Media vs. McCain: Love Affair Ends as Media Finds Replacement Obama

Whenever you tell liberals that there is a media bias, they usually deny it and then turn to old faithful, "what about Fox News?"  Well, if that's the only example you can come up with, then that sort of proves the point.  Then there is part 2, "what about talk radio?"  Of course, talk radio is dominated by conservative pundits, but do you ever wonder why?  The majority of listeners are people listening at work, and it's hard to be a liberal when you see all of your hard earned tax dollars sifted away paycheck after paycheck on government programs that don't work, only to be used on "new" terribly designed programs to fix the old inefficient programs that the government instituted in the first place.  In any case, ceding Fox News and talk radio, let's take a look at media in the tank for liberals:

Newspapers:  NY Times, LA Times, and the list goes on and on, including most major foreign sources
Major Networks: CNN, MSNBC, CBS, ABC, BBC
Hollywood
Academia, though it's not traditional media, it is published wide and far throughout every university.  For those who make the claim the universities are not liberal, I wonder how far left they are to think that leftist professors are rightist.

What you see is a complete domination of most sources of media, excluding radio of course.  Oh, and liberals do have plans for talk radio!  The "Fairness Doctrine" will even out liberals' complete inability to compete in a free market system against their conservative/libertarian rivals.  Of course, this will all be legislated.  It is way too important for liberals to quash dissent to leave it up to the free market.  Curiously, the doctrine won't touch their traditional allies.

The recent DNC coverage was a prime example of just how in the tank the liberal networks are, having difficulties to not gush and fawn over the Messiah.  When Bill Maher has to point out how embarrassing MSNBC's coverage was, then you know how liberally biased news has become:


Now, the media, who used to be fond of the Maverick, John McCain, have turned on him.  The media won't look into Obama's past relations with William Ayers, Tony Rezko, Reverend Wright, and countless others or Joe Biden's lobbyist connections (including his own son being rewarded by Obama with $3.4 million in earmarks).  Also the media took years to swing into action on the John Edwards' scandal with their unbiased coveraged.  But give Sarah Palin two days as a Vice Presidential candidate on the Republican ticket and the smears were on.  First, they attacked her experience, forgetting how absurd their position was, because Palin and Obama are at worst equally experienced or inexperienced.  Palin has at least run something.  Obama has, well, shady past associates, but, res assured, he never really knew them.  Next, the media goes after Palin's daughter, which Bill Bennett and others have called them on:

The worst thing about these attacks is it came from a media who supposedly cares more about the privacy of women than "evil" conservatives.  And you wonder why John McCain is fed up with the media? 

The point is that while John McCain was a thorn in Republicans' side as the Maverick, the media loved him.  When he started running up against the liberal Messiah, the One from Hope and Change, Illinois, the game changed, and the media turned on him.  The betrayal of John McCain has forced the liberal media to show their cards, and they are brazenly doing so.

Check us out: thejtandbearshow.com/Audio.html

Check out the latest show:

The JT and Bear Show 08.24.08

Check out Obamalujah on Youtube:

Obamalujah

Email us: jtandbear@thejtandbearshow.com

Check out our myspace: http://www.myspace.com/jtandbearshow

Join our facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=15305890845

Video: Bill Bennett Revolts Against CNN's Coverage of Palin's Daughter

In this video, Bill Bennett goes after CNN, and rightfully so.  There is a time for discussion about birth control, abstinence, and the appropriate context for teaching either method in our schools.  That debate is a worthy one, but bashing Sarah Palin and her daughter for apparent hypocrisy because Palin supports abstinence is unquestionably unworthy.  In fact, it is quite disgusting to attack a philosophical approach to a problem by using someone's private matters.  Kudos to Bill Bennett.  Here's the video:



As one can tell, liberals are confused about what to do.  Should they attack Palin at the expense of their own "principles" of privacy or go all out to win this election?  Their situation is laughable, because it highlights the hypocrisy of identity politics and why it's such a risk to play that game.  First, there was the treatment of Geraldine Ferraro, then Hillary Clinton, and now Sarah Palin.  Think women won't notice?

