As the old saying goes: "There's NO easy way to get rich"...er wait a minute-- did we forget something?

 

What about serving in Congress? Has there ever been a situation when somebody had to give up Congress, because they couldn’t make a living at it?

 

 

Best of all, you can NEVER be fired.

 

Now compare that to the present lot of today's average American:

 

Americans everywhere have lost their jobs-- forced to lower their standard of living. Many middle-class families are eating like peasants: less meat, more potatoes; more beans 'n franks, more mac 'n cheese; less hamburger-- no steak.

 

People have terminated cable TV; they have all but eliminated theaters and eating out.

 

But what if we terminated our out-of-control Congress? What then? The nation would prosper as never before!

 

Congress has their limos; their privately-chartered jet flights, and their private Senate AND House restaurants. They vote themselves pay raises. They vacation on the Riviera, travel to all the great resorts and golf courses of the world-- all on "official business."

 

Their arrogant self-righteousness is rooted in our tarnished voting tradition-- the incumbent "re-election factor." They serve until their "expiration" date; 'till death do they part!

 

 

Abe Lincoln once said, "Integrity is doing the right thing when nobody’s looking;"

 

Hence, we shall proceed to review the top ten examples in Congress: people that-- throughout their terms-- have exhibited shining examples of integrity, and have gone far out of their way to serve both their country and constituents.

 

 

Feinstein offered "to help" the FDIC stem the rise in foreclosures by making sure that Richard Ellis Properties-- a commercial real estate firm led by her husband -- won the "competitive bidding, and then harvested the bounty created by Feinstein's generous assistance in the matter. 

 

But California's people will eventually come to their senses, and re-elect her in a landslide.

 

 

But instead of an obvious insider trading charge, Durban --being a Democrat-- has "immunity". Nothing will be done. He will keep his perks and power, just as Barney Frank did after lying to George Bush in 2005 about the condition of Fannie Mae.

 

About 60% of the  Illinois  electorate voted for Durbin in the last election. Now, with this on the record, he'll probably reach 75% in the next election.

 

 

Interestingly, in May, 2007, she invested $100,000 in T. Boone Pickens’ Clean Energy Fuels IPO (initial public stock offering)  But is this not a flagrant conflict of interest for Madam Speaker? Should she be allowed to own stock in a company which will benefit from legislation she controls?

 

But given her lofty Congressional position, someday she will have to answer for it-- in the afterlife.

 

 

Baucus now is going full throttle to change the US health care system into a (socialized) Canadian version, and has forbade any democrat connected to the medical industry from contact with Republicans.

 

Considering the way he's trying to intimidate lobbyists who'd like to hear what the GOP caucus has to say, you can almost SMELL the totalitarianism of this radical leftist.

 

EXAMPLE #5-- Charles Schumer: 

As a congressman serving in the House, Schumer was censured by the Ethics Committee for having used his taxpayer-paid office staff to collect political campaign contributions.

 

For the last 3 years, he's been the Senate's numero-uno anti-driller. He's quite fine with the $60 billion we send OPEC every month, and the $3-4-gallon price his N.Y.City constituents pay for gasoline. He is also author to the oxymoronic, "we cant drill our way out" defeatist mantra.

 

Gee, could Schumer be getting anything under the table from the environmental lobby toward his re-election campaign? Nah, not an ethical fellow like Schumer; he's above ALL reproach.

 

EXAMPLE #6 -- Henry Waxman:

Waxman's clean air bill will suck so much disposable income from the average American household (estimated between $1800- 3000 annually) that our consumer-driven economy may all but collapse under his final death blow. Say goodbye to your sports car, your "work" truck; and your SUV. The Waxman Bill will eventually legislate them out of existence, much like the EPA did to Detroit 's flourishing muscle car industry in the early 70's.

 

Waxman is yet another that feasts at the environmental lobby's campaign contribution trough.

 

EXAMPLE # 7-- Barney Frank (aka Barney Fwank)

Mr. Fwank's repeated claims (since 2003) that Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac "are doing okay" should be enough to have him thrown off the House Banking Committee. He was against any oversight for these institutions--his efforts at social engineering-- and shielded these GSE"s (Govenmentt Sponsored Entities) from all regulation.

 

Frank's idea for 'affordable housing' led to the near-collapse of the worldwide economy and the current U.S. recession. He should be in jail.

 

Example # 8-- Harry Reid:

In summer of '06  Reid pulled off a secret Las Vegas land deal in which he pocketed a cool $1.1 million for sale of property he hadn't personally owned for years. Once exposed, Mr. Reid then amended his financial disclosure forms, claiming (duh) "he'd forgotten about it."

 

Over the last four years, Reid also used his influence to help a developer-- Nevada super-lobbyist Harvey Whittemore-- clear legal obstacles from a Vegas suburb (Coyote Springs) and develop part of the site for free, receiving tens of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from Whittemore.

 

The contributions not only went to Reid's Senate campaigns, but also to his "leadership fund" to help bankroll the campaigns of Democratic colleagues. Rather nifty eh? Ole dirty Harry will undoutedly ride again in his homestate (Nevada) to win another hallmark victory in 2010.

 

EXAMPLE #9-- Senator Chris Dodd:

Everyone knows about the 4.75% loan Mr. Dodd got from Countrywide, saving him $77,000 interest on his mortgage; but then Dodd bought an Irish estate for a full cost of about $200,000 using "assistance" from a man who had Dodd's "ear" in the Senate.

