New Media Alliance - Christopher Adamo

By Christopher Adamo

As a result of this week’s elections, the Republican minority caucus in the United States Senate currently represents the sole remnant of a “firewall” against an uncontrolled implementation of the liberal agenda. With less than a sixty-vote Democrat majority needed to force a vote on any issue, a Republican filibuster is the only means by which the left can be stalled from its overarching and despotic expansion of government intrusion into the lives of the citizenry. So if the filibuster is the only manner in which Republicans can exercise opposition to the left, it should be enthusiastically touted and employed as such.

No doubt, the Democrat hypocrites in Washington, who comprise the most self-serving, partisan, and divisive Congress and Senate in the history of the nation, will now invoke and enshrine their phony version of “unity” as every politician’s highest calling. During the years of a Republican Congress and presidency, every underhanded Democrat attack that could divide the Congress and distract it from its necessary duties, even during a time of war, was considered noble. Yet those same partisans will now shamelessly maintain that any dissent or criticism of the Marxist goals of Barack Obama will represent the height of “un-American” behavior.

Regardless, Senate Republicans have only this avenue by which to fulfill their commitment to those constituents who elected them. Accepting the bogus premise of Democrat “unity” would be a total abdication of this solitary vestige of purpose for having a Republican Party. Therefore, the enormous pressure that will undoubtedly be inflicted on Republicans to attain “unity” should be recognized and rebuffed as the dangerous snare that it is.

Conversely, by employing the filibuster, robustly and, if necessary, frequently, Republicans could once again validate their existence in the Senate, while highlighting the stark contrasts that should separate them from the liberalism of the Democrats. It was the abysmal lack of such contrast on defining issues, for nearly a decade that contributed more than any other factor to public disillusionment with the Republicans.

Spending excesses, the bloating of government in areas where it constitutionally does not belong, along with the concurrent abandonment of its real responsibility to protect American sovereignty, have convinced many in the grassroots that Republicans are no more interested in representing them than are the Democrats. As a result, a once loyal and enthusiastic conservative base became fractured and demoralized.

In a similar manner, Republican acquiescence to Democrat demands to “end the rancor” and “reach across the aisle” have only served to convince America that the Democrats are the true leaders, and indeed deserve to be in complete control. Admittedly, Republicans in the House of Representatives do not possess any means by which to completely stall unwanted legislation, as do their Senate colleagues. Yet they are still in a position to exhibit a unified opposition that would thereafter delineate between those who promote bad law and those who oppose it.

During some brief periods in America’s history, the political landscape was indeed comprised of differing political and philosophical camps whose members shared a common interest in the well-being and future of this nation. Yet for more than three decades, this has not been the case inside the Beltway.

The ascendancy of the 1960s counterculture as a potent political force brought with it a mindset of activity that constituted a war on traditional America. Sadly, too many on the right refused to recognize this aspect of the enormous divide that now defines the political landscape. The brutish and often flagrantly illegal actions among liberals, seen so blatantly during this past week, stand as undeniable proof of this grim state of modern American politics.

For Republicans to respond to such behavior with anything less than a genuinely outraged and truly confrontational manner is to legitimize it and ultimately ensure that incidents of this nature will only continue to increase in frequency and severity. The left is at war with traditional America. It needs to be engaged in that war by an opposing force that, rather than attempting to peaceably accommodate it, recognizes the critical necessity to vanquish it.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Republicans need to rethink and rework their entire approach to the “Big Tent.” Initially conceived by President Ronald Reagan as a means of promoting a cohesive GOP under his worthy leadership, the concept has degenerated in recent years to the point that some Republican “moderates” invoke it as justification for the party to cease standing for anything at all. Not surprisingly (except apparently to those of the D.C. “political class”), every attempt to make political gains through such an approach have proven to be abject failures.