This a parody of Obama that JT and I put together.  I rewrote the words and performed the song.  Hope you enjoy:

Check us out:  The JT and Bear Show

Check out our quickly growing blog:  blog1.thejtandbearshow.com

P Diddy Blog #16: Who's Buggin' Out, McCain or You?

P Diddy has just posted an outrageously intellectual (insert sarcasm) blog on why we should not vote for John McCain and why Sarah Palin is a bad choice.  The sad thing about all of this is people actually listen to P Diddy.  Even sadder, a lot of people have the same reasoning skills. 

Warning!  The following video contains foul language and you will be dumber for having seen it:

Wow, what stunning reasoning capabilities!!!  Is it me or does P Diddy seem to be the one buggin' out?  We know Obama used narcotics in his past.  Is P Diddy on something, too?  Maybe he's just high on Obama.

Babygate: the Left Forces Palin's Daughter to Reveal Pregnancy

The Left is not called looney without ample reason.  Recently leftist bloggers tried to claim that Sarah Palin's recent pregnancy was faked to cover up for her daughter's pregnancy.  That would have meant that the down syndrome baby, Trig, was her daughter's and not Sarah Palin's.  Oh, how the left would have jumped with glee had that been true, just like Democrats were happy when it found out hurricane Gustav was bearing down on the US at the time of the Republican National Convention.  Isn't it disgusting how the left makes political use of disastrous situations?  They will stop at nothing to win an election.  In any case, as Townhall points out in response to the picture exposing the alleged lie:

Now, because the left is pressing the issue, Palin, to rebut the rumors, had to reveal to the world that her daughter, Bristol, 17 years old, is pregnant.  As Palin herself stated:

First of all, compare that statement to Barack's statements about his daughters being punished with a child at such an age:

Will the Messiah come out and say that Palin is punishing her daughter with a baby, the point being that the daughter should have an abortion instead?  I wouldn't put it past him.  The difference in philosophical approaches to birth is glaring.  One side believes having a baby at any age is a blessing, even if it will be difficult to raise it.  The other side sees birth as a burden and punishment, preferring to abort the "burden."  Even if the so-called burden survives the abortion, Obama, based on his record in Illinois is okay with infanticide.  All because it would burden the original choice to kill the baby. 

The other issue here is privacy.  Will the Left, so staunch in its assertions of privacy when it comes to a woman's choice, respect the privacy of Bristol Palin?  Highly unlikely.  It is always a double standard when it comes to this happening to a conservative.  Case in point, the affair of John Edwards.  It only took the media years to swing into action on that story.  The media will write in this case, "ha, conservative hypocrits!  Her own daughter got pregnant at 17.  How conservative is that?"  You see, the Left fails to realize that just because you have moral standards doesn't mean you will always live up to them.  This stems from the belief that humans are deeply flawed and will err.  That does not mean you don't promote good moral standards at all.  For the Left it is better to not have such burdensome standards.

Lastly, the Left would be without its Messiah, the One from Hope and Change, Illinois, had Obama's mother not decided to give birth to him at the age of 17.  Where would the world be if she had decided Obama was "punishment?"  This won't stop criticism from the Left, blind in its pursuit for the White House and hatred for George Bush.  Hypocrisy is no impediment for the Left.   

Rep. Debbie Wasserman: Palin is no Hillary

I recently ran across a video of Democrat Rep. Debbie Wasserman ripping Vice Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin because she is not Hillary Clinton, which, to my mind and anyone believing in free markets, is a good thing.  Hillary couldn't win her supposed coronation from an inexperienced one-term Senator from Hope and Change, Illinois.   How's that for achievement.  In any case, the media have to now show that Palin is no Hillary.  Here's the clip:


First of all, what is this 35 years of public service argument?  Why do people continue to believe that this is a good thing?  Wouldn't you want a President to have actual executive experience, not just tag-along sidekick get cheated on experience?  Maybe running a business, leading a sports team to a state championship, running a town, running a state?  Leftists obviously don't want someone who has free market experience, well, because you are more likely to be libertarian/conservative if you do. 