 

Although the property was worth much more, Dodd covered it by listing the value on his senate tax form as $100,000. Once exposed, Dodd (in a mere coincidence) had the property "appraised" at 600k; but surprise: it's actually worth close to a million.

 

Dodd -- who also managed to protect his all campaign contributors at AIG -- claims it was "never about money." But money is all Dodd ever thinks of. He could care less about his constituents in Connecticutt.

 

EXAMPLE #10-- Ex-Senator Joe Biden:

A recent Google Earth photograph reveals that the lakeside "Joe Biden Compound" in Greenville , Delaware  has at least 4 houses, swimming pool, tennis courts, and various other "swank" amenities.

 

But a review of Biden's 2005, 2006, and 2007 income tax returns indicates he only listed a total net worth of about $470,000. Biden also reported he has no home note, suggesting ALL of his home/homes are paid for.

 

How does a person-- who has never made much more than $150,000 per year-- amass properties in amounts at least 10 times (or more) of what he reports to the Senate?  Interestingly, this certainly didn't seem to impede Biden's nomination as Vice President

 

Americans should take note: These egotistical, greedy, self-absorbed aristocrats operate as though they're completely above the law; and in a sense- as democrats-- they actually are. And as long-serving incumbents, they no longer seem to answer to (nor fear) anyone.

 

This is all a mockery to what Lincoln wrote about in his Gettysburgh address; he spoke of government OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people.

 

We should require that every newly-elected legislator MEMORIZE Mr. Lincoln 's historic, two-minute speech before they can be sworn in; it's obvious that these lawless lawmakers have totally forgotten why they were elected.

 

Once upon a time there were 2 worms serving in the Senate, a big worm and a small one, both slithering their way around the democratic caverns within Capitol Hill.

 

Each would stay hidden in its slimy earthy burrow, and would emerge to poke up their peering heads only when they thought the political coast was clear enough to lay their eggs. And despite their slimy outward appearance, the worms were indeed very clever.

These 2 worms were plenty shrewd enough to never leave themselves vulnerable to their many natural enemies who sought their demise, and who would squash them to oblivion if only given the chance.

After all, Senate worms have only a limited life expectancy, especially if their party were to become the minority in 2010, when the Congressional midterms are to again occur.

But the worms--protected by their political surroundings--give them enough safe harbor to conceal their coveted objective: attacking the U.S. Constitution as if were some gnarly old parchment, and targeting the 1st Amendment as if its validity were somehow open to debate.

These worms seek to defy democracy...forever plotting stealthy attempts to use partisan politics to deny Americans their freedoms, and make a mockery of the phrase, "limited federal government."

Right now the worms' number one mission is to eliminate their natural predators --the conservative radio talkers.

And as sitting committee chairmen, these worms have few checks and balances; and by residing on these committees they're busy away crafting legislation that would do exactly that: revive the Freedom Doctine (a.k.a. the censorship manifesto) borne straight from the playbook of Karl Marx.

Never mind that 40 million Americans listen to talk radio and enjoy the format. Never mind that this medium is upheld by the 1st amendment, and is the last bastion of unbiased news that keeps this country from becoming Cuba-- a totally propagandized socialist dictatorship.

 

So this burns the worms to no end. They want it gone.

Worm energy is boundless... and for this one they have chosen to emerge and expose themselves to the number one threat of all senate worms-- being hung out to dry by their congressional opponents-- those who seek to uphold the Constitution. 

As the slimy Chuck Schumer ( Democrat--NY) recently put it, (quote) "Do you think we should allow people to put pornography on the air? Absolutely not! But the same people who don't want the Fairness Doctrine want the FCC to limit pornography on the air. That's not consistent" (unquote).

Not Consistent?

 

As previously mentioned --the big worm is not lacking in cleverness-- banning talk radio in the vein of "being consistent with porno censorship" requires a certain degree of political guile while keeping a straight face.

But despite this illogical inference, the media chose to give the big worm a pass, and he was not called out to defend his stupendously leftist-biased statement-- as if the Founding Fathers were just as concerned about porn as they were regarding open political discourse.

Shrewdly, Schumer is positioning politically unsophisticated Americans to the left, calculating that many will equate talk radio's "divisive" speech with watching porn movies, and something to be delegated as "irresponsible" and therefore, to be regulated.
 
But Schumer has always been a snaky, sneaky worm.

True to his species, as a congressman serving in the House, Schumer was censured by the Ethics Committee for having used his taxpayer-paid office staff to conduct political campaign operations. But this is SOP (standard operating procedure) for any political worm: Care not about the people-- just worm your way back to office every election!

 

Staying permanently in Washington is what matters most to the worm population.

But as if one slimy Senate worm wasn’t enough, an even slimier, more slithery little worm lurks beneath Washington’s political landscape . And the little one from Illinois may turn out more lethal than the big one from New York.

Example: Recall the recent Senate Bill 160 (S.160--to consider statehood for the District of Columbia). Republican Senator Jim Demint had successfully filed an amendment with S.160 to oppose any return of the Fairness Doctrine (abandoned in the late 80's) after the Senate itself had agreed upon that the doctrine suppressed free speech.

Surprisingly, the Senate ended up voting 87 "YEA" - 11 "NAY" to pass DeMint’s amendment-- a rare victory indeed for the conservatives.