Ultimately, this thoroughly compromised and morally rudderless “Big Tent” has devolved to the point that during the most recent election cycle, it represented nothing more than a conglomeration of disparate personalities. Its boundaries were established and continually moved, not to define any worthy principle, but to make room for the latest aspiring Republican “wannabe.”

The self-destructive futility and absurdity of such a counterproductive approach to governing and leadership was made grimly obvious by the seeming betrayal of the party, at the worst possible moment, by former GOP luminary Colin Powell. Throughout the past decade, the boundaries of the “Big Tent” were stretched to grotesque proportions in a vain attempt to be “inclusive” of Powell and his kind, only to have them utilize their heightened credibility to the benefit of the opposition at critical points in the presidential campaign. A “tent” that accommodates Trojan Horses like Powell sows the seeds of its own defeat.

In contrast, during the current reign of liberal insanity, a conservative party philosophy and platform that focuses on the best interests of the American people will, by definition, represent a starkly different, and eventually very appealing, alternative to the twisted dreams and sinister aspirations of the left. The goals and methods of liberalism never have, and never will, offer a better life for those subjugated under them.

For truly principled and courageous Republicans, this time in the wilderness may seem desperate and bleak. But it also represents an incredible opportunity to underscore the differences that irreconcilably divide right and left. The Republican Party can either continue its futile attempts at appeasement and thus be relegated to irrelevancy, or it can face this challenge head-on and thereby embark on the surest road to its renewal.

by Christopher Adamo

It is a safe bet that Barack Obama will never again engage “Joe the Plumber” or anyone like him in a discussion of policy without “preconditions.” Some things are just too dangerous to the future of liberal America to be left to chance.

On October 12 Joe, a real American with legitimate concerns for his future and his country, questioned Obama as to why the Democrat Presidential wannabe would see fit to punish Joe for establishing a successful business. Since then Democrat political attack dogs and their media minions have not stopped delving into any and every aspect of Joe’s life, in a desperate effort to cloud and eventually erase the real significance of Joe’s encounter with Obama from the minds of the American people, hopefully before it influences their voting decisions.

Adding to all of the distractions and diversions from their brief exchange, it turns out that “Joe the Plumber” (In reality, Samuel Joe Wurzelbacher of Toledo Ohio) is an extremely well versed and articulate speaker, who regularly offers very profound observations on every topic from America’s current economic crisis to the War in Iraq. Some enthusiastic onlookers are even postulating as to his worthiness to run for Congress in 2010.

So it is not surprising that the Democrat/media axis has focused an enormous amount of attention on any perceived flaws in Joe’s past life. Among other transgressions, it turns out that he is not a certified plumber. But despite the inordinate hype that the monolithic cabal of liberals made of Joe’s lack of official certification, the matter is wholly irrelevant to the critically important point that resulted from his meeting with Obama.

Likewise, for all of his verbal proficiency and appeal, Joe’s driving political philosophy is not the issue of primary concern. Even the very question he asked of Barack Obama is itself a secondary matter. Of singular importance is the repugnant nature of Obama’s answer to Joe. Claiming that he did not want to “punish” anyone, Obama went on to voice his belief that life in America would be improved if he and his class were able to “spread the wealth” on behalf of others who might not be doing as well as Joe aspired to do.

The rare simplicity and direct candor of Obama’s answer is singularly telling, and leaves no room for “reinterpretation.” It cannot be claimed, as the Obama campaign has so often done, that the narcissistic Illinois Senator was “taken out of context.” He believes in socialism and the forced confiscation and redistribution of wealth, under government direction, from the “haves” to the “have nots.” Thus, the event serves as a damning indictment of Obama’s contempt for the freedom and opportunity that for over two centuries has underwritten this nation’s prosperity and greatness.

As such, immediate damage control from the left was in order. On one “news” program after another, Joe was demeaned and belittled. Joy Behar, offering her typically vapid commentary on the ABC program “The View,” mocked Joe as “engaging in fantasy” for hoping to eventually buy the plumbing business where he is presently employed. Vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden (D.-DE) similarly demeaned him for worrying about the possibility of eventually earning the $250,000 that at least on that date (The number has predictably dropped to $150,000 in Obama’s more recent speeches.), qualified him to be a target of Obama’s fiscal fairness police.