Second, Wasserman claims that women won't support Palin just because she allegedly has the same body parts as Hillary, an obvious reference to her gender.  Actually, I agree with Wasserman.  No one should vote for Hillary solely based on her genitalia.  One should vote for her based on the issues.  However, I do recognize that a lot of people out there vote for this very reason and even more trivial reasons.  Curiously, this same argument applies to the Messiah as well.  One should not vote for him simply as a result of his color just to have the first black President, in the same that someone shouldn't vote against him based solely on his color because of racist views.  One should vote for the One only after examining the issues.  Nevertheless, big media are putting so much moral pressure on the population to vote for him for this very reason, and, oh my, if you don't, then you're obviously a racist.  Now, given he is strongly socialist and anti-markets, most people valuing the change in their pockets simply will not vote for him, because that is all that will remain with his disastrous policy proposals.  It's not because they are racist.  It's a result of his poor choice of philosophy and associates.  Oh, and fawning over a totalitarian regime in China doesn't help either.  That definitely shows a lack of judgment.  In case, you missed his fawning, here's a newer clip:

It's official.  China has nice stuff: smog, no free press, polluted rivers, desertification, no religious freedom (if you're liberal, that might be okay), 40+% living on below $2 per day, prison camps.  Yes, that is the model of the future under Barack.  Does he realize how ridiculous his statements are?  He might try going to China.  I have, and, well, let's just say "nice" is a very very relative term.

On a lighter note, Obama-Biden have made the Frosted Flakes cover:

Courtesy of The Swamp

I thought liberals were mad at Michael Phelps for appearing on the box of such an unhealthy food.  Go figure.  They can but he can't.  Nope, that's not hypocrisy.

Check us out: thejtandbearshow.com/Audio.html

Check out the latest show:

The JT and Bear Show 08.24.08

Check out Obamalujah on Youtube:

Obamalujah

Email us: jtandbear@thejtandbearshow.com

Check out our myspace: http://www.myspace.com/jtandbearshow

Join our facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=15305890845

            

Hear ye, Obama Speaketh: Turn Off your TVs and Love China

What is it with Barack and China?  Let's set the context for the new command of the Messiah.  A couple of weeks ago Obama claimed that the infrastructure in China is vastly superior to America's:

The fact that this is a complete lie does not stop Obama from speaking truth to power.  I already took Obama to issue on this in a recent article. 

Now the One is telling Americans to turn off their TVs, and that we can't compete with China, though we already do more than that.  Here's the Messiah at work in Toledo, OH:

The Swamp


Maybe it's a good idea to do that and pick up a book, but you cannot enforce such a law without a totalitarian government, which, in case Obama didn't know, is exactly what China has.  Then again, this is coming from the Party that thinks the "Fairness Doctrine" is actually democratic.  Or is parenting also better in China?  The One has been spewing this for the last months or so.  Here he was in Iowa:

With the pick of Sarah Palin look for Obama to ratchet up his leftist rhetoric in the next few weeks.  The hate will be on, and the America sucks speeches will continue to flow forth from the Messiah of the Democratic Party.

Liberals Think a God Exists: Gustav is Revenge for Katrina

Harry Reid was caught telling reporters that Democrats would gain seats as a result of the Iraq War, and he could barely hide his glee.  Now, liberals are joyous that Gustav may hit New Orleans on the first day of the RNC.  Let's listen to former head of DNC chairman, Don Fowler.  It is truly disgusting:

God is on the Democrats' side?  How sick is this Party?  The same Party whose Messiah says the issue of abortion is "above his pay grade," and whose Queen, Pelosi, distorted Catholic Doctrine on abortion in response to Obama's incompetence on the issue makes this disgusting claim.  It would be almost funny, if it were not so sad.

Now, let's listen to liberal demagogues Michael Moore and Keith Olbermann gush over this issue:

Sickening much? 