 

It seems that the worms are always burrowing away through the dirt of their liberal politics, never tiring of their treasonous task at hand.

And these worms could care less about the First amendment! They've become so bold now that they are in as much--in political wormspeak-- all but telling everyone they are going to trash all our rights (as evidenced by Durbin's sneaky trick).

 

 

As far as the worms are concerned, its "power to us and government against the people."

And where would the "fairness" of these worms end? Would the Fairness Doctrine be limited only to the radio?

How bout a Schumer-Durbin worm attack on free enterprise? It may be coming.

 

How about if the federal government could now tell Coca Cola that they must promote an equal amount of Pepsi products in Coke's home city HQ (Atlanta ), because it would only be "fair." What would bar these power hungry worms from trying that?

And what other sneaky legislation lurks within the wormy senate dens of Schumer and Durbin? They will never stop until they've destroyed the Constitution, because it restricts and goes against every last tenet in the bible of every slimy fascist worm everywhere.

But Rush Limbagh's candid admission--invoking the failure of Obama-- couldn't have done more to play into their slimy hands if he had tried on purpose.

 

It's given the worms an unlimited playing field to ban talk radio and free speech --because they'll use Limbaugh to convince a politically dumbed-down America that he (et.al.) be put off the air because his statement was "divisive, irresponsible, and hateful--and therefore-- not protected by the First Amendment".

 

And these 2 senate worms are both clever enough and slimy enough to pull it off.
 

Then the floodgates to fascism will break wide open. And then it's bye bye democracy, and good night America--thanks to the worms.

Here's a thought.

One idea of how to remedy all the Republican's electoral woes--the calamitous loss of GOP congressional seats, and the presidency -- would be their ability to counteract the criminal interference of ACORN.

 

So here is the plan :

 

The Republicans form their own activist group. It shall be known as "CAUSE"... Citizens Against Unamerican Subversive Extremism. And the goal of CAUSE is staightforward in nature-- attack back against ACORN!

 

CAUSE is how Republicans, young and old, unite under one banner, and ACTIVELY hound ACORN, (the pro-democratic, Marxist rent-a-mob) and literally force the media to take notice, thereby exposing the cataclysmic damage that this subversive organization has wrought upon our democracy.

 

CAUSE co-opts ACORN tactics. They would voiciferously picket outside the New York studios of the TV networks, decrying the liberal one-sided anti-conservative news slant, which is basically what keeps the Democrats in business (bid-ness).

 

CAUSE forms phone banks, and calls registered voters in every congressional district, letting them know if their rep in congress is basically voting in line with treasonous liberals, such as Pelosi , Reid, Schumer, Durban, Frank, Markey, Hoyer, etc.

 

CAUSE forms a website (ala Obama) to reach the young (or anyone) for contributions, and a call to volunteerism for the conservative agenda. And moderates are welcome-- you need not be a Republican.

 

Basically, CAUSE is an awareness group to wake up the dumbed-down American public, concerning the disinformation the media is feeding everyone about Barack Obama.

 

CAUSE is unlimited in what can be done. United under one banner (moniker) , the Citizens Against Unamerican Subversive (socialist) Extremism would provide the spark to lead the Republicn party out of its wandering from the desert of political confusion.

 
Haven't the Republicans taken enough? Under one CAUSE, they have the opportunity to respond to the blatantly liberal media bias. And most importantly, under one CAUSE, the Republicans could command the attention of the American public

Take notice Republicans. Look at the  incalculable damage ACORN has accomplished with its well-honed subversive methodology, precisely aimed at enabling the democrats to prevail in almost any close election.

And practice makes perfect.

Take for example the astounding fraudulence in the Minnesota Senate recount, between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman, and democrat Al Franken. The blatant manipulation is largely because Franken's ACORN-assisted side has displayed a remarkable propensity for defying the numbers in the general election.

Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a democrat (and closet ACORN operative) largely controlled the recount, which saw Mr. Franken pull off a miraculous 950 vote swing in his favor, out of 3 million total votes cast, where Mr. Coleman triumphed originally by 725 votes.

Coleman's winning percentage was only .00024%. Yet Franken's highly unlikely vote swing indicated the recount margin went nearly 70% in his favor, a statistical impossibility.

So how did this all originate? ACORN.

In the election of 2006, the Minnesota ACORN Political Action Committee endorsed candidate Mark Ritchie, who won largely because of financial assistance from a below the radar "527" group -The "Secretary of State Project (SOSP).

The ACORN-funded SOSP backed democrats nationwide, who were running for the offices of secretary of state, knowing full well that if elected, they could likely "fix" possible recounts in any close statewide elections.

ACORN always seems to be able to "see above the horizon". And they play to win. So the Secretary of State Project did very well, judging from Mr. Ritchie's "partisan" performance in Minnesota.

So just how important is the outcome for this Minnesota senatorial seat? It's critical beyond measure.

Right now, the entire next two years in Congress depends on whether the Republicans can keep a 40-seat minority to maintain their filibuster voting bloc. And the margin of Democrats vs. Republicans is tottering between 59-41. So if Franken prevails,  the  current balance would swing to the Democrats. And they could possibly do whatever they want for the next two years, without so much as a sniff toward any partisan opposition.

The result? ACORN will have literally changed the political course of our nation for at least the next 2-4 years.