Perhaps most reprehensible of all is the grim revelation that Helen Jones-Kelley the Director of Ohio’s “Department of Job and Family Services,” suddenly decided to do a thorough background check on Joe. Of course she denies any connection between this vindictive move and her having made the maximum legally allowable donation to the Obama campaign.

Such a colossal attack by virtually the entire Democrat political assassination squad, directed at a person of Joe’s average social status may strike some naive liberals as completely out of character for the party that so proudly declares itself to be the advocate of “the little guy.” Yet, considering the ugly realities of liberalism, the situation makes perfect sense.

In truth, Democrats and liberals have always had a vested interest in keeping the “little guy” in a downtrodden and disadvantaged state. A preponderance of such vulnerable and feeble individuals represents their greatest hold on political power. Consequently, anyone who strives to elevate himself out of needy circumstances to a position of autonomy and self-determination represents the greatest of all threats to the liberal agenda. Obama is certainly no exception. “Community Organizers” need, above all else, an exploitable community to empower them.

Ambitious and self-motivated, “Joe the Plumber” does not fit that mold. In the end, the visceral loathing exhibited towards Joe by the left was merely a dark glimpse of its regard for any American who might spurn the promise of subsistence at the hands of the “nanny state” and exchange its insipidness for the risks and rewards of good old-fashioned liberty.

In this manner can be explained all of the seeming contradictions of liberalism that have baffled many who might presume liberal intentions to be inherently good. Among the best examples is that of liberal culpability over the failure of public education. While claiming heartfelt concern for disadvantaged youth, liberals fiercely and determinedly oppose any efforts to let inner city children be set free from the educational wastelands of urban government schools.

Obama’s own involvement with the Annenberg Foundation (originally established to fund education), along with fellow radical and domestic terrorist William Ayers, stands as further proof. Clearly, their mutual goal was not to boost the traditional academic atmosphere for Chicago’s inner-city youth. Doing so would only open the doors of true American opportunity to those impressionable young people, allowing them to break free of the liberal snare in which they would otherwise remain in perpetuity.

Fifty million dollars later, another entire generation of Chicago’s urban population is almost universally steeped in venomous liberal social/political philosophies that hang on their wrists and necks like shackles, barring them from ever rising above the squalor of their current existence. Yet in that state, their helplessness translates to the maximum benefit of Ayers, Obama, and the others who hold a firm grip on those shackles.

In contrast, “Joe the Plumber” personifies the spirit of those Americans who once chose to abandon the comparative safety and stability of the plantation, and instead risked the hazards and uncertainties of Harriet Tubman’s “Underground Railroad” in hopes of finding freedom, who overcame the hardships and deprivations of the Oregon trail in pursuit of a land of opportunity, and who steadfastly refused to accept their lot as members of soup lines, opting instead to strike out on their own for a better life.

As such, he and his kind are a mortal threat to the liberal paradigm, and must be stopped at any cost. And as such, every “Joe the Plumber” across America must stand resolute in the face of the ongoing propaganda onslaught from the leftists, and flatly tell them “No! Real America will not go quietly into the night!”

By Christopher Adamo

It is by no means severe to point out that if leftists were wise and rational, they would not be leftists. Vladimir Lenin, the Soviet Union’s first dictator and an icon of the left, aptly described its devotees as “useful idiots,” owing to their enthusiastic and mindless devotion to causes that invariably would lead to their own destruction. Furthermore, it must be constantly reiterated that such minions only remain “useful” to the leadership as long as they remain, well, idiots.

A century has elapsed since Lenin’s demeaning characterization of his most loyal followers. Yet the consistent applicability of that term has done little to enlighten the ongoing ranks of new applicants for the label. And as Election Day approaches, much of America seems perfectly willing to take its place among that ignominious assembly.