Check us out: thejtandbearshow.com/Audio.html

Check out the latest show:

The JT and Bear Show 08.24.08

Check out Obamalujah on Youtube:

Obamalujah

Email us: jtandbear@thejtandbearshow.com

Check out our myspace: http://www.myspace.com/jtandbearshow

Join our facebook group: http://www.facebook.com/groups.php?ref=sb#/group.php?gid=15305890845

Bill Maher Video: MSNBC Hosts Want to Make Love to Obama

Finally liberal comedians have found something to talk about in relation to Obama.  MSNBC's coverage of the DNC was so outrageously fawning that they even opened themselves up to liberal comedian, Bill Maher.  You know you have gone too far as a liberal when Bill Maher calls you out.  Maybe liberals are starting to understand that excessive and overbearing media coverage of Obama isn't really helping him, but hurting him, only contributing to his superstar reputation and messianic complex.

Enjoy the video:

It's not often that I laugh when Bill Maher talks, but that was truly funny.

Check us out: thejtandbearshow.com/Audio.html

Check out the latest show:
The JT and Bear Show 08.24.08

Join our Myspace friends:  JT and Bear Myspace

To Be or Not to Be? Ohio Democrats Inducing Voter Fraud?

There is a controversy concerning absentee ballots brewing in Ohio.  According to the Columbus Dispatch, Republican lawmakers are concerned that Ohio Secretary of State, Jennifer Brunner, has instructed voters to break Ohio law, which states that voters must be registered for 30 days prior to casting a vote to be considered a qualified elector.   GOP officials claim that allowing Ohioans to register and cast an absentee ballot on the same day violates the law.  However, Brunner claims that what controls under current law is when the ballots are counted, not when they are cast.  She released a statement addressing the issue:

Statement:

We must be sure that every qualified Ohioan has the chance to register and the choice to vote early or on Election Day.

The overlap between the end of voter registration and the beginning of absentee voting was created by the General Assembly, signed into law by a Republican governor, and has existed for all Ohio voters since the 2006 primary election. Those Ohioans who register to vote and request an absentee ballot during the 5-day overlap must abide by the same voter registration, absentee ballot and voter identification laws as any other Ohio voters.

To clarify some people's concerns, Secretary Brunner has issued a directive that will create consistent, statewide standards for this overlap.

To be clear, there is only one general election day. This year, that's November 4, 2008.

Anyone registered to vote by the October 6, 2008, deadline may request and submit an absentee ballot. That ballot is not permitted by law to be counted until the close of polls on Election Day, along with all other ballots.

Some are arguing for the first time that this is not the case. The law has not changed.

This unusual interpretation of Ohio law would inject chaos into our voting system, just as we are preparing for success with bipartisan elections officials across Ohio.

Last time I checked, she does not sit on a court of law, and Democrats are well known for creating law that suits their political aims as opposed to following actual law or even the intent of the law.  And why does it matter whether a Republican signed a bill into law or not? 

Many political pundits believe this law will help Obama, because it will allow younger voters who are notorious for failing to show up on election days to cast their vote and register on the same day.  These younger voters heavily favor Obama.  Jennifer Brunner is obviously just concerned about the law.  She could not possibly be partial towards Barack Obama.  She's a Democrat.  They don't have interests, only constituents.

Now, let's take a look at the actual laws that are under scrutiny to determine what's going on.  Ohio Code 3503.01 is at issue.  It reads as follows (author's brackets for emphasis):

Every citizen of the United States who is of the [age of eighteen years or over and who has been a resident of the state thirty days immediately preceding the election at which the citizen offers to vote], is a resident of the county and precinct in which the citizen offers to vote, and [has been registered to vote for thirty days, has the qualifications of an elector and may vote at all elections in the precinct in which the citizen resides].

