Conservative Refocus

As the Democrats, which can now be legitimately referred to as the "Insanicrats," continue their mad dance about the political stage, most Americans continue to nervously scratch  their heads in bemused alarm to the point of creating unsavory bald spots.  While we have long-time Congressional members of the Insanicrats attacking young college students due to their impertinent questions, we have the State Department acting as The Department of Justice in announcing the Government's intent to sue Arizona--delivered from Ecuador of all places--and of course, we have a White House which has fraudulently altered a completed report from a Presidentially appointed commission of experts regarding the drilling moratorium,  and then a President who announces that he intends to apparently remake how Americans consume energy by moving away from the traditional fuels and switching us over to "imagi-fuel."

To explain, imagi-fuel is similar to the gluon, a theoretical particle in physics that cannot be proven to exist but simply must exist in order to make other theories work properly.  Imagi-fuel is the new theoretical super fuel to which the President has now hitched his fluid imagination and, perhaps, our future.  Adding to all of this dementia, we also have a behemoth major oil company in BP which has chosen to perform various dog-like supplicative tricks in a bizarre effort to please the public--since it can't get the job done at-hand--and to also, no doubt,  placate an American Government bent on opening up a serious can of whoop-ass--to use the President's professorial lexicon.  Roll-over and play dead BP.  Good Oil company!

In the President's address regarding the Gulf Spill, he spoke of Government and BP's unsuccessful attempts to plug the damnable gusher in the Gulf as a "battle."  A battle?  If indeed this is a battle the President has chosen to fight it with one arm tied behind his back and a post-speech foot stuck directly in his mouth after turning away offers of help from at least 13 different countries.  The Government's refusal to immediately "attack"  the spill from day one with skimmer ships and diffusers and other diverse and even now available and yet ignored technologies are the reasons that various uproars are raging.  But additionally, perhaps the chief irony in all of this would have to be Obama's  refusal to issue an executive order to suspend the "Jones Act," which is an American Maritime Law which disallows foreign ships and crews from operating in American waters due to, heaven help us all, Union concerns.

Selectively Blitzkrieging Problems In "America The Horrible"

Previously, Obama had issued so many executive orders, often in contrast to the strictures of the US Constitution and or historical convention, that the Media referred to the voluminous mandates coming out of the White House as "mad scribbling."  But in this case The President hit the brakes on his executive decrees to which we can only repeat:  Bravo, Bravo Mr. President!  Impeccable timing to halt the executive orders just when we can actually derive something useful from one of them for a change.

But the fulmination of the President's speech laid out a blitzkrieg, once again, on the formerly villanous United States due to its oil use in comparison to the rest of the world and how Obama planned to "really" attack this particular problem.  We have all heard ad nauseum of the Insanicrats and their constant belittling of America due to its energy usage as opposed to its population as being only about 4.5% of the world's population.  However, it must be pointed out that the propagandists are utilizing an erroneous measure.  In fact, the worlds GDP stands at $ 58 Trillion Dollars.  The US portion of this world GDP stands at $ 14.25 Trillion.  This actually means that although we consume 20% of the world's oil we actually produce 25% of the world's economy with our energy resources.  Pretty efficient, huh?  Bears repeating:  While utilizing only 20% of the worlds energy resources, the United States produces a whopping 25% of the world's economy.

Now isn't it fascinating how the "America is Horrible" crowd never seems to mention this amazing fact?  Even more amazing are the Government leaders in Washington, especially the President, who are always quick to vilify America for its presumed "shortcomings" without actually stating the things that the US does very well.  So how does the President expect Americans to continue producing this staggering percentage of the world's economy while cutting our traditional energy usage?  Shall we use our looks perhaps?

A Crisis Of Coincidence

Many have now spoken of the startling similarities between Obama's Gulf speech and Carter's 70's era "Crisis of Confidence" speech.  The similarities are, indeed, striking.  Nearly 30 years ago, President Carter, during the midst of the mideast oil crisis, gave a speech that basically warned us that crude oil would soon become so scarce that in 15 years Americans would be unable to afford it.  And yet, no such dire predictions have come from oil energy experts--even in this modern day--while Obama insists that America is running out of the stuff.  Many individuals tend to look at oil as being a fossil fuel that is no longer being produced as it comes "from dinosaurs" and the like.  But this is totally misleading and simply incorrect.