Most appalling of all is that from the current day, back to Lenin’s reign of terror and even before, evidence abounded which should have been sufficient to warn any stumbling ideologue possessing even the tiniest shred of common sense that fawning subjugation to a corrupt leader is no guarantee of personal well being or safety. Unfortunately, then as well as now, common sense has proven to be a rare commodity.

Campaign rhetoric and media concocted “conventional wisdom” aside, it is important to elevate the current presidential debate out of the morasses of “political correctness” and consider the upcoming 2008 elections against the real backdrop of America’s present-day circumstances. To do otherwise is to minimize, perhaps fatally, the inherent strengths and virtues of this nation, thus tearing down the firewall necessarily established in recent years to protect it from the mortal threats it faces.

Pretending all was well during the 1990s did not negate the eventual attacks of confrontational Islamists. Nor would a return to that blissfully ignorant pre-September 11 national mindset accomplish anything but a repeat of its dreadful consequences. And this time around, America would undoubtedly face a far more serious onslaught of that enemy that waits patiently for any sufficient chink in the nation’s armor.

In order to shake present day America from the insipid discussions of gas prices, “global warming,” and even the alarming financial situation that dominates much of the news cycle, it is imperative to revisit the events of seven years ago on September 11. Recall, if you will, those horrific final moments before the planes flew headlong into buildings full of unwary, innocent people. In the pilots’ seats were crazed and hate-consumed Islamists who undertook such actions with inhuman glee, believing that they would shortly be rewarded for the horror, suffering, and death they were causing.

Yet those indescribably awful moments represent only a tiny portion of the larger picture. While America’s allies initially rallied to its comfort and aid, many on the world scene, who only occasionally feign to be supportive of this nation and its interests, offered conditional and tepid condolences, which were immediately followed by not-so-subtle finger wagging, ultimately accusing America for having been the root cause of the attacks. Over time, their simmering hostilities towards this nation, and transparent allegiance to the attackers, have surfaced. This is true not only for those overtly venomous entities abroad, but alarmingly within some domestic circles as well.

President George Bush, for all of his moral and political ambiguities, presented the situation in its stark clarity during his speech to Congress and the nation on September 20, 2001 with the statement “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists.” And despite the dulling of sensibilities that ensues with the passage of time, and all of the incessant media spin stupidly claiming the contrary, that defining reality has not changed. Nor will it ever do so.

Those who sought to drive back the fearsome and escalating forces of militant Islam, and who recognize its threat as an ongoing one, are on the same team as the good people of the United States who rallied in the wake of the attack and joined its military to wage war against the fiends that were behind it (along with all of their direct and indirect supporters). To this day they stand with real America and refuse to give ground to the diseased ideologies that fueled the attacks.

All of the rest, who either attempted to remain neutral and passive where no room for passivity or neutrality exists, or who actively worked to undermine the Terror War and thus contribute to America’s ultimate defeat, must be counted among the ranks of America’s enemies. And this immovable truth remains, to an absolutely equal degree, whether such enemies are foreign or domestic.

After sorting and digesting every criticism of the McCain/Palin ticket, few can deny that its principals have, or ever had, any intention or interest regarding the Terror War other than a total victory for the United States. Just as surely, it would be impossible to assign such motives of purity to Democrat candidate Barack Obama.

In ugly contrast to John McCain, Barack Obama has frequently made disparaging statements about the possibility or even the necessity of America’s triumph against the Islamists. Perhaps more significantly, he maintained alliances with the likes of “Reverend” Jeremiah Wright, William Ayers, and Louis Farrakhan, all of whom voice overt hate for America while lauding the eventual success of its enemies. To such people, the suffering of innocent Americans in the process is perversely characterized as “justice,” perhaps best exemplified in Wright’s assertion of 9-11 as “America’s chickens coming home to roost.”