If we recount all GOP losses in the last two elections (13 Senate seats, 51 House seats and the White House) it begs the question-- how many of these losses were a result of ACORN? We can't know, but most likely at least 2-3rds to 3-4ths of any close races may have been decided by fraudulent voter registrations, which is ACORN's stock in trade.

The problem is that ACORN is always able to fly below the radar. The media is well aware of their influence; yet they say nothing, So this is where CAUSE comes in.

With a pro-Republican organization like CAUSE on the job, all these costly election shenanigans could be countermeasured with CAUSE sounding the alarm--sort of a spy vs. spy situation, or a CIA- KGB type of political intrigue.

Recall the old TV series, "The Man from Uncle". It was the bad spies from the sinister international THRUSH outfit, vs the good guys from UNCLE law enforcement. And it could be relived in true political life form as a CAUSE vs. ACORN scenario...the two organizations, constantly at high-tech political war , each trying to countermand the other's every move.

And make no mistake, war is just what's going on in Congress today. War is the exact description for the bitterly partisan election races that we have now-- there are no gentleman's rules of fair play. The gloves are off. Too much is at stake with every seat in Congress, and with every governor's post in the states. And along those lines, every secretary of state job around the country becomes ever more critical.

If ACORN cannot be reigned in, our democracy will continue to be  a mockery-- it'll continue to be one man, with many votes, in many places--all courtesy of the subversive desperado ACORN operatives, that lurk within the ranks of every state and local election board.

But have faith Republicans.  You can turn this around overnight. Just remember to volunteer for a good CAUSE...your own future survival as a political party.

www.keenobserver.blogtownhall.com

Hoo-wee! Will wonders ever cease? Barack Obama suddenly silenced many of his critics with his selection of several pro-REPUBLICAN-policied people to his transition cabinet. At a recent news conference at a Chicago hotel, Mr. Obama announced he is retaining Defense Secretary Robert Gates at the Pentagon, and making retired Marine General James Jones his national security adviser.

It is indeed notable that Mr. Gates was a firm supporter of the surge in Iraq. And even more surprising is that General Jones holds an "all the above" strategy on energy policy, and firmly supports offshore drilling, and favors the development of more nuclear and alternative energy.
 
Well, above all else, Mr. Obama has always been a political pragmatist (i.e. one who only does that which is useful to his own advantage). And if Barack, in sniffing the political winds, believes this is the best way to deal with keeping up his post-election approval, then so be it.
 
Remarkably, Obama is garnering accolades from all quarters as..."not being afraid to appoint strong people who may politically overshadow him in his first administration".

John Warner, distinguished retiring Republican senator from Virginia, recently praised our new president elect..."The duo of Gates and Jones instills great confidence at home and abroad, and further strengthens the growing respect for the president-elect’s ability to exercise sound judgment in selecting the best and the brightest to implement our nation’s security policies".   
 
Okay everyone...let's puts some hands together and give it up for Obama! Could he actually be out to govern from the center? Stay tuned next January 21 for the first installment of the Obama administration.

But hark...let us not go overboard! Franklin Roosevelt, (who's situation in the 1930's was almost parallel to that of Obama's present-day economic conundrums), also campaigned back then against Hoover as a centrist, tax-cutting moderate; but then veered sharply left after his inauguration, and unleashed his litany of New Deal big-government initiatives on a depression-stunned America.
 
Even the stock market, which had been tanking precipitously in great fear of the socialist Obama, rallied sharply in support of the centrist Obama in the wake of the announcements. But there's more to the story than just that. What Wall Street dreads even more than the perceived socialism of Obama's big government promises, is the radical leftism of Nancy Pelosi and a democratic Congress, with Obama as their rubber stamp in the Oval office. That's the real fear.
 
Pelosi, as Speaker of the House, is literally second in line to be president, and legislatively trumps Obama in sheer Washington DC political power. As Speaker, she can block any bill, no matter the origin, from even reaching the floor for a vote. And she has never yet missed an occasion to use her unique "veto" power to sabotage republican policies ever since she took the gavel in January, 2007 .

At her swearing-in ceremony, Pelosi too, also promised that she would use her position to govern from the center, and immediately swerved to the left faster than the demise of 4-dollar gasoline.
 
Question: Is there anyone in Congress who sits prettier than Nancy (Nazi) Pelosi? Since 4/5's of her district encompasses San Francisco, she has, what many believe, the SAFEST seat in the House. She also has a net worth of approximately 25 million dollars, much of it Microsoft stock, and in the combined net value of the vineyards she and he husband own in Napa valley. And true to her San Francisco roots, she is the Energizer Bunny of liberalism in her legislative outlook.
 
But curiously, given all the gay initiatives we've seen from the Golden Gate city since the 60's, extreme liberalism didn't appear here just because, "hey, it's San Francisco, stupid".

Most Americans erroneously believe that it was the hippie movement that spawned the roots of America's foremost city of liberalism. But the hippies didn't suddenly spring from the 60’s music of the era, or from the flower power of drugs and free love. It all goes back to the Second World War as the real origin.
 
San Francisco was known as the P.O.D. (point of departure) and re-entry for many men involved in the Pacific theater of the war. And back in the early 40's, in some cities, if you were even SUSPECTED of being gay, you could not only be run out of town, but murdered as well. So if you knew you were of 'different orientation', you wouldn't exactly want to trumpet it in the singles section of the classifieds.