Most scientists now agree that oil actually comes from a microscopic,  single-celled aquatic life form known as the diatom.  The diatom actually produces oil as nourishment as a part of its life-process, and then, when it dies, drifts down to the bottom of the sea where it aggregates with other expired diatoms and is covered by a layering of sediments over millions of years--thus the phenomenon of  "oil deposits."  In fact, diatoms, even now, live and reproduce in virtually every aquatic environment known to man and the oceans are teeming with them.  The process of the natural aggregation of the oil is continual, so, therefore, the oil energy that we use is, even now, being slowly produced by these tiny creatures, which ironically derive their life-production of oil from the sun itself.  One supposes that we could then really anger the Environmentalists by declaring that oil is, ultimately, a form of solar energy.

Obama went on to state in his speech that America was essentially running out of oil which is why we have to produce oil from wells that are miles offshore and miles deep.  However, if one looks pragmatically at the "gusher in the Gulf" where oil is spouting out of the sea floor to the tune of an estimated 50,000 barrels a day, even under the ungodly deep sea pressures generated a mile below the ocean's surface, it becomes obvious that there is an extremely ample supply of oil that need not even be pumped, so plenteous and concentrated it is in this one location.  In fact, Environmentalists have gone to extreme efforts and costs in order to force oil companies off of land and out to sea to produce oil.

Running On Empty

This was why, just prior to the Gulf Spill, Obama severely angered his base when he ironically ordered previously off-limits coastal areas around the US to be opened up for further oil exploration in a stated effort to mitigate American energy dependency on foreign oil.  As a reactive result of the Gulf Spill, the President has actually done an extreme if not bizarre turnabout in a scant three months, it would seem when looked at from a critical point of view.  In truth, American Environmentalists have lobbied and barred energy exploration in places known to be suffused with oil for far too many years, and the Insanicrats obviously prefer things to remain that way.

To illustrate, it was also recently discovered that oil shale, which has been found in huge deposits within the states of Wyoming, Utah and Colorado has enough oil contained within its sediments to power the United States for generations to come.  An estimated 2.7 trillion barrels lies ready for use within the shale and yet no efforts have been made to extract and utilize this native source of energy while reducing our foreign oil dependency.

Instead, we are cajoled into using energy sources that have not yet been fully developed and therefore will be unable to properly power our already hesitant economy at least for the foreseeable future.  Then there is the huge oilfield in Anwar Province, Alaska which has also been designated as "off limits" most likely due to its unusual singular ability to partially free America from extreme foreign energy dependence.

While Atlas Shrugs, America Groans

It has been our unfortunate observation that the The President, aided by the Insanicrats, has little compunction for disastrously stumbling the country into all sorts of various  mayhem and then blaming everyone else for the resultant collateral damage.  Obama's term is quickly becoming a tragic "dark comedy" as  he slowly morphs into America's "Emperor of All Ills."  Truthfully, this Administration has proven itself  "superlative" at manufacturing new problems to add to America's extensive product line of existing economic and cultural problems .  But just when we thought the speech was almost over and we could safely move on with our lives, the thing that we dreadfully expected actually happened.

The President, towards the latter part of his speech,  sucker-punched America with what he apparently had intended from the beginning of his term--he was just waiting for a close enough crisis of opportunity to power the formerly --near-latent--anti-oil agenda.

He indicated that  "we now need to end our dependence on fossil fuels."

And much of America symphonically groaned in abject disbelief.

He called the failure of Americans to act on this "non-problem" in the past as being due to a lack of courage and political candor.  He went on to opportunistically tout his Cap and Trade legislation, which is actually based upon the  now-tired and soon-to-be-defunct man-made global warming hoax, as being an integral part of America's transition away from fossil fuels--(and into the here-to-fore Stone Age of impractical clean fuels in their, as of yet, glaring non-existence).

The truly confusing part in the speech was yet to come, however.  After the President left us all groaning in dismay at his lack of clear thinking, he then, being the true leader that he is, indicated how we would accomplish this mad fait accompli.

So how are we going to do this Mr. President, since  the technologies are not yet advanced enough to replace oil?

His answer was simple and straightforward, if one but listened carefully.

"I don't know," was the indirect answer, "but we will get there."

Get where, Mr. President--where are we going--what will it look like?

"I don't know what it will look like either--but we will get there--we always do.  Faith in the future is what sustains us."

Faith in the future?  Well, we all have faith that the future is coming--being that time passes and all--but what does that mean exactly--faith in the future?

"It's the same faith that sustains our neighbors in the Gulf right now."