Barack Obama is perhaps the farthest left of a leftist political party that has minimized every symbol of U.S. achievement against the Islamists (such as the triumphal Iraqi elections or President Bush’s spectacular landing on the Aircraft Carrier Abraham Lincoln), while magnifying to obscene levels every misstep throughout the process (Abu Ghraib and the phony episodes of flushed Korans immediately come to mind).

In these dangerous times, “ignorance” might only be “bliss” very briefly. America cannot bow out of the Terror War, no matter how “eloquently” a President Obama may think he can do so. America cannot befriend its mortal enemies. It will either defeat them or be ever after subject to their attacks, and ultimately, to their twisted ideology.

The cauldron of Islamic militancy seemed dormant until President Jimmy Carter’s nihilistic stupidity breathed life into it during the 1970s. Now Iran is the center of Islamic terrorism and insurgency. Soon, the world may be facing the terrible presence of a nuclear Iran.

Democrat vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden predicted a horrendous international “test” for Obama, should he be elected. He has since been effectively muzzled by the Obama camp, since such alarming truths pose great risks to the Democrat ticket. But Biden was right, more than he knows.

By Christopher Adamo

In a blatant example of political grandstanding rooted in sheer audacity, leaders of the Democrat Party are seeking to gain as much mileage as possible from the nation’s economic woes. Worst of all is that they are doing so by incessantly blaming the situation on such easily refutable bogeymen as “greed on Wall Street” and “predatory lending.” Yet by their nearly hysterical repetitions of these straw dogs, they inadvertently reveal their inherent vulnerabilities on the issue. Sadly, Republicans are still not rising to the challenge of exposing the whole debacle for what it is.

To begin with, the notion that “greed on Wall Street” somehow formulated the current financial fiasco is wholly without any factual basis, but rather is an indication of the contempt held towards Middle America by those elitists who consider themselves to be the “Ruling Class.” Wall Street has always been driven by the desire of its participants to accrue and increase wealth.

If that is “greed,” then every American employee who ever works overtime or seeks a pay raise is every bit as guilty of “greed” as well, but just not as successful as the competent investment broker. What causes similar motivations to undermine America’s financial markets is not the mere desire for greater wealth, but the unchecked presence of corruption. And that begs the question of just who undermined or prevented oversight of the financial system necessary to maintain its integrity.

More significantly however, under even casual scrutiny, the commonly blamed activity of “predatory lending” evaporates into thin air. Consider this inane notion in contrast to those conditions necessary to devastate the nation’s entire banking industry. It quickly becomes obvious that the phony scenario of a slick loan officer, seeking to extort the life-savings from mom and pop, simply will not generate such calamity unless powerful people in high public office have an ulterior stake in the operation and participate in the ruse.

Ultimately, it is those people who must be rooted out and held accountable. But it is also those people who are not only escaping any culpability, but who are the most vehement in their condemnation of the industry that, without their interference, would not have anything to gain by perpetrating such felonious action that, in the end, constitutes a crime against every honest citizen of this nation.

Even the most unscrupulous used-car salesman would not purposely seek to liquidate his entire inventory of vehicles if he knew that payment would consist entirely of bad checks. Simply moving stock off of the lot, without any hope of reaping a cash profit, would be the height of foolishness, and the surest way to destroy his business.

On the other hand, consider the typical operation of a government welfare office. Its supposed reason for existence is to improve the lives of those unfortunate individuals who “need assistance.” Yet its real success is only determined by establishing ever-larger roles of recipients. Thus it seeks to ensnare, not bolster, the lives of those who stray into its midst. In the end, the enormous sums of money it distributes to its “clients,” whether or not they qualify or actually need it, is secondary to the benefits it reaps from its enlarged role as a self-serving bureaucracy.

The same rules apply to those in the banking industry. A “predatory lender” in the free market only stands to destroy his livelihood if he makes loans to people who cannot qualify for them and are thus likely to be unable to pay them off. The only reason to make such an imprudent agreement is if one expects some alternative means of reaping a profit from the transaction. And that is where the insidious connection between the financial markets of New York and the bureaucratic monstrosity of Washington D.C. becomes profoundly relevant.

