst conflagration in human history, Neville figured out what everyone else already knew – pieces of paper, carrying the guarantees of liars and insane men, guarantee nothing.

Mr. Stupak was obviously out sick the day they taught WWII back in school.

As we looked on in the most perfect, staggering level of amazement, Brain-Dead Bart announced that he had obtained an extra-special Executive Order from the very huge and powerful President himself, guaranteeing Fed money (remember, that means our money) won’t be used to fund abortions. How noble. We can envision the exchange, fictional though it may be.

“I promise, Bart – I’ll never use Federal money to pay for the termination of those pesky little fetal lives the superstitious fucking Republicans are always screaming and crying about,” the President might’ve said.

Bart maybe thought about that for a while, and said, “Promise? Cross your heart and hope to die? ‘Cause they’re going to kick me in the nuts when I get back to my district if I vote for this shit.”

The President could’ve nodded solemnly and said, “Yes, Bart – I really really really promise – just get on board already.”

Just then, the bright red Bat Phone from Nancy’s office lit up, and Bart answered, “Yes, Madam Speaker?”

“Hi, Bart. Some of my people told me you’re talking to the President, and I just wanted to let you know how it will feel to have both of my stiletto heels removed from your ass if you even think about voting ‘no.’ Do we understand each other, Bart?”

Bart swallowed and blinked a bit, glancing nervously at Brother Barack, who simply smiled and nodded with raised eyebrows, as if to say, “Don’t even think about it, mo-fo.” Bart knew his best option was to smile back and get on with it.

“Well, okay, I guess,” said Bart, thrilled with the sudden currency he’d gained in the form of a power-packed, vitamin-enhanced Executive Order (from the historic president, no less). Now he’d be able to show all his constituents an iron-clad reason why he ignored them and sold their futures down the river, yippee!

Of course, Congressman Stupak’s “Chamberlain Moment” was lost on no one. He rolled over for a hollow promise unworthy of the scrap of paper upon which it was printed, perhaps merely for the convenient excuse it would afford him for doing the Administration’s bidding in direct contradiction to his district’s wishes. He also turned a blind eye to his so-called principles and a lot of the people in his district who believed he represented their interests, and he did so with a straight face. Bluntly speaking, Mr. Stupak is Mr. Stu-pid. He was bought off with bullshit and a measured application of fear, nothing more.

But what of the others? What about the members of Congress who (to their slight credit) never wavered on their intent? Those representatives who faced the fury of voters last summer when the truth behind the bill was first revealed? If they didn’t know then, they must surely know now. Barring an outright miracle between here and November, a crushing defeat in a landslide is what awaits a sizeable majority of Congress when the voters finally get their hands around some greasy politician throats.

Why did they do it? Why did they agree to jump from a cliff and prematurely end their careers? For health care reform? Really? The debate was never about health, and not about care – it was (and is) about control and power. Did they say ‘YES!” to this bizarre suicide pact out of allegiance to their Speaker, or their hallowed, historic president? Not likely. No one loves themselves more than politicians, especially over the fortune and folly of other politicians. Are they all radical nut-jobs, bent on the nation’s destruction? I don’t buy that either. So what is it? What would induce lemming-like behavior from a group of narcissists who’ve made a study of self-preservation?

And that is the point of this post.

Conspiracy theorists might argue there may be skeletons within closets these Congressmen and women don't want us to see. They could suggest sins of the past have mounted and collected, such that Her Royal Serene Majesty, the bug-eyed, leering Stepford Speaker is armed with photos of a compromising nature that she wields over their heads (one-legged prostitutes, dildos, goats, you name it), threatening exposure as punishment for failing the Party. I say rubbish -- we're looking at literally hundreds of Representatives, and I find it difficult to believe Nancy Pelosi’s brownshirts and covert operatives could find enough on that many people to give the threat legitimacy. No, it's not skeletons she has, and that leads us nicely into the supposition portion of the program.

Maybe the Democrat majority has simply gone too far, and can’t get back. What if this is nothing more than a sad little group of egotists who've dedicated themselves to a philosophical, ideological absolute, only to find things aren't anywhere near that settled when reality shows up?

Imagine yourself at the highest echelons of liberal, progressive, Democrat strategy. Whether from the Speaker, the Majority Leader, or the shock troops within the newly rebuilt White House itself, there was a common goal, and it had been building for years. The time had finally arrived, and the moment must've been intoxicating to them. We now had an obvious radical in the White House (we shall overcome, we shall overcome…) a Senate and House of Representatives more liberal than any who’ve stood before, all buckled up in their leather seats, all at the same moment. Talk about history!

And let us not forget the power of a squarely left Federal bench. A perfect storm of progressive, radical authority, finally in charge of everything. This is the stuff of a committed socialist/communist/progressive's wet dreams!