There were a number of large military bases in San Francisco in World War II, and many of those men stationed there were gay. And those searching surreptitiously for the growing list of gay bars and restaurants in this port town got an unknowing assist from the armed services themselves, who routinely posted lists of off-limits places where you'd be subject to arrest by the M-P's (military police).

During the war, many homosexuals were screened out at induction centers on the grounds that they would make poor combat soldiers, and that their presence would threaten discipline and morale. If they did passed induction, the gays (popularly known as "fruits" back then) were subjected to harassment in the barracks, due to their inability to explain to their fellow inductees, "what type of women they liked"; and were easily distinguished by their lack of interest in female companionship when off-base leaves were issued.

Rather than returning home, many gay soldiers (and particularly those dishonorably discharged for homosexuality) stayed or settled in San Francisco after their service ended. Can you imagine a dishonorably-discharged soldier calling home and "HERIOCALLY" telling his mother..."hey ma, great news! You and pa wont have to worry about me fighting in the war...I got discharged for being homosexual! We'll all celebrate when I get home... maybe they'll have a parade uptown for me as a returning fruit".
 
Actually, rather than admit to this dishonorable shame, the discharged soldiers stayed and decided to start the war from home base gay-central...San Francisco USA! And why not? They found more gay men here than in many of the places they came from; and more tolerant too. So this primarily lent origin to the gay/liberal movement of the left coast.

As the 50's came on, the rest of California (and the nation) took notice of this and more gays started coming in to set up underground organizations, clubs, bars, newspapers and magazines. And as the 60's came on, the Vietnam war gave the "hip" or hippie movement the cause-celebre that provided them an impetus to acquire an aura of legitimacy...i.e. "We hippie liberals are out to demonstrate why Vietnam is an illegitimate war; and America has not the right to fight it!"
 
San Francisco today can best be described as a city-nation unto itself. It's the capital of gay that sits by the Bay. It's the city where "it’s all about being one"...and about, "treating everybody as one". It's been aptly described by those who migrate there as, "heaven and hell on earth", depending on one's preference. It's either the city of fruitcakes; or the city of the enlightened attitude. Once again, it depends on one's outlook.
 
The homeless in San Francisco are of particular interest. They travel by day and hang out in packs together. They belong to their own "union", unlike the vulnerable, despondent drug-dependent winos of other cities, who keep to themselves. In unity there is strength; and in San Francisco there is tolerance.

Unlike the harassment they--in most cities--face from police (and disdainful "get a job" citizens), the 'liberated homeless' of San Francisco are a cause unto themselves.

Recently, hundreds of concerned citizens fanned out through all of San Francisco's neighborhoods to tally the thousands of homeless people sleeping on city streets, and to discern whether the city's efforts to address the problem are working. "I walk to work every day, and I see this man on the corner," said a 27-year old volunteer, who moved to San Francisco from Boise, Idaho, several months ago. "I don't have the funds to help him financially, but my heart is burdened to help."
 
Besides tolerance, San Francisco is known as "Amsterdam at night", where hundreds of gay bars, tattoo and massage parlors, and gay strip clubs are omni-present. But unlike in other cities, the liberal culture has professed tolerance, and accepts all alternative lifestyles as par for the course.  Visitors describe it as having an 'underground appearance' in almost every city neighborhood. One recent traveler described the 'jovial' atmosphere as..."pot-smoking wierdos walking around everywhere".

So whither will the San Francisco attitudes of Nancy Pelosi lead, come the next session of Congress? Will she spin her web of liberalism, and overcome the newfound centrism of Barack Obama? This may shape up to be the most interesting drama on Capitol hill since Monica's dress.

And also in the Senate, there may arise another challenge from the radicals, such as Schumer, Reid, Kennedy, and the other wizened senatorial leftists. Will Barack use his Chicago, thug-style politics to handle this cadre of aristocratic liberals? Or will they, in effect, say to him... "Now listen young man; you're here for only 4 or possibly 8 years...we're here for life! So forget all your centrist moderate babble..THIS is how we do things in Washington, my boy".

And by April of next year, we all should know who's likely to emerge triumphant is this likely-to-come power struggle. Meanwhile, the possibility of an unfolding new Washington drama grows ever more suspenseful.

Will Pelosi and Reid railroad the green-behind-the-ears Obama, with their skillful manipulation of House and Senate parliamentary rules and procedures? Or will the Obama presidential express of centrism roll over the opposition? Will our 44th president honor his political debts to the left? Or will he, out of political expediency, forfeit the payback, and let them eat crow?

Capitol Hill, 2009-10, is likely to be where and when the new battle of Constitutional checks and balances will have taken place.

Question: what's the difference between a military vs. a political conflict? America is about to find out.

After 14 years of either a GOP-dominated Congress or a Republican president, Democratic party regulars are under intense pressure. Factions such as 'Move On .Org' and the the big labor unions are urging them to deliver on a new extreme agenda of promises made long before Barack Obama announced his bid for the White House.

And how about our darling, mischievous House Speaker, Nancy Pelosi, who recently "promised" not to lurch to the left, and give in to pent-up demands from party liberals. And Nancy Pelosi never has been one to let anyone stand in her way.

"The country must be governed from the middle," Pelosi, D-Calif., solemnly announced to reporters Wednesday November 5. "You have to bring people together to reach consensus on solutions that are sustainable and acceptable to the American people."

Gee, how utterly gracious of Mrs Pelosi! She seems to be holding the olive branch of bi-partisanship to the defeated Republican minority. Such nobility!