More importantly, that is why the current efforts of the liberal media/Democrat axis to deflect attention, and essentially cover up the enormous scandal which precipitated the mortgage and banking collapse and subsequent “bailout” amounts to a criminal theft of the wealth of America.

Bad loans could only be worthwhile to bankers who knew they could reap credit for them, while offloading them to governing entities which did not require any payoff. For the loaning institutions, it did not matter if the principals who received the loan ever paid back a penny. In the end, the balance due would come from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the pseudo government organizations that have direct access to the public trough, and thus could collect tax dollars in lieu of real payments.

In other words, with the backing of Federal bureaucrats, and their unlimited stockpile of monies confiscated from taxpayers, it was sufficiently profitable to simply make loans to anyone and everyone who walked through the door, with the full expectation that Uncle Sam would pay for everything with your money. Such a financial “strategy” carried with it the iron-fist of the “politically correct,” who not only enabled such perverse “lending” to ensue, they demanded it.

A May 31, 1999 article in the Los Angeles Times best highlights this abominable misuse of government power, explaining that Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae “are now required to devote 42% of their portfolios to loans for low and moderate income borrowers; HUD, which has the authority to set the targets, is poised to propose an increase this summer.” Thus was the stage set during the Clinton Administration for today’s monetary meltdown.

In the end, the “predatory lenders” turned out to be those same people in government who forced this outrage on America, who received kickbacks for the scam in the form of campaign contributions. Showing absolutely no shame, they now loudly boast of having crafted a phony $700 billion “solution” which somehow leaves them totally devoid of any responsibility and instead absurdly credits them with “fixing” the problem.

From the felonious former president to Assistant Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, Franklin Raines (now a key Obama advisor), Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, and Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd (Democrats all), the ranks of those who established and enabled the Fannie Mae/Freddie Mac federally sanctioned “money laundering” program reads like a “Who’s Who” of Clinton Era cronyism.

They systematically prevented any effective oversight, and grew the monster to unfathomable proportions by feeding the huddled masses of low-income loan applicants into its gaping jaws (among those defaulting are an estimated five million illegals). Accordingly, they deserve condemnation in the loudest terms every time they open their sanctimonious mouths.

Only in such a manner can true justice be done. And only by their public disgrace and accountability (Does anyone remember how loudly these same people condemned Enron CEO Ken Lay?) can the nation hope to avoid an otherwise inevitable repeat of the fiasco.

By Christopher Adamo

It is altogether appropriate that last April, when Barack Obama delivered his disparaging commentary in San Francisco about Americans who, in his opinion, “get bitter” and “cling to guns and religion” as a result of hardship, he specifically mentioned the good people of Pennsylvania. It was after all, a past generation of “bitter clingers” in Philadelphia two centuries ago who, looking around them and concluding that “change” was clearly in order, crafted the Declaration of Independence, committing everything they owned to the cause, and asserting a “firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence.”

Their audacious effort was backed up by General George Washington, that most resolute of “bitter clingers,” whose own reliance on God, guns, and the valor of his fellow patriots in rags finally birthed this nation, shedding their blood on such hallowed lands as Yorktown and Valley Forge. Those great Americans and their modern counterparts have clearly been steeped in a philosophical and spiritual doctrine that is starkly different from anything Barack Obama can comprehend. So it is no wonder that he would malign them.

Over the last few weeks, Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin has demonstrated, on several fronts, that her own background and abilities thoroughly qualify her to be second in command at the White House. More importantly however, with each passing day, she proves that her political worldview is far more reflective of the founders and the people of the heartland than anything offered by Obama or his minions on the left.