So off they went, spending our money and our children’s money, utterly oblivious to a slow-burning rancor from half the voters, the half that never bought into the personality cult and the myth of ‘historic.’ TARP, Stimulus, Health Care “Reform,” et al. Damn the conservatives; full speed ahead! But here’s where the Left took its most fatal wrong turn. They fell prey to the temptation of believing their own bullshit.

With all their blustering and arrogant posture of authority, Democrat politicians, like any politician, are still people -- men and women with just as much capacity for weakness and low character as any pimp or drug dealer on the filthy streets of an urban nightmare. Instead of accepting their newly acquired power with grace and humility, ready to fulfill candidate Obama's promise of a new beginning in Washington, the frailties of ego and arrogance guided the Democrats in ways a few of them must now regret with all their hearts as they stare down both barrels of what might end up being an impending November debacle.

Nobody told them about this part, when they were greedily accepting cool-cool Barack’s campaign support. It never occurred to them that Nancy and Harry and Mr. Personality would come calling later on, like a pack of Cosa Nostra muscle men extracting ‘protection’ money from innocent shop-keepers.

With no one walking along beside them, offering cautionary red flags of warning when the normal, human process of thoughtful introspection is ignored, the Democrats have run, head-long, toward a phalanx of growing dissent among their constituents. Drunk with power, and void of the ability to self-correct, Pelosi and Reid, egged on by a combination of their own sense of self-importance and the ever-present validation of a liberal press, misinterpreted Obama’s election (and their own majority) as a mandate from the people. They incorrectly regarded their majority status as currency to be spent at will, and without concern for the near 50% minority’s opinion. More to the point, the liberal machine mistook the pomposity of campaign success for a signal to begin a transformation of our country into the Utopian ideal they’ve always wanted since they protested Vietnam and Nixon as starry-eyed foamers in college.

As though chained to their seats inside a heavy train, pulled by a locomotive with no engineer at the controls, Democrat Senators and members of Congress are powerless to slow the machine, and the end of the tracks is the side of a granite mountain. It all seemed so cool! It was great fun to stand on the steps of the Capitol, grinning like so many adolescent chimpanzees in the glow of victory. But here they are a year and a half later, getting shot at by pissed-off voters (literally), suffering the numbness and despair that accompanies the surety of knowing they’re about to get canned. What happened?

And there’s the question.

What happened, indeed? We’d love to see that answer revealed because it eludes us still. We’d like to know what compels an ego-maniac to set aside his or her own personal gain, when that product of their efforts once stood above all others, and become willing accomplices to the most shameful abrogation of responsibility in our nation’s history. What was promised in exchange for their cooperation? What was threatened if it was withheld? What would induce you to enrage most of the people you are sworn to represent, ignoring their wishes, and knowing you will almost certainly lose your livelihood as a result?

Logic, for the most part, would naturally seem to us useless when mentioned in conjunction with modern-day politicians, even under the best of circumstances. But as much as we distrust and loathe people who seek public office, there is a consistency to their behavior (or was, I should say) we could always count upon. Modern politics is a wasteland of liars, confidence men, bullshit artists and neurotics who honestly believe in their superiority over the rest of us slobs. To aspire in that direction invites suspicion, sadly. Not all, but arguably most political professionals have a couple screws loose to actually want that kind of life for themselves. We play along because we’re uncomfortable doing the things successful politicians have to do, so better them than us.

Still, the most important ‘quality’ (and I use the term very, very loosely) inherent in the psyche of most Senators, Congressmen/women, presidents, advisors, cabinet members, what have you, is a single-minded dedication to one silver, shining, pristine concept:

Do whatever you have to do in order to win your next election.

That seems so simple to those of us who watch the carnival procession that is politics, yet it was blown away the moment President Obama signed his cherished health care reform bill, officially signaling the beginning (even if temporarily) of transformation.

“This is what change looks like,” he said, with a smugness few can match.

What a costly thing this is likely to be. Not just for the country for all the reasons we already know, but also for the Democrats who voted for this lunacy. In eight months, barring a total loss of memory by American voters, many of the sacrificial Congressmen and women, plus a sizeable number of their brothers and sisters in the Senate, will be given a date by which they must vacate their offices in Washington. Their replacements will want to move their stuff in, you see.

Two years after that, the Historic President will likely become history himself, and having regained control, Republicans (provided they’re slightly more intelligent and savvy than their Democrat colleagues, of course) will begin and continue the long and arduous process of repealing Obama-care, regardless of what the Supreme Court may or may not say on the matter this summer. What kind of reception in this next administration (a conservative administration) will Democrats who sided with progressive socialism against the will of the majority of Americans enjoy?

No Obama Army to catch them when they fall. No Reid, No Pelosi, who will both be relegated to back-bench status at best, and out of Washington at worst, to arrange cushy Government jobs for newly deposed Blue Dogs. No Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod. No none of ‘em. Doesn’t seem like a trip worth taking, does it?