Umm...those people are not very happy with either you or the Government.  Is that the faith you are talking about, Mr. President?

"Well, it's a faith in the hand that guides us, that God will be with us always."

Oh, Ok...well you might need to talk to the hand because it may not be the same one that the American People are using...but... Umm...you don't mean like God being with us in our Country's demise or even death do you Mr. President?

Mr. President?

Barry Secrest

By Barry Secrest

Should the new Democratic logo be a straight jacket?  The President's rambling nonsensical message to the Nation left many of both Liberal and Conservative bent chuckling in exasperation after his address regarding the Gulf Spill.  The hysterical nature of the Democrats has, however, never been more telling than the actions of a sitting long-time Democratic member of Congress who went into a fit of bipolar madness when engaged on the streets of his "artificial" hometown.

It would appear that this particular Democrat has now teetered over the edge of whatever sanity remained in his leering sarcophagus-like skull.  Congressman Bob Etheridge (DNC), apparently "possessed" of some violent and vengeful demon, whose origins are only available to conjecture, went decidedly postal on a couple of young college students practicing their budding media skills in Washington for their terrible and unseemly transgression.  What was their unholy act? They asked the Congressman if he supported Obama's agenda.  Many North Carolinians, such as this one, and probably a number of outraged Citizens all over the Country, had a strange urge to journey up to Washington and perform the same video skit--but with woefully differing results for the bullying--if not thuggish--Congressman from NC.

In fact, we had been wishing to put to the test the effectiveness of the latest Congressional health care plan anyway.  Regardless, the Congressman was ultimately defended by many members of the "Axis Press" who view all violence as abominable unless perpetrated by one of their own--then it becomes mystifyingly justifiable in their bizarre methodology of reasoning.  Hapless Mark Washburn of the Charlotte Observer, in a blissfully ignorant diatribe that skewed the facts to the point of unrecognition, stated  Etheridge "was pounced on by punks and pounced back."  A later Charlotte Observer editorial also used the word "punks" to describe these young, engaged students.

The interesting fact in all of this is simply that these students were actively engaged in performing, no doubt, what they considered to be their civic duty in conjunction with a school project.  We must then ask the question of the Charlotte Observer--that being--"what constitutes the difference between a reporter and a punk"?  Is it, perhaps, being on the payroll of a news organization?  Is it a press pass?  How many times have we seen Reporters shove microphones and cameras in the faces of politicians far more aggressively than in this instance and yet come away unscathed with questions answered?  Why does the media automatically surmise that the students were being nasty in asking this particular question?

It would also appear that Etheridge was performing his own brand of profiling by demanding to know who these students were--even while they were answering his question that they were students working on a project.  Etheridge never answered the students' very simple question and later apologized, but, indeed, never explained to us why a member of Congress--on the public's dole who is considered to be a member of the public domain and is expected to engage citizens at any moment--elected to assault these students rather than to simply answer their questions.

On the other hand, Mark Washburn's efforts at logical thought could only mirror those of Freddy Krueger in his vindictiveness towards these students.  The question from the students was, once again, " excuse me Congressman, do you support Obama's agenda"?  Washburn actually twisted these words around in his article to the following: "when two polite young men pop up and shove video cameras in your puss and ask you sweetly to admit that you are a pawn of every evil plot hatched by the White House, and you have the nerve – the nerve! – to respond, “Who are you?”

Well... at least now we know, it would appear, how the Liberals in the media really feel about their President.  When "do you support the Obama agenda" becomes  "you are a pawn in every evil plot hatched in the White House" we should all now understand that something's up with the media.  So once again we must ask of the varied and clueless majority in the Liberal Media--but especially in this case:  "Can we have fries with that article, Mr. Washburn?"

The Liberals will often play "spin the bottle" in their selection of whom to protect by clumsy, gradiented reporting.  The Raleigh News and Observer released the story also and the spin became quite evident at close reading.  All through the article, the News and Observer seemed to be carefully laying the groundwork that it was an innocent altercation fomented by the students.  In one instance, the story read that the students held a camera inches from the Congressman's face--which was not readily apparent on the video.  Quotes from WH Press Secretary Bob Gibbs stating "how honorable" Etheridge was, along with quotes from other media "experts," were laid out as if to say that Etheridge's burst of violence against a fledgling member of the media was no big deal.