But Nancy Pelosi talking consensus is like the Klan talking affirmative action; because it ain't gonna happen as long as she continues to wield the speaker's gavel like a club at a bouncer's banquet.
 
So why such a sudden change of heart from Mrs. Machiavelli herself? In the parlance of the KGB, it's called disinformation. Pacify the public, while preparing to savage the enemy.

If history is any bellweather of what's about to take place when the new 111th session of Congress convenes, the Republicans had better come to Capitol hill with their rifles locked and loaded; the final phase of the battle for the survival of the conservatives is about to commence.

Pelosi's disinformation strategy goes back to Jan 7, 2007. In her 'swearing-in' speech as the new Speaker, she waved the banner of patriotism, and proclaimed..."I accept this gavel in the spirit of partnership, not partisanship," and continued; "In this House, we may be different parties, but we serve one country."  But what country was she talking about?

Since her 'partnership' promise, Speaker, Nancy (Nazi) Pelosi has wielded her legislative authority with the ruthlessness of a banana republic dictator. There are no checks and balances on the House Speaker. And Pelosi knows it! She is second in line for the presidency, and as far as setting the legislative agenda, she can easily out-manuever a rookie president like Obama almost anytime she sees fit.

So what can we expect from a political desperado like Pelosi? Is she suddenly going to warm up to the Republicans, out of spirit of patriotism, or as a sense of duty to the American public? Will she ascent to the true interests if the people?

Sorry all you Republican moderates; it's just another clever tactic in her divide and conquer strategy...crush all opposition! It's the Pelosi-Reid-Obama classic set up: Waylay thy enemy: convince them that the conflict is over...peace, unity, coopeartion-- that's how we'll govern...it's for the good of the nation, etc...then bam! Assassinate them all at the peace table after they have been unilaterally disarmed.

But would Mr. nice guy, Barack Obama, ever go along with such a dastardly plan? No way you say?

But since when in our recent political history, have the liberals EVER been willing to cede any favor to vanquished Republicans?

And now, the media liberals are at it again, and the gullible Republicans continue to drown in self flagellation, having learned virtually zero from the all the acrimony of the presidential election.

Already, radical leftist operatives (Rahm Emanuel) have been put in place to assure that  a harsh peace will be at hand. And starting next Jan 21, the unsuspecting Republicans will find themselves on the fast track to the political gulag of a merciless Congressional majority. The democrats smell blood in the water, and the radical leftists sharks are circling.

The table has been set for the radical left to expunge any and all vestiges of the conservative right. This is a once-in-a generation chance, and the democrats are not about to blow it. They are quietly stringing barbed wire along the political aisle...and there will be no attempted crossings permitted without harsh reprisal.

Pelosi and her ilk know that as long as they can win the battle of public opinion, they can literally get away with the political murder of our Constitution's Bill of Rights, and basically alter our way of traditional life in America.

EXAMPLE: Once the Fairness Doctrine is implemented by FCC decree next year, the liberals can say... "Rush Limbaugh doesn't OWN the airwaves... Americans have a "civil right" to hear the opinions of the other side"...etc.

Yup...the liberal media spin will be as in as it ever was! Talk radio will be gone, and Americans will think..."uh-yeah... that sounds fair enough", then basically shrug their collective shoulders, and go on with their lives under the new Obammunist manifesto of change for America.

Right now, we're in the phase of the phony war, similar to western Europe in winter of 1939.  But the leftist blitzkrieg will begin Jan 21, 2009, and Nazi Pelosi,  Harry Reid, and Chuck Schumer, with Obama riding shotgun, will shoot down all vestiges of conservative opposition; saying it was their "mandate" to carry this out for the wishes of the American people.

But did Obama truly win a mandate as they profess? In the eyes of the liberal media-- of course!  CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, and ABC...all are now on the same page, espousing that flowery good times are just around the corner as a result of their newly-elected hero taking the Whitehouse.

The pundits continue to gush away about the "historic, never thought possible election results"... and that...."no recent president has ever had the support of such a powerful grassroots movement"-- embellished with phrases like "the will of the people"..."America made history", and all the gee-whiz, feel-good, golly-gee propaganda that works every time .

But the reality is that Obama won in only 2 categories in the battleground states-- minority votes went 96 to 4% for Obama, and 69-31% with the under-25 bracket. He lost in ALL OTHER  age groups, but was able to keep it near enough to win a close majority in almost every hotly-contested state. And the electoral college tally just happened to score a widely divergent result from the popular vote.

So was it a mandate, or just a skewing of the results of the electoral college? The actual popular vote provided Obama with a victory margin of less than 6%.

Next, Obama won only by the luckiest of lucky circumstances when the stock market began to take its Obama victory plunge on Sept 24 . So there was no actual mandate; just the attempt to portray the results as such.

Presently, all the leftist sniper fire has been toned down, and peace feelers are being tossed in all directions. But ask any military general: the way you win in any war is by killing the opposition. And these radical democrats are not about to blow their chance!

There will be no honeymoon of mercy for the Republicans. The Pelosi-Reid alliance will strike on day one. They will use the House and Senate rules to rig procedure, and Card Check and the Freedom Doctrine will be rammed through Congress faster than the spring 1940 blitzkrieg of France.