So why did they? Seriously – why have these career politicians become lemmings in expensive suits, diving into the very crevasse they’ve spent their entire professional lives avoiding? Why now? What really went on in those backroom arm-twisting sessions? What was so lucrative to them? Or, what made them so fearful? Watergate brought down Republicans in their hundreds forty-odd years ago. Will this be the real ‘history’ lesson for Democrats? The question isn’t rhetorical. I want to know what was so powerful it could get narcissist politicians to hang themselves with a smile.

Oh, they’ll all gather at the river and argue about Constitutionality and the Commerce Clause until doomsday, while commentators wring their hands and analyze and make their own heads explode. Maybe the Republicans can repeal, maybe they can’t. No one really knows how this will shake out over the next five years, but I cannot free myself from the puzzle’s biggest question. Why, really, did they do it? A pity the Washington Post has no more Bernsteins or Woodwards on staff. What a story this would make, if any remaining journalists were around to investigate it…

Star Power

We're into Obama's second trimester, and I'm still amazed he ever made it out of the Iowa primaries. I once thought Jimmy Carter would go down as the worst president in U.S. history, but recent events have made that notion comical. I understand half the country would quickly hand that distinction to George Bush (part deux), but I beg to differ. GW was wildly unpopular, no doubt, and millions truly believe he harmed us irreparably. But it must be noted that during his administration's eight-year tenure, the United States was attacked by terrorists exactly zero times.

That truth meant little to his detractors, who continue to get mileage out of the idea all the world's problems are Bush's fault. Unfazed, Democrats custom-build excuses for the Obama regime's failed policies with the tried-and-true method of saying, "Obama wouldn't have to behave like a dick if Bush wouldn't have done this or that for the last eight years." How convenient. Nothing like coming into office on the heels of a much-maligned ex-Prez, eh? You get a pass, no matter how stupid, amateurish and arrogant you may be.

Still and all, he did win. We can't change that fact, and we can't expect to undo the horrific damage he's already caused in anything less than four years. In effect, we're stuck with a narcissist who's head is jammed so far up his shit-pipe, he'll need a glass navel to see where he's going.

Why? How did this aberration come to pass? What did we do to deserve this misery? There are multiple answers to the question, including the unfortunate fact that a lot of the dumb-shits who voted for him are too young to remember the last time we elected an asshole of Obama's caliber (that would be the Peanut Boy from Plains).

Quite a few of the brain-dead soldiers in Obama's Army weren't even alive when, on a heartbreaking November evening in 1976, we stared in disbelief as the election returns came in. We watched, transfixed, as the brutal truth was revealed -- America was populated by more ignorant assholes than sane people, as evidenced by their willingness to put a goofy, way-Left Georgia hillbilly into the White House for real.

My mythical presumptions regarding American superiority came crashing down. Weren't we the very good people? Hadn't we saved the entire planet from Fascist domination? Weren't we the smartest, most clever crew ever? Apparently not. We were, as it turns out, a majority of naive pantywaists who bought willingly into the Peanut Farmer's bullshit story of 'peace through negotiations.'

In our country's fatigue after thirty years of the Cold War, Carter's promise to stand down from the dangerous, insane brinkmanship that defined U.S./Soviet relations were irresistible to more Americans than those who saw through the charade and voted against him. It didn't help that incumbent Gerald Ford was reviled for the pardon of disgraced former President Richard Nixon, of course, and Carter won a narrow (very narrow) victory as a fresh face in Washington, full of reform potential in the wake of Watergate. Still, and for whatever reasons apply, we were stuck with four years of Stupid, thanks in no small part to the electorate's inability to see a twit, standing right in front of them. Sound familiar?

But here the similarity to Emperor Obama's meteoric rise to power ends. Carter weaseled his way into office because a lot of people were knee-walking pissed-off at Republicans. Nixon was a Republican. While it's true nearly anyone with a magic (D) next to their name stood a good chance of success by running after the Bush years, that fact alone wasn't enough. Something else operated to win the election for a moron so unqualified and ill-suited to the position. Something way beyond a revulsion of Republicans, or even the assured support of almost every black voter in the country. Something like Star Power.

Sober voters, unimpressed with fad and fashion, tend to vote in terms of economic and national security. Somehow, that tradition went on vacation this time. Instead, a slight majority of the voting population sucked into the glowing persona of an extremist in Senator's clothing. With little information from an adoring mainstream news apparatus, Obama cleverly hid past associations with other extremists and outright criminals, riding the crest of a populist wave all the way to victory.

He had everything the anti-Bush crowd finds important (beside not being Republican, of course). The Emperor-in-waiting was young. He was charismatic (a special shout-out to the inventor of the Teleprompter). He rolled out dreamy, "we can do better" rhetoric with a big smile and a straight face. He was also black. Well, he was half-black, but the distinction isn't noted because that takes away from the magic of the moment. The promise of American equality, come to pass, and that would be something to celebrate were it not for the arrogant asshole who happened to be in the right place at the right historical moment. Frederick Douglass, he ain't.