Since this portion of the code does not explicitly state what controls under the law (the day of the vote or the day it's counted), another portion of the code is needed to determine that matter.  The controlling law is Ohio Code 3509.03.  It concerns proper registration for absentee voters.  These are the requirements under that portion of the Code (author's brackets for emphasis and editing):

(A) The elector’s name; [B] The elector’s signature; (C) The address at which the elector is registered to vote; (D) The elector’s date of birth; (E) One of the following:

(1) The elector’s driver’s license number; (2) The last four digits of the elector’s social security number; (3) A copy of the elector’s current and valid photo identification, a copy of a military identification that shows the elector’s name and current address, or a copy of a current utility bill, bank statement, government check, paycheck, or other government document, other than a notice of an election mailed by a board of elections under section 3501.19 of the Revised Code or a notice of voter registration mailed by a board of elections under section 3503.19 of the Revised Code, that shows the name and address of the elector.

[(G) A statement that the person requesting the ballots is a qualified elector;]

Section (G) is the most relevant portion dealing with the controversy.  A person must be a qualified elector in order to file an application for an absentee ballot.  As we know from Ohio 3503.01 above, a person cannot be a qualified elector if he or she has not been registered for 30 days prior to casting the vote.  How can a person who is registering on the very same day that he or she files an application for an absentee vote be a qualified elector when he or she has not even been registered for one day?  Notice, section (G) does not say "will be" a qualified elector, but rather "is" a qualified elector.  The language is explicitly in the present tense as intended by the legislature and cannot be construed as otherwise by the Ohio Secretary of State.  Thus, the emphasis is on the day of application, not some future date when the vote will be counted.  According to this section, if a person is not a qualified elector on the day of application, then he or she cannot fulfill all of the requirements of the Code, meaning he or she is not a qualified elector.  If someone files a statement saying he or she is a a qualified elector when it is in fact not true, this is voter fraud, which is a fourth degree felony in Ohio.  This means that Brunner would be telling people to knowingly cast an illegal vote in the election.  Wonder why the GOP is threatening a lawsuit?    

Unfortunately for the GOP, the media will be out in full force behind their golden boy and messiah, Mr. Obama, to claim that this amounts to suppressing the votes of young people, the poor, and minorities.  Is there any truth behind it?  No, but that will not stop demagogues who have no respect for the rule of law.  For the party that claims there is so much voter fraud and intimidation on the Republicans' side to resort to the very tactics it decries is sheer hypocrisy.  Unless Bill Clinton is around to redefine the meaning of "is," I don't see how this statute can be construed as Brunner suggests is should be.  Then again, I'm sure there is some liberal justice out there who will be willing to give new meaning to Shakespeare's "To be or not to be." 

The Messiah complex has grown completely out of control.  The One's campaign has lost the luster it once had, and now it must somehow regain what once was.  The problem is that no one is buying it anymore.  Even Clinton supporters have realized that the Messiah lacks substance.  Isn't it a rare thing that a libertarian/conservative like myself agrees with a Clinton?  Oh, how the times change!!!  I guess the One really does unite all who hear him speak.  Against him!!!  Let's have a look behind the scenes at the Messiah's Temple of Obamis:

Video: Behind the Scenes at the Building of the Greek Temple of Obamis

Rebuttal to Barack Obama: "Yes, It is Change We Seek"

I thought I would provide a rebuttal and poem to Barack Obama's speech.  Enjoy:                                                           

     

                                                 Yes, It is Change We Seek

 

As we Americans watched Barack Obama give his speech at Invesco Field, we couldn’t help but be proud of the nation in which we live.  An African-American has risen up from the depths of history to become a Presidential candidate for one of the major political parties.  It is a history scarred by slavery and segregation, the eternal reminders of the danger of placing too much power in the hands of government demagogues, and it is truly a blessing upon our nation that Obama could give that speech to the very party that instituted those tragedies upon our great land.  It is a wonderful testament to our founding fathers’ great philosophy of individual liberty, small government, and free markets that he stood before us.  It is also a testament to that precious document we call the Constitution that allowed the Amendments under true democratic government to enshrine the self-evident truth that “all men are created equal.” 