And Pelosi and Reid will take no casualties once they have those two key Marxist decrees in place. Look for the reinstatement of the ban on drilling, the passage of the World Poverty Act, and radical new proposals for "educational reforms". Basically, this will serve to indoctrinate the school kids to revisionist history, and eliminate all the traditional ways our kids learned how America actually evolved; and further fracturing our country into just a bunch of people with little in common, other than they all happen to reside between Mexico and Canada.

Next, look for Obama to appoint the closest thing to he can find to single mothers, for all the vacant Federal judicial benches.

Then will follow the expansion of abortion rights, new affirmative action directives, and a slew of wealth-transfer fiscal measures, all disguised under names such as "freedom of  this" or, "the right to that" legislative entitlements. Hey, once you're on a roll, why stop there?

But other, more politically contentious things like free health care, and taxes on coal and fossil fuel industries will be tabled for after the midterm elections.The liberals learned their lesson from the first Bill Clinton term...steady as she goes, and after the midterms, then fire away your big guns.

And of course, the American public will be conditioned by then to accept everything, because the media will color the fiasco under some clever Barack misnomer such as the "new Bill of Rights for America", or the "new living Constitution for America".

Eventually, Americans who voted for Obama and the democrats will learn the hard way-- leopards never change their spots. And snakes may change their skins... but they still remain dangerously poisonous. 

So is this basically skin-changing time for Pelosi, Reid, and Obama, as they prepare to administer the final lethal bite to the oppositon? Tune in to the next episode, which will commence January 21, 2009.

 

QUESTION: Who'll be next in the White house?  Just ask Wall Street. Calculate using this simple ratio: the higher the pre-election polls rise for Obama, the faster the Dow-Jones will tumble. The result? (in biblical parlance)..."and the blame shall falleth on George W. Bush". 

And in the parlance of Wall Street, the term "smart money", refers to those individuals who have the clearest crystal balls (i.e. the insiders). These are the people who "know people". And what are they telling each other?

"PSST...you know what I found out about that Obama? He's going to raise the dividend tax to 39.7% , and capital gains to 35% ! 

"WHAT?..." I'm selling BEFORE he gets in! 

Now magnify this scenario a few million more times around the world for the next few months, and it's not hard to perceive why the market will continue to churn, and then stumble ever lower until about 2011, when Obama is on the way out.

Wall Street is about creating wealth. Yes they are the capitalists. They are the people who seek to put their money where it can multiply, and create more wealth for them. They seek to invest where they see growth possibilities-- companies or industries where there is a bright future. Every investor on Wall Street , large or small,  is therefore,  a venture capitalist, seeking the creation of additional wealth.

But Obama, intentional or not , is about destroying wealth. Oppressive tax policies on the wealthy, destroy venture capital; destroy the most essential element of future economic expansion--M-O-N-E-Y! People seem to be thrown for a loop when the word 'capital' is tossed out there. That includes Barack Obama.

If Mr. Obama only could have a better grasp of the basic premise about wealth creation, he would learn ...the more you tax the wealthy, the faster capital shall flee this country, and seek fertile ground else where. EXAMPLE: Ireland has the lowest corporate tax in Europe (12.5%) and is experiencing a sizzling 7.5%  current rate of economic growth. China is growing at 8%.

But Comrade Obama is about socialism-- spreading the wealth around from a constantly shrinking source-- defying all economic logic. It is the formula for "Economic Failure 101"...seizing wealth from the producers, and giving it to the drones: attacking the growth phase of the economic base, and rewarding the stagnant segment. This implies shortages; this implies class envy.

The basic tenet of the Marx-Engels theory is class warfare..."the individual exists for The State!"...dismantling the anthill of the workers, and transferring their bounty to the do-nothing drones: encourage the people to be lax, and become a public dependent .

The basic socialist theory for retaining power is ..."tax the wealthy (the opposition) and distribute it to those who will vote for you (your base of support).  And when this dependent population ratio rises toward 45-50%, you retain power (i.e. re-election).

So now Comrade Obama's only challenge is to gain the power; so once again he refers to the time tested socialist textbook for the answer...tell the masses what will work for you, and gain their trust in you..."YES AMERICA...I'M GOING TO RAISE TAXES...BUT NOT YOURS!"

This class-warfare tenet for the ascension to power has worked unfailingly throughout any era in modern history; whether it was Lenin, Goebbels, Hitler, Stalin, Castro, Mobutu, Chavez, or Mugabe. But you must strike when the iron is hot (i.e. when times are bad, and the masses are angry).

So now everybody, we shall proceed to connect all the dots. Once again...the lower the Dow-Jones  tumbles... the madder the people will get, and the more likely they are to blame Bush, and vote for the democrats.

Is this all starting to sound familiar? Picture Obama  at one of his rock-star midwest campaign rallies..."Hello St Louis! (flashes his big Cheshire cat-grin)...Today, John McCain said he wants to give more tax cuts to Exxon and big oil...(BOO!) This is just more of the same failed policies of George Bush!  (BOOO!) But Its time we stop favoring Wall Street, and think about Main Street! (YAY!)...It's time we give the rest of America a break! (YAY!!)... I'm going to a give tax cut to the other 95 percent of America! (HOO-RAY!!)...America doesn't need another George Bush in the White house (YAY!)... That's how we will move America  forward (YAY!)... And that’s why I'm running for president of the United States! (WILD APPLAUSE) ...Thank you St Louis...and God bless America! (music plays...Obama steps off podium waving to wildly cheering crowd).