Somehow, half an entire country walked into the voting booth, dutifully set aside common sense and adult political savvy, and elected a despot -- Emperor Barack the First. Nobody from three of the four major television networks offered up the slightest examination of Obama's questionable past, and less about his dubious qualifications to lead into the future. Instead, his charm, minority status and precious Teleprompter whisked him past the teary-eyed, seemingly drugged faithful like a cult leader in expensive clothing.

"WTF?", we asked. Is this really happening? Chris Matthews all but fell on his knees in adoration of the new Messiah. There was never really any doubt. Even as the newly elected HNIC (Head Nitwit In Charge) Obama loitered around in townhall meetings, accepting the accolades and unquestioning adoration of his followers (would you like some fries with that grape Kool Aid?), we began to witness the startling truth appear, little by little: we didn't get a President; we got a black David Koresh.

Check this out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-88Il-4nby0

Somebody get Blondie a tissue -- she's gonna explode! The saddest part is, our mesmerized wacko in the video clip isn't saying anything that a lot of alleged "journalists" from the major networks wouldn't say if given the chance. I've never seen anything like it.

Is it because the Emperor is just that damn good? Is he so sage and wise in his embarrassingly short political career that the fawning is only recognition of his greatness? Not by a long shot. In reality, he's a very smooth, polished con-man. A snake oil salesman who'll say anything to get his way. Yo Mamma is, in the strictest sense, a dangerous impostor, playing God to half the nation while the other half seethes with contempt as their country is morphed into a socialist republic.

The progressive Left insists that conservative ire is merely the expression of Right Wing racism unmasked. Hack, wannabe actress Janeane Garafalo's idiotic rant on MSNBC to a delighted Keith Olbermann (a noted hack in his own right) told us the recent tax protest "Tea Parties" were populated by "tea-bagging rednecks," based solely on her reaction to one protester's sign. The ugly, fat, talentless Garafalo, less relevant than her role on the popular television series, "24" would suggest, really wants this to be true. She desperately wants conservative America to be welded by racism and hard feelings over the Savior's ethnicity. Unfortunately for her, it's not.

In spite of the Left's insistence to the contrary, a lot of people who rail against the Obama Regime's stupidity couldn't care less about his skin color -- it just doesn't matter to them, nor should it. Most of them didn't vote for McCain because Obama's black (sort of black, at least). They voted for McCain because they were afraid of what Obama would do if he ever got his hands on the controls, and they were right. He could just as easily have been white -- we all hate and revile Joe "where's-my-foot-because-I'm-hungry" Biden, and he's a white boy.

The Left should resist the urge to continually play the race card -- it's not working. Now that I think of it, an almost complete percentage of black voters cast their ballots for Obama. No one will ever be able to convince a rational person a sizeable majority of them did not do so ONLY due to Obama's ethinicity. I'm very sorry to report this to the gathered brothers and sisters at His altar, but THAT IS RACISM, PURE AND SIMPLE. Enjoy your double-standard, you hypocrite morons.

No, this isn't a commentary about race relations anywhere near as much as it is a fight against extremism. Leftist extremism, to be exact. We don't want a King. We don't need a professional apologist, skilled at deprecating our country against our will. We don't want a self-absorbed egomaniac ("I have a gift, Harry") so enamored of himself and his place in history, he'll do anything to maintain that status, country be damned. Half of us didn't want any of those things, yet here we are. That's what Star Power will do for you. That's why it's dangerous and risky to give stupid people the right to vote.

More on this later...

The Mess

It's day two of my seemingly invisible blog experience. Little has changed since Day One. Since exactly no one outside the Razmosphere is aware I even have a blog, the task of blaming others for not reading it and commenting becomes problematic. Instead, I shall concentrate my energies this post on getting myself (and future reviewers) up to speed on one of the crucial issues that compelled me to start this goofy stuff in the first place.

Now, be advised and comforted; what follows will surely appear a wandering, mindless rant, disjointed and pointless, but don't be fooled. It's important to set the stage for future posts that will be almost solely event-driven. Without knowing where we came from, and the course we took to arrive at where we are today, we can't really examine our lot in life and contemplate what should be done to make it better. So stick with me -- it will get interesting as we go, especially when I figure out how to incorporate photos and videos with which to make a point, or to simply ridicule a walking yeast infection I don't like.

Without further ado, here's "The Mess..."

We have a problem. Our country is divided (at least for now) almost equally into separate, distinct political camps. Those who vote for idiots as a rule, and those who vote for idiots as a reluctant mechanism to prevent themselves from voting for really dangerous idiots. The latter is at least understandable, but can be difficult if the idiot you voted for in order to keep from office a candidate you considered a worse idiot backfires, and the idiot you voted for is still an idiot. In the end, and despite your best efforts, can still wind up voting for an idiot. Mitigating the potential risk, or "relative idiotness" of one political hopeful by voting for a different, less offensive idiot is, by definition, still voting for an idiot. Sound confusing? It shouldn't -- the current White House resident enjoyed a lot of votes that came to him this way, while the previous President did likewise in his two elections. Voting against a candidate has become a customary Election Day activity, sadly.