The final coffin nail, in this case, was the referencing of videos being used as political weapons since August of 2006 when Republican George Allen called a media member "macaca" (which is, apparently, an ethnic slur of dubious origins that most have no idea about).  However, one must remember that THIS video became a weapon only when the Congressman chose to become a weapon himself.  He could have simply said, "Yes. I do support Obama's agenda--look at my voting record."  Or he could have walked on by, ignoring the students' queries as is a commonly accepted practice among politicians at all levels.

Underneath it all, however, the daunting truth is emerging for the Media's "Golden Child."  When it becomes an insult to ask a Congressman if he supports Obama's agenda, we can all now read the tea leaves and see what most of the Democrats running for re-election will face come November.

We asked if Mr. Washburn could supply fries with his "fast food article."  To Congressman Etheridge we can only state that the egg on his face goes really well with the fact that he is now "toast"--now where is that lithium-butter spread?

The Irrepressible Obama was at it again this week, this time pointing the finger of culpability at BP Chief Tony Hayward due to Hayward's heartfelt yet pitifully inadequate statement of "wanting his life back" since the Gulf Disaster has now tragically taken it away.  Most in America can commiserate with Hayward's sullenness as we all now  harbor a  wistful desire to "have our lives back" as well--as we continue to navigate through the economically treacherous waters of "Obamanomics."

However, the President did not stop at blaming Hayward for various BP inadequacies and off-kilter statements, Obama went on to state that Hayward "wouldn't be working for him after any of those statements." And yet again most Americans can  commiserate with the President's feelings in that we expect to be disallowing Obama himself from his current responsibilities come election time, due directly to his woeful inadequacies as "Leader of the Free World" and by his continually off-kilter statements if not actions or inaction.

When Hayward stated that the "Gulf is a big ocean" and then added that "the environmental impact of the disaster is likely to be very,very modest," many Americans might have been reminded of the Obamacare plan.  You know, the plan that was necessary in order to control spiraling medical costs--which we have now learned will increase our overall current costs by a minimum of $1.2 Trillion in additional outlays while reducing medical outlays for our Seniors.  In fact, we are still learning of the various  tumultuous and ultimately tragic facets of the plan.

When Answers Become Tarballs

The injurious  results of Obamacare, much like the dreaded oil plumes of the Gulf, have already stymied American business and caused doctors to begin to eventually opt out of traditional practice or actually turn patients away--this in addition to a known future deficit of physicians available to administer the requirements of the plan among many, many other issues too numerous to count.  The damaging effects of the healthcare law seem to keep washing up into our collective consciousness much like the dreaded tarballs which continually drift onto the shores of Gulf beaches.  So yes, we Americans understand perfectly how Obama feels about Hayward's disingenuous remarks and the harmful side-effects of "his" work.

Americans were then even more stunned to learn that the President has yet to even talk to the Chief of BP.  We are, in fact,  in the midst of an ecological disaster the likes of which  America has never seen and the President is too indifferent to even talk to the man ostensibly in charge of the repair and clean-up?  Based upon our dubious experience thus far, one must then wonder that if Tony Hayward had been a Muslim eco-terrorist intent upon inflicting severe damage to the Gulf, would the President have then "extended his hand in friendship and understanding" rather than brandishing a "clinched fist in defiance"?  The President actually explained his reasons for not speaking to Hayward as follows:  "Because when you talk to a guy like a BP CEO he's gonna say all the right things to me.  I'm not interested in words, I'm interested in actions."

But alas, once again, the American people can totally empathize with  Obama's feelings due simply to the fact that what the President stated all through his campaign, as opposed to his later actions as President, bear no true resemblance to one another.  Perhaps the President sees far too much of himself in Tony Hayward thereby setting off an automatic response of reactive repugnance to the man--who knows?  The President then, seemingly playing to a crowd of journalists and detractors who criticized the President for a lack of passion, showed us all the "true" extent of his fiery demeanor by stating that his reasons for "standing in the rain" and "talking to those folks" in the Gulf was so that he would know "whose ass to kick."

El Magnifico Goes Postal on Gluteous-Maximus

Here, we Americans must then empathetically part ways with the President in our "mutual feelings of disregard" in that when it comes to understanding the breadth and depth and the causes of the American economic disaster as opposed to the Gulf Disaster we know precisely whose ass should be kicked.  But the President, in a fit of poetic justice,  has certainly taken a butt-thumping in the polls as a result of his essential non-action with regard to the Gulf Spill.  While the President urgently stated to the American people that "we will not rest until the problems of the Gulf spill are solved," he proceeded to fittingly flit from one party or White House occasion to another, or trundle off on a vacation, or perhaps even take in a rousing White House performance by oafish pop star Paul McCartney.  No rest for the weary indeed-- for the "Partier in Chief" it would seem.