If her track record as Governor of Alaska, her convention speech, and her ability to remain unruffled by the disgraceful conduct of the liberal media towards her was not sufficient to make this case, Palin’s performance last week at the vice-presidential debate certainly was. It is important to remember that, at once, she had to contend with an overtly unsympathetic debate “moderator” while displaying the skills and proficiency necessary to assume the nation’s helm at a moment’s notice.

Of even greater significance was that she had to prove these abilities while successfully navigating the gauntlet of her running mate’s often-varied stances on the issues. Anything less would have opened floodgates of media skepticism about the compatibility of the two candidates. Nevertheless, she rose to the occasion and surpassed all expectations. Clearly, she is a person who is not intimidated by the erudite banalities of the “Ivy League.” And such a quality is needed inside the Beltway now, more than ever before.

Real America is grimly aware that something major is very wrong in Washington. But Sarah Palin has already found herself in similar situations as Governor of Alaska, and has consistently risen above them. In contrast, a serious examination of Barack Obama’s record (an admitted rarity among the sycophants of the liberal media) reveals his plans for “change” to be little more than alterations in packaging and rhetoric, but not policy. And with fundamental policies remaining unchanged, it is ludicrous to expect any change in results.

The aftershocks of the misnamed “bailout” reveal nothing less. Though angry and vehement in their opposition as the contrived drama unfolded, Americans are just now beginning to grasp the enormity of this boondoggle. With barely a few days to consider the full ramifications of their actions, the Congress and President have committed the nation to spending nearly one trillion dollars.

Meanwhile, they steadfastly refused to assign culpability to the likes of Representative Barney Frank (D.-MA), Senator Chris Dodd (D.-CN), or any of the principals at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac who precipitated the disaster while funneling money into their own bank accounts and Democrat coffers.

This is “business as usual” within the politically incestuous circles of the Nation’s Capitol, but on a far grander scale than ever before. And since absolutely nobody has been held accountable for the incomprehensively expensive non-solution, barring a major house cleaning the nation can only reasonably expect more of the same. Under an Obama administration the only likely “change” may be that Americans eventually lose their ability to object to the similar outrages that are certain to come.

In light of this, it is worthwhile to consider whose past record portends any possibility of a truly effective “change” in the appalling condition of the federal government.

Few Americans are either so uninformed or willfully blind as to pretend that the Chicago/Illinois political machine is actually open and virtuous in its conduct. Yet Barack Obama not only survived within that system, he thrived there. It is virtually impossible to avoid the conclusion that, by refusing to confront the system, he was eventually absorbed into it. In contrast, Sarah Palin saw problems within the Alaskan government and proceeded to fix them.

In Sarah Palin’s world, “bipartisanship” means that she pursues corrupt Republicans as fervently as she pursues corrupt Democrats, a severe departure from the D.C. mindset. In a similarly atypical fashion, her most noted “flip flop” was to eventually refuse funding of the “bridge to nowhere” after having initially voicing approval of it. Refusing “pork” is a cardinal sin according to the prevailing thinking in Washington. So of course it is this situation, and not Obama’s schizophrenic and conflicting foreign policy pronouncements regarding Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad or his acceptance of exorbitant “donations” from Fannie Mae, that gravely concerns the liberal media.

Barack Obama is not a Muslim, but is very close to its most noted American advocates such as “Nation of Islam” founder Louis Farrakan. He is not a terrorist, but each passing day reveals deeper ties between himself and the likes of Bill Ayers. He is not a mass embezzler, but retains former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines on his campaign staff. And he is not a traitor, but is wholly sympathetic to the likes of Ahmadinejad, while being unrestrained in his criticism of America.

John McCain, and not Sarah Palin, is at the top of the Republican Presidential ticket. Nevertheless, as vice-president she would bring an element of honesty and proven integrity to the nation’s highest office, which it sorely needs. Clearly, Barack Obama represents a pillar of the liberal/elitist establishment in Washington. The notion of “change” under his leadership amounts to wishful thinking, with absolutely no supporting evidence, and plenty of reason to expect the opposite.