How we came to this unfortunate set of circumstances is a complicated story, and one we'll examine in small, easy to digest segments in the coming months, but suffice to say the country is in a deep tank of reeking turds, and the collective idiots WE voted for created it, or lent a generous amount of help to the effort. It is, one might conclude, a Mess.

Of course, there are so many distinct, yet interconnected pieces to the Mess puzzle, simply cataloguing them would be impractical and mind-numbing. After all, this isn't a history lesson -- it's a blog. Who wants to read about the past when we're trying to avoid being bludgeoned by the present? Instead, we will take license and focus on a part of the Mess few nationally syndicated wonks or wonkettes seem willing to confront. Let's call our first element of The Mess a"Constitutional Divide." This is fundamental to an understanding of how we got into The Mess, even as we prepare to define what The Mess really is, so buckle up -- here we go.

Provided you can still understand the importance of the United States Constitution, which assumes you've taken the time to read it (either wholly or at least in part), a nagging problem exists for a lot of us that confounds our ability to apply those tenets and concepts that compelled the Framers 220 years ago to our modern lives. That 'problem' is the progression of time, and the inevitable separation over the years from those solemn conditions which existed when the Constitution's authors drew up the Articles of Confederation, and the bizarre, image-driven sideshow we live in today.

The Founding Fathers (I don't give a shit if the term sounds gender-biased, archaic or out of date to you; it has meaning for me) wrote the Constitution to survive the test of time. They didn't simply create a form of government and say "hope you like it; you're on your own." Instead, they actually thought about this and gifted the document with a built-in system of change called the Amendment process. They also made it bloody difficult to effect that change, but not simply to dissuade future leaders from trite, fanciful changes. They understood the importance of a free society, rooted in fundamental "unalienable" rights (rights that were not the Government's to grant or rescind), to maintain a connection with the basic principles of Liberty that would not (and ought not) change over time. The inevitable discussion regarding Divine rights as held by the Founders is noted here, but will be saved for another time - this isn't a rant about the existence of God.

In short, the Founding Fathers did much more than successfully break a Colonial group away from the King of England (no small feat in itself, remember), they provided for us a way to adapt and change our new Constitution when the need arrives. But they did so much more when they met to craft and ratify the Constitution; they also built a perpetually lengthening bridge back to that initial, crystalline moment when a small group of visionary and courageous men stood up against the rule of a distant, oppressive and powerful Monarchy and said, 'enough.' They made it possible for us to stand on a foundation of individual Liberties. That meant Liberties not to be jerked back and forth by the Government -- a government THEY created, no less. In a manner of speaking, the Founding Fathers were the first group to really say "power to the people!" Clearly, they were some smart mo-fos.

But the bridge is under assault. Those seemingly unbreakable connections to our Constitution's guarantees of freedom and liberty for the individual are being stretched and stressed with increasing frequency. Some today would even have us ultimately abandon its principles in favor of a modernist, "World Citizenship," unincumbered by the perceived, and necessarily imposed restrictions of nationality or sovereign borders. But before such fantasy can be truly entertained, the twits who long for a land of Kumbaya and rose-colored hugs continue to regard the Constitution as authority to promote Left, socialist change, rather than a guiding set of principles designed to preserve Liberty. Those voices belong to ignorant, arrogant assholes, it goes withtout saying.

Constitutional scholars have long debated its meaning, relative to their own circumstances, and each according to their own beliefs and interpretive skills. Traditionalists hold the Constitution as-written to be beyond reproach. Deviation from its words should be held to a strict minimum, if at all. Modernists, on the other hand insist the articles within were intended to be interpreted generously and broadly -- to be applied with current-day conditions in mind. But that carries with it the potential for disaster. Wide latitude for interpretation leads to more than just modern era jurisprudence; it also runs the risk of opening the door to the eventual diminution and (possible) dissolution of the Constitution altogether. No more 'freedom of anything,' under this insane model. Sounds impossible, but arithmetic and the law of probability say otherwise. Get enough people to rail against a document's meaning, and the document will disappear, given time. The Constitutional Divide works that way...

As an example, consider the ongoing debate so popular among civil rights advocates regarding the validity of the Framers' beliefs (remembering many of them owned slaves, and all of them were devout Christians). Antagonists join the fray and contend that perhaps 'more separates us from the Framers than joins us,' even if that position is founded in the tired 'slavery/Christianity' argument. They say, "How can modern Americans, who are neither slave owners, nor strictly Christian, be expected to walk in-step with the belief systems of those who were?" The question can be asked, from an academic perspective, but it's silly to take it much further because its answer has little to do with why we're concerned with the Constitution under fire today. But for the less educated among us, I will translate:

No one is arguing the merits of slavery. No one believes the United States ought to be a Christian-only nation. Of course our modern lives are, in so many ways, totally different from those led by the Framers -- it's been 220 years! In 1787, they rode around on horseback; we have Bugatti Veyrons. Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence (with a quill) by the flickering light of a candle; we have Jumbotrons, LEDs and LASERs. The Founders sent and recieved letters by a process that took months; we shoot our mouths off via the instant, digital magic of e-mail, "texting," (and dip-shit blogs like this). The nation was founded on several principles, not the least of which was a desire for religious freedom, and in 1776, that religion was Christianity. They were Christians, seeking freedom from persecution for their beliefs. What a surprise our country was founded on Christian traditions!