 

Was it an historic moment?  Yes.  Was the speech historic?  Yes, and that is the problem.  Americans seek change.  This is true, but the philosophy Mr. Obama proffers is anything but change.  It is a repudiation of everything that has made, makes, and will make our nation stronger and better.  It is history.  It is a worn out philosophy that has failed humanity’s hopes and dreams countless times.  From Otto Van Bismarck to Lenin to the Maoist leaders of China today demagogic promises have been made and broken innumerably.  These so-called agents of change promise evermore solutions to the same problems they created in the first place, then turn around and blame free society.  All they ask is that you give up a little bit more of your liberty and money.  Just a little more, and they can get the job done.  And when they fail to get the job done, they ask for a little more.  Always more, and all in the name of some perceived “progress,” bashing traditions and history, as if traditions and culture are a terrible thing.  And thus the road to tyranny and serfdom begins.

 

Under this philosophy of hatred and envy, the population becomes enslaved to its government masters, groveling for handouts and government’s plundering of the “wealthy,” whose definition changes at the whim of the demagogue.  The government happily and willfully obliges its pleas, all too eager to steal from the “rich” and give to the poor in a perverted sort of Robin Hood politics, all the while shackling its population with the chains of mental and physical oppression.  No one would claim that a man or woman born poor deserves condemnation.  So, why do the statist demagogues condemn the man or woman born rich through no fault of his or her own or who earns his or her way to the top?  Isn’t entrepreneurialism something to be praised?  Why do politicians provoke the flame of envy?  Envy is the most powerful tool of the demagogue.  Without it he cannot promise you anything.  Oh, and promises he does make, all of which he can never fulfill, because they are utopian and hopelessly idealistic.    

 

Yet poverty remains.  Discrimination remains.  Why, one asks him or herself, do these injustices remain when we have so many government programs and such well intentioned politicians?  It is age old wisdom for no small reason that the road to hell is paved with good intentions.  You see, government can never solve these problems nor does it want to.  What would it be without poverty and misery?  Would the leftists of today ever be elected in a society without discrimination, supposed imminent environmental disaster, and poverty?  The answer is clear.  No, the answer must be.  Let’s say there existed a Bureau for Poverty, most aptly named.  What would happen if the Bureau solved poverty?  It would cease to exist, and, oh the horror, countless, faceless government bureaucrats would lose their precious jobs of plundering from the wealth creators in our society and handing it out to modern slaves of the state.  The government through excessive and meaningless regulation creates a situation in which private enterprise is stifled and the free market is suffocated, all impoverishing people to such a degree that they must turn to the nanny state, because government has deprived them of the liberty to change things on their own.     

 

When did it become acceptable in America to punish success?  When did it become tolerable to hate the wealth producers and job creators in our society?  When did it become okay for a private corporation to pay one of the highest corporate tax rates in the world, which inhibits free enterprise?  And you wonder why American jobs are leaving!  When did it become okay for a private corporation such as Exxon to pay $4,000 dollars in taxes per second vs. $1,400 per second in profit?  Would you accept such a deal to open up a private business?  For every 5.4 dollars you make in total you get to pay 4 dollars out of it in taxes.  I would wager that the answer is absolutely not.  What happened to the American Dream and the hope of free enterprise?  Is this the sort of policy that encourages small business owners to open up shop?  Obviously not, and it is just as unfeasible for a new entrepreneur to open a business, simply because he cannot afford to wade through all of the government regulations to open a business in the first place. 

 

The demagogue must talk about racism, sexism, and all forms of discrimination to get elected.  The politician must pit class against class, race against race, gender against gender, sexuality against sexuality, because it raises irrational emotions, which is the only possible way a demagogue can survive.  Is that the philosophy of tolerance?  These emotions are so irrational that they trust the same government that discriminated against them to liberate them.  From where does this naïve trust in government come?  Everyone agrees that businessmen are greedy.  People in general are flawed and greedy.  Somehow, though, people exempt the politician from such scrutiny.  All of this comes about despite the fact that the politician has more reasons to be greedy than the businessman, who is at the very least accountable to himself, his family, and friends.  The politician is accountable to nothing but the whims of irrational emotion.  The businessman at least provides jobs and spreads wealth throughout society.  The politician only sows the seeds of misery and oppression.