While many journalists and otherwise have come to the defense of the President, many of these same Presidential apologists were the first to cast aspersions of blame on George W. Bush due to the Katrina disaster.  Interestingly, some Conservatives are offering up a defense for Obama while many Liberals seem quick to leap to the attack  due to the President's gratuitous lack of action--so who is right?  Here at Conservative Refocus--when in doubt--go to the facts.

On Day 1 - When the rig exploded, the President departed a fundraiser in LA for Barbara Boxer and headed back to Washington.

On Day 2- Obama attended a reception for the G-20 finance ministers, along with attending a meeting to discuss the Supreme court vacancy.

On days 3 through 6-The President, ironically, hosted a reception for Earth day,visited NYC to promote the finance bill and then flew off to Asheville on a golfing vacation.

On Days 7 through 10- the President hosted the NY Yankees at the White House, flew to Iowa and Missouri ,and then attended a swank DNC fundraiser in DC.

On Days 11 and 12- the President flew to Maryland and then joined Jay Leno at a White House charity Dinner.

Day 13- The President finally finds his way to Louisiana.

Days 14 through 24 - was more of all the above--except for day 13.

Day 25- The President finally delivers a speech on the oil spill.

Crafting a Scarecrow Defense

While we understand that the President's duties continue--despite the various calamities which might emerge during the course of a Presidential term--we do take issue with the President's statement of having been centered on the problems in the Gulf from day one.  We have also heard from scores of Congressmen, Senators and Governors regarding the seeming lack of Federal action.  When criticized as to these facts, the President has actually defended his nearly paralyzed response by stating that the very ones who bluster and continually gripe for a smaller Government are the same ones who now demand help from the embattled Government.

Obama, in this case, seems to be unwittingly making the Conservative's case, in spite of himself, in erecting a Straw Man to diffuse the criticism.  No one can gainsay the fact that the Government has grown large and bloated within the last 18 months, and yet we can now see that  its ability to respond when finally and urgently needed has been compromised, most likely due to its size and its multiple layers of redundant bureaucracy.  The new Obama Department of Defense now seems to specialize mainly in defending against criticism against the Government rather than countering foreign military threats.

When the President came into his office he actually indicated that Ocean levels would fall, Pollution would become a thing of the past, even bi-partisanship wrangling was over.  Obama seemed intent upon making everyone think that, in essence, the problems of the past would become a thing of the past.  Poverty would be beaten back, the terrorists would soon like us after they understood what the New Kid was all about, and the US would blossom into a Liberal Utopia and be respected and loved by all.  The message soon became:  Government was the answer to all problems and Obama was the answer to Government's problems.  The truth, however it would seem, has now set the hope and changers free forever.

The Expansive Gulf of America

The President has been unable to quell an economy in turmoil while fatalistically running up a monster deficit, the Stimulus was but an impotent, deficit-busting Liberal dream finally realized, and the American people along with the party of opposition have been all but shut out as to the determination of direction of a Country now under the leering gaze of the Authoritarian Progressives.   But in the Gulf Spill we had a problem that seemed to flow right into the Messiah's premise of expertise, a monumental, defining instance where he the "Messiah" could showcase his amazing abilities.  Unfortunately, after repeated problems in trying to staunch the flow of "black gold," it would seem that, despite the fact that oil is thicker than water, neither of these elements proves a sturdy  enough footing  for El Magnifico to perform his amazing walk.

So, the official who could seemingly solve any problem was unable  to solve even this most simple of problems--that being healing the seeping gash at the Gulf's bottom.  Those who were formerly amazed at his soaring oratory also seemed to think that he had an equally miraculous problem solving ability.  Those individuals are now terribly dejected and disappointed--and fittingly so.  The Disaster in the Gulf of Mexico is but a microcosm of the Monstrous "Gulf of America" that exists between the People and their governance.  This hyper-magnified American Gulf disaster represents a schism between realistic economic policy and a stunted Progressive version that relies heavily upon debt, taxation and more Government while stunting Liberty.  There is also a huge Gulf between Governance and the People in upholding the tenets of the Constitution rather than those in power's current creative attempts at navigating around the People's rights in addition to forbearance.