One could argue that Muslims and Jews, had they been present when the Congress first convened, would've had a say because hearing the voice of many came along with their notions of freedom from the Crown. Unfortunately, that argument is moot because there weren't many Jews or Muslims hanging around Philadelphia at that time We aren't a Christian nation by exclusive, purposeful design, as Israel is a Jewish nation, so get used to it, all you secular jerk-offs! There's a difference between the norms of life in 18th Century America, and a desire to exclude one religious group over another. Please, liberal idiots, figure it out.

What about slavery, then? How could the Founders speak of the Liberty of some men, while coldly denying it to others? Shouldn't we question the intent of those who saw nothing wrong with keeping another human being against his will as little more than an implement or tool of convenience? You could question that intent, if you're a moron and want to hold those who lived two centuries ago to the same social and moral standards by which we live today. But doing so opens us up to equal scorn by future generations who may look down on us for the perceived crimes of oh, let's see, pet ownership, consuming alcohol, or watching an organized, contact sport. And while I'm on the stupid subject, consider this:

Most of the Framers wore wigs. Most of the Framers shit through a wooden plank into a hole in the ground. Most of the Framers drank Laudanum (an opiate) for a headache. Most of the Framers saw nothing wrong with marrying a close cousin. One of them (Alexander Hamilton) was killed by a man in a duel, solely for the preservation of honor. Sounds slightly barbaric by our standards, doesn't it? But wait, there's more to the story.

None of the Founders ever did time for vehicular homicide. None of them participated in a drive-by shooting or mowed down thirty people at a college campus over a lack of popularity. None of them posted photos of themselves getting a blowjob on the internet. None of them had a tattoo on the small of their back that reads "Shoot Here." None of them swindled billions from trusting clients in order to afford another Upper West Side condo and a new megayacht. Why? Because none of that stuff existed back then, so enough with the apples and oranges comparison to the way people lived two hundred years ago -- it is irrelevant!

What is relevant, on the other hand, is the constant bombardment from a deluded Left on many of the core tenets of the document they find distasteful. Better yet, the disgraceful practice of utterly ignoring what the Constitution says while they're busy quoting it. Case in point, those recent (and all-too often) occasions when socialist advocates from the shit-for-brains Left insist on invoking the oft-abused "Separation of Church and State" clause as a half-assed sword of Damocles with which to hack apart those unfortunate parts of State or Federal Governments who have made the grave mistake of holding with ancient, and apparently discredited, Christian icons including Christmas, the Ten Commandments and Halloween. Nevermind the heavy religious topics of prayer in school and abortion, these nitwits get pissed-off about Santa Claus.

The problem isn't the existence of a Separation clause, but rather its misinterpretation today. I'm continually staggered at the frequency with which yapping, secular morons get this wrong. The First Amendment to the Bill of Rights says this:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

What a noble and perfect expression of Liberty, isn't it? Unfortunately, its meaning has been perverted and essentially reversed by some who believe it is their duty to remove all vestiges of religion (Christian religion, that is) from anything to do with Government. They cry out for this, presumably because they fear the Government becoming a willing arm of the Church (a Christian Church, of course), which ultimately leads to a repressive society where individual freedoms are exchanged for pious, highly restricted drudgery in the name of God (the Christian God, naturally). Recently, the notion of Separation of Church and State (in the minds of secularists and social progressives) equates to "Keep the Church out of Government!" Too bad for them the language of the First Amendment actually operated toward keeping Government out of the Church. In English, that means the Government can't order you to pray or not to pray -- it's none of the Government's damn business.


Excellent concept, and absolutely fundamental to what makes America a better place than most. When you think of it, that took real balls back in 1787. To guarantee the people a right to free speech was revolutionary enough, but to go so far as to ensure their right to gather, or even to sue the government? Unbelievable balls, in fact. You must appreciate just how far out on a limb these guys were going. And while they were at it, they made sure the Government could not inject itself into the religious lives of the individual. They built a form of government that protected the people FROM THE GOVERNMENT. I wish more wide-eyed, Obama-adoring idiots understood this simple truth, I really do.