 

The point is that no matter how many degrees a person has, how much intelligence a person supposedly has, no amount of human knowledge or technology can ever keep up with or suppress the forces of human interaction always striving for more liberty at every point of time and place in our grand nation.  What rational person truly believes that Washington bureaucrats know our situation in our own cities and towns better than we ourselves?  If government could solve these problems, the United States, spending $3.1 trillion of our hard earned tax dollars on failed programs and entitlements each year would surely have solved them.  It is not more money that will solve these problems, and it is most definitely not a change of party that will bring about the change and justice people seek.  The problem is the institution itself.  The more it grows, the more it must grow.  In order to remain in power, politicians must promise more and better programs, always asking for more tax money to do this, focusing the population’s anger on the rich, while all along it is they that oppress you. 

 

Obama claims that some governments are trustworthy, but that we have simply become cynical about government.  Yes, he is right about the latter, and with good reason.  If the government gets to steal our money and use it on programs, shouldn’t there be a scorecard, as Reagan famously quipped?  Shouldn't we get to see some results?  I doubt the government could even bat .300 in America’s favorite pastime.  Can you name one government program that works well enough to justify the coercive use of force to steal your money?  Doesn’t the fact that politicians are always claiming government in Washington is broken undermine the whole philosophy of adding more government?  If government is broken and doesn’t work and they are the ones that instituted the programs, then why create more of it or entrust them with more?  Do we really believe that either party can fix Washington?  The best way to fix Washington is to stop legislating.  Reagan was right when he said that every day Congress meets we lose a little bit more of our liberty, and today we lose a lot more of our liberty every time Congress meets.  If government were an employee in the free market, for how long could he be employed?  A day, two, before being fired?  No one should tolerate such incompetence, and there is absolutely no reason the American people should tolerate it or even encourage it.

 

The philosophy of Mr. Obama seeks your enslavement under the temple of big government.  Oh yes, it is couched in lofty terms of “justice and fairness,” which are code words for misery and tyranny.  Winston Churchill was no fool when he said that socialism leads to equality, equality of misery.  Obama claims that being left to our own is not what we want, that liberty and free markets are somehow the philosophy of the past.  But I submit that being left alone is exactly what we want.  Liberty is not some form of tired, old politics.  It is hope.  It is change.  Oppression and more taxation are tired old politics.  What kind of misanthrope must a man be to believe that others, left to their own devices and liberty, cannot make it on their own or that it is only with his help, the demigod politician, that you can rise to his level of success?  What sort of hope is that?  It is the antithesis of hope.  It is anti-humanitarian.  Barack is right.  It is hope we seek, but not his kind of hope.  We seek liberty from the tyranny of big government.      

 

My heart cries, “socialism”

My brain, “capitalism”

Always at odds, they battle

Clashing thoughts, sabers rattle

 

A great land, a checkered past

Riches and war stain its mast

Built on meritocracy

A blind aristocracy

 

The streets lined with simple folk

Bearing crosses, a grave yoke

Shooting veins with antidote

Powdered pills, a candied coat

 

With their plight I sympathize

Though laziness I despise

To help them up is our task

Will we go broke, one must ask

 

Left or right, where do we go?

Communes or to each his own?

Is it fair to hate others’ wealth?

They, too, die and lose their health?

 

A rich man is born faultless

The poor’s hate for him thoughtless

Neither one deserves the blame

So why provoke envy’s flame?

 

The ones above play your strings

Entice you with deceitful things

Yet we’re taught to hate business

Though there’s no crime to witness

 

Why do we trust Satan’s brood?

Politicians, if stripped nude

Would be a ghastly stranger

It’s they, they are the danger

 

They are outrageously brash

No company steals your cash

At least you choose what you might

But they, they take without right

 

Government grows always more

On this sea there is no shore

Take freedom back, do not wait

Restore it ‘fore it’s too late

 

August 29, 2008 by Bear Nichols

Check us out: thejtandbearshow.com/Audio.html

 

Check out the latest show:

The JT and Bear Show 08.24.08

Obamalujah: The Myth vs. The One

Black Republicans Hit Obama for Infanticide and Taxes

Scenes and Music from the Life of Obama Part II