Tsk-tsk-tsk...oh well, they'll never learn. Okay now for all you nice, intelligent Obama-crats out there, it's time for your multiple choice question: What will America look like in just 4 years after the Obamunnism theory of taxation has taken hold? Just fill in the following blank:  economic______ (a) Devastation (b) Havoc (c) Destruction (d) Turmoil)
 
If Obama could only stop his vote-shopping speeches for once, and use some logic, then we could pose to him this obvious question..."Mr Obama sir...why would you think that with higher corporate taxes, companies would stay in the United States, when instead  they could save millions of dollars by opening in another country with a better deal?  (answer) "They won't."

In addition, corporations would migrate to where the labor costs are lowest. Next question: "Comrade Obama...did you ever hear of a country called China?"

Soon, Americans might be reverse-migrating into Mexico after this fanatical proponent of "being fair'', is through.

The impact on raising taxes on corporations is astounding. It drives business offshore, seeking new tax havens. It has nothing to do with not being patriotic. It's about staying competitive.This will take more jobs away from Americans, and stimulate another country's economy.

The funny thing is that 90 percent of the democrats, who pronounce Obama as their candidate, think that he will provide more jobs for the people.

The humor comes in knowing that the public doesn't understand the impact of what increasing corporate taxes really will have on the United States. But it's not funny at all. Does Obama really know what he is saying? Doesn't he understand that corporations open shop elsewhere because of the higher-priced taxes?

The most troubling aspect of all this is-- what if he DOES know this? Oh my gawd! Now we've really opened up a can of worms. Conspiracy!

Now, all of Obama's past associations begin to make sense.

No longer would it be a mystery of why he hung with characters like the honorable, most-reverend Jeremiah Wright, the despicable Billy Ayers, the odious Bernadine Dohrn, sweet Father Plager, and Louie-Louie Farrakhan. They all were cut from the same cloth...rabble rousers, and virulent anti-American radical thinkers. And, lest we not forget- ACORN!

And further coming into focus would be why he chose to launch his political campaign in Mr. & Mrs. Ayers' living room. Could it be that the fact is; Ayers and his wife chose him? They saw in Obama a man richly gifted in the skills of articulation, public oration, manipulation, and equanimity (cool under fire)...skills that would pretext someone who could change people's minds against their own best interests: A man so disarming in appearance and candor, that no one would ever suspect the devious nature within...a man who would turn America against itself.

Could this man be the anti-Christ of our democracy? He seems too intelligent, and has surrounded himself with so many economic experts, that how could he possibly NOT know the almost certain devastation it will do to our economy if he raised taxes during a downturn? Why would America even think of revisiting Herbert Hoover and 1931 again?

Haven't these democrats damaged the wealth of America enough? Look at the wealth destruction they have already wrought upon our country!

Nancy Pelosi (estimated net worth-- $25 million) as Speaker of the House, has blocked all Republican drilling bills from reaching the House floor for a vote. We have 4 trillion dollars worth of oil sitting in the ground around us. lt's liquid gold--4 TRILLION DOLLARS! Sitting wasted! For what? 

This is money that could go for investment. It's the money a deficit-plagued America needs at a most critical time. We could rebuild this country's infrastructure. We could invest in alternative energy vehicles: new money for corporate expansion; or for R&D toward high tech medical and pharmaceutical advancements; toward new inventions and hundreds of new entrepreneurial ideas; the list is endless.

But without capital, nothing can move move forward. And the democrats have chosen to stifle all this, and have declared our own resources to be illegal! And if they regain control of both the congress and the presidency, they wil keep it illegal!  And electing Obama would have a "coattails' effect-- more democrats in Congress, inviting more potential liberal devastation. Plus it would only encouraged Nazi Pelosi and her ilk, to legislate more leftist havoc upon us.

Other congressional Leftists like Senator Chuck Schumer (architect of, "we can't drill our way out") and Pelosi rant constantly against "Big Oil". They despise that hateful word, "profit". They are committed to never again permitting any additional domestic drilling, and seem quite content to export our money to OPEC. They're never questioned about this treason by our leftist media , so Americans are manipulated into political insanity, and are easily led to voting against their own best economic interests; and remain pacified by their big lie (we cant drill our way out").

So according to logic of this perfidious bunch, we should... keep our resources off-limits, buy our energy from OPEC, shrink our capital base further, which stifles economic growth; then pacify the expanding unemployed masses (i.e.unemployment benefits)...and further expand political power from those whom you have made newly dependent.

The moral of the Socialist theory? (1) Condemn the profitable (2) Make times seem worse than they really are (3) Get the masses to keep voting for you. Just ask Karl Marx: class warfare; class distinction; class envy; rich vs poor; basic manipulation; basic socialism-- convincing the people that they are getting what they should really want-- someone else's wealth. Why should they want more?

 A vote for Obama seems like irrational political exuberance to its most insane extreme.

Or picture Bachman or Peterson against Schumer and Reid in the Senate. Charles Schumer is another pro-OPEC democrat from New York City ,  who may have originated the treasonous slogan..."we can’t drill our way out." Michele Bachman and John Peterson are energy firebrands; they are knowledgeable to the point where either could debate the slithery Schumer right out of his Senate seat, and back to practicing law in Brooklyn . Harry Reid's (D-Nevada) stand on domestic energy may someday cause the lights in Las Vegas to dim. He has sabotaged every drilling measure that’s recently come to the Senate floor. He opposes both coal and nuclear.