When the Left took a wrong turn on the issue of Separation is unclear. Why they went wrong is unknown to me, except for the very real possibility liberal nitwits are uniformly stupid, and they simply missed the point. As most ACLU wankers (currently occupying space on the Earth they don't deserve) are lawyers, one would presume they, of all people, would get the distinction -- they all had to deal with Con Law class in 2L, so how is it so many lawyers are consistently (and) stupidly wrong on the idea of Separation as they leap to the defense of those arguing cases in order to punish governmental agencies for allowing religion (Christian religion, big surprise) to defile public corridors?

Whether screaming at the State of Georgia over the Ten Commandments disgracing the halls of the State Supreme Courthouse, or the Governor of Washington crumbling under pressure from atheist dip-shits to remove something so innocuous as a nativity scene from the Capitol building, folks who misapply the First Amendment's protections to suit their own fears are splendid examples of why we need to pay attention to the Constitution and what it really says. Believe in a deity or disbelieve -- that's your choice. Do NOT rip off the Constitution and suborn its words and meaning to suit your own bullshit agenda. Personally, I don't have a religious conviction, but equally, I don't presume to piss all over those who do. I'm glad the Founders made it possible for me to hold both views at the same time.

And the danger of screwing around with the Constitution is not even down to an honest debate among our people -- it's way worse than that. It comes down to decisions made by a handful of extreme legislators and judges, sometimes in support of, but just as often in direct opposition to, the Constitution's tenets that inflame my worry and concern. The whole point of the Constitution was to line out the form and format of a system of representative government based on the preservation of Liberty -- the individual's Liberty. The point was NOT setting up a new regime to control or subjugate its people. The individual's Liberty, now under the crushing weight of our Glorious, Teleprompter-enabled Savior's mad dash toward progressive socialism as prelude to totalitarian rule is no longer assured.

Our Democrat-dominated leadership (so-called) applauds as the Messiah hands out apologies like breath mints to anyone we may have offended over the last two hundred years. Laced with blame-laying at the feet of the previous Administration, Obama's World has lost sight of a few fundamental truths, not the least of which, is that Liberty -- brought to you by the United States Constitution -- is the only real reason he gets to act like a complete asshole today. In another place and time, he'd be little more than a loud-mouth mulatto rabble-rouser. A governmental system that does not provide for or recognize the individual's liberty (as ours DOES) would've ground him into fertilizer long ago for the things he's done in his immediate, 'community organizer' past, let alone those disgraceful things he's done as President in just over three months. The despotic half-wits he spends so much time appeasing and bowing down to would cut his dick off and stuff it inside his severed head if he ever tried that 'community organizing' shit in their countries. A pity he can't make the distinction while he kisses their rings or their fascist booties to the cheers and tears of joy from Hollywood's finest jackasses.

So, what's to do? How can we fight back against a changing system that seeks to remove the rights of the individual in favor of the dull misery of a collective? How do we prevent a further slide into the abyss if our judges, Senators, Representatives or media darling President persists in their collective desire to force-feed an unwanted shift down the throats of those who do not welcome it? In short, what are we (that means half the country -- B.O. didn't win by a landslide) to do in order to reverse this nightmarish trend and throw back the assault on our freedom? We could shoot a few of these American-hating rat-fuckers right in the head, but that would be against the law, slightly wrong and probably counter-productive. Instead, the goal is (and always has been), voting them out of the offices they currently pollute.

This isn't about Tea Parties, and it's not about suffering blather from the Hollywood elite. It's not wringing our hands about greedy bastards in the auto industry that are about to get exactly what they've deserved for fifty years, thanks to the UAW. This is about winning elections -- lots of them. It's about jerking the Republican Party up by the scruff of the neck and making it clear to them they are just as much a part of the problem as the thick-skulled Democrats we already knew about. This cuts both ways, unfortunately.

Extreme Left dickweeds are left to pound away at democracy, freedom and Liberty because greedy, self-serving and drunk-with-power politicians make sure nothing stands in their way. Without Senate or House confirmation, extremist judges who insist upon legislating from the Bench wouldn't have the chance. No big surprise here, but most of the time, that uncomfortable feeling you get about your future was hand-delivered by a politician, riding on a liberal judge or Justice's bicycle.

Our politicians and judges have been failing us for years. Why is this so surprising to so many? ALL politicians are deserving of suspicion and caution because most of them follow one simple politician's rule: win and hold power. Their voting records are available online -- read them. The incumbent isn't always worth your vote because you happen to belong to the same Party -- vote for somebody new for a change! Get your news from at least five different sources, or you're nothing better than a dazed parrot. Still find it comforting to blame Bush for all things evil? You're a tie-dyed parrot. Believe McCain would've done better? You're a parrot who doesn't understand elections. Think this is all the fault of somebody ELSE'S Representative or Senator? You're not a parrot; you're an ostrich. Still think Obama's a great guy, simply because he's NOT Bush, McCain or (gasp) Palin? You're worse than a parrot -- you're a groupie and a brain-dead loser. Hopefully, you'll die before I do so I can shit on your grave.

Liberty means something. Take the time to look it up and educate yourself. Better than that, take a few extra minutes and consider what life would be like in a true collective, and one without individual Liberties. That's a difficult proposition for most Americans to get their arms around because we've long-enjoyed the luxury of never having to consider it. Not in our lives. The War generation understood it, but they're old people now, and that means (under the new Obama-written healthcare reform plan) nobody gives a shit what they think.

My concerns are not simply blind nationalism or irrational flag-waving. This is a moment in time when those ideas that made our way of life possible, the thoughts and beliefs that made everything you ever had possible, stand a strong chance of becoming little more than subtexts to a New American History; a history co-authored by Chris Matthews, Keith Olberman, Bill Maher, Cindy Sheehan, Ward Churchill and Miriam Star Hawk. A history rooted in weakness, acquiescence to thugs and a desire for popularity over the rights and liberties of the individual. It will be a history bereft of the Constitution.

Join us next time as we actually tackle current events (with real live citation and everything!), and how they affect you. We'll depart from the past a bit more, concentrating on the present, but when reference is required, we'll examine where we once were. While we still can. Until then...

It's here, yay! Inauguration Day has arrived, yippee! Thanks to the magic of digital technology, I hereby christen "St. Razmo's Fire" and wish it fair winds and following seas on its journey to bring important social and political commentary (mine) to the literally tens of people who will ever find their way to its pages. Hizzah!



Welcome! Welcome, one and all! Welcome to the world of Razmography.



I'll need a short nap after all this excitement, but when I return, we will examine an important topic: How to remove from their seats nearly all incumbent Senators and Representatives who will be up for re-election (Democrat and Republican alike) in 2010. A special section on removing the Grand Potentate from Pennsylvania Avenue in 2012 will follow, so keep an eye open for it. If we have time, we may be able to show a preview of an upcoming project titled, "Liberal Socialists: Can We Beat and Flense Them In Public?"

It will take some time to customize this extra cool blog, so forgive us the generic appearance -- it's part of the deal when you're too cheap to design and host a proper web site, like me. Also, you will see references to "me" or "I" in these pages, but also "we" and "us" as though they are interchangeable. Well, they are. Me and We, I and Us, are all the same. The subterfuge is designed to fool you into thinking there's a crack team of researchers and thought-generating devices made in Switzerland we (I) access, keeping me (us) on the tip of the intellectual spear. Actually, it's just me and my pathetic desire to appear more than I really am.

As for general content, keep this important rule in mind at all times: I DON'T LIKE LIBERAL-PROGRESSIVE, SOCIALIST MORONS. I will listen to them (most of the time), and even strive to understand and appreciate their points of view. Even though I can't abide Leftist idiots, it's deadly important to seek out and embrace a totally opposing viewpoint in order to keep your own from becoming stagnant and rote. Fresh, and often differing opinions must be a regular part of the thought diet, lest you sink into a dogmatic abyss. I cannot guarantee a change of mind, but I will listen.

Important rule #2, I DISLIKE FENCEPOST-SITTING, HAND-WRINGING, INTELLECTUALLY LACKING, INTESTINALLY BANKRUPT, FAIR WEATHER VOTERS EVEN MORE THAN LIBERAL-PROGRESSIVE, SOCIALIST MORONS. Why? Because the so-called "moderate, swing voters" who obviously can't figure out the difference between conservative and liberal philosophies are the very ones who opened the door for much of our current misery.

The committed Left, a majority of registered Democrats, plus nearly every Black man and woman in the country were duty-bound to vote for the Savior. This is understandable, and perfectly normal. Just as many of us on the Right voted for George Bush out of fear for our nation under a mental abortion like Al Gore, or a haughty, slightly pink aristocrat like John Kerry, the predominant Left was compelled to vote for anyone other than a Republican, but a sort-of black candidate (his mom was white, remember) was perfect.

I understand the importance for them, and I was hardly surprised. However, that imperative by itself was not enough firepower to put Obama into the White House. The "undecided" voters were needed to seal the deal - lots of them, in fact. The much maligned Governor of Alaska invigorated the Right, while scaring the shit out of the Left. Something had to be done. Enter the mainstream news media, Hollywood and the overwhelming attraction of star power, and we now know how shallow and easily led are more than half of our voters. The fencepost-sitters, namby-pambied us all into the worst political and social nightmare since a befuddled peanut farmer elbowed his way into office three decades ago.

If you went to the polls this past November, and waited until you were safely out of view in your booth to decide who should lead our country, I'm talking about you. In short, you could be described as a fungus, or tumor, or worthless oxygen thief. Your inability to separate entertainment from reality, and your apparent, built-in stupidity, has cost us dearly. Thanks for nothing, "undecided" America!

But these are discussions for another day. I couldn't resist the opportunity for an Inauguration Day rant. You must forgive me because I'm still staggering under the reality that we have the ultimate expression of willful arrogance and amateurish stupidity at the controls of our entire country. We will survive this, you'll see. I shall return...




R