The one who promoted Government as being able to solve everything, under the proper tutelage, has proven himself amazingly ineffective at solving anything at all.  While the Commander in Chief  who came before Obama was unable to effectively quell the tide of a monster storm, the wunder-kind who is now the President was unable even to quell an unnatural oily leak at the Ocean's bottom.  Thus the reason for our now having a very frustrated President who resorts to trash-talking the protagonist leader of those whom are culpable, debased to the ass kicking language which will avail no one--not even those who should be impressed and are most likely disappointed at the seeming dissonance in character.

Trading Leadership for Blood Lust

Historically, it is not a President's job to kick the collective asses of those who are the purveyors of a dire accident--be they culpable or not.  It is a President's job to lead in the best and most proper direction out of the problems that regularly embroil a Nation.  While the responsible party, in this case,  obviously had protracted lapses in due diligence--they, nonetheless, did not plan or mean for this accident to happen.  The Administration  seems abnormally hasty if not blood-lustful in pointing the finger of blame while threatening punishment, even while the responsible party works feverishly to correct the problem that they unwittingly helped to create.

The true, immediate victims of this disaster--being those people who live and work in and around the Gulf--now earnestly implore those whom are in power to either lead and help to mitigate the damage or to simply get out of the way.  They implore that those in power not add insult to injury by halting the remaining industries that will help to ameliorate the already heavy economic damages.  They ask that their Government now do what it was designed and empowered to do rather than to send down legions of Bureaucrats intent only upon affixing blame and fear.

What could have been Government's finest hour has retrograded into an age-old question, that being "what's the point?"

Barry Secrest

As the Liberal pundits and politicos continually regurgitate the "Sestak White House bribe" talking points--apparently issued by Executive Decree--we here at Conservative Refocus sit with "red stinging foreheads."  This due to the fact that every time a Liberal states "this is Washington--this is what they do inside the Beltway," we involuntarily smack ourselves on the forehead and groan morosely at the fact that rare, if ever, was the opposing individual who responded back with "OK !  You mean like what the Feds are NOT doing to Blagojevich in Chicago"?

Rob Blagojevich, in fact, was impeached from his Governor's office and is being tried under Federal corruption charges for trying to trade the Senate seat, formerly held by Obama, in an exchange of value that would have ultimately profited the Governor.  The soon-to-begin "Blago" trial will--far from coincidentally-- include testimony from both Rahm Emanuel and Valerie Jarrett, two staffers from The White House who are somehow "intimately" involved, one must assume.

The Administration, meanwhile, is trying to wiggle out of essentially the same circumstances due to their offering up a Federal job of "some sort" in exchange for having a Senate candidate (Sestak) drop out of the running in favor of the preferred White House candidate (Spectre).  In both cases, we can see motive and we can see inimitable gain as a result of the offenses.  Meanwhile, we also have a second name oozing out into the mix where the White House may have also intervened with a candidate named Andrew Romanoff in the Colorado State House.

The Relationship Between Easter Eggs and Condoms

The unvarnished truth that we should all be fascinated with would simply be this:  These are only the instances that we know about. One has to wonder at the odds of discovering two events such as these as being the only instances to have occurred.  How many other colorful White House "Easter Egg" bribes are yet to be found cleverly stashed amongst the political greenery?  Veteran Journalist Larry Kane, who originated the Sestak story, had a number of fascinating things to say about the facts surrounding his breaking of the story.

Kane has indicated that a number of Reporters inside the beltway had talked of the Sestak-bribe rumours but none had reported on them.  Mr. Kane, having also heard of the rumours was simply finishing up his interview with Sestak when, as an afterthought, he popped the question about the alleged White House attempted bribe only to find his jaw on the floor at Sestak's affirmative answer.

The next question that one should ask is simply the following: If the Media knew of the rumours and possible bribe attempt of Sestak by the White House back into mid 2009 then why did none of them report it until now?  A question for the ages perhaps, but it would appear that the Media has continued its practice of protecting the White House rather than challenging Authority whenever possible.  Just think of our Media now as a huge, colorful condom fitting snugly down over the White House.  Ah, yes.  You get the picture.  But wait, perhaps as "figurative repayment" for numerous media protective services granted over the past 18 months, the White House has come out with yet another grand, albeit useless scheme --this time--one which might "save our Media."

The Cash-tration of Journalism

In this latest Statist scheme from the FTC (Forget The Constitution), a draft titled "potential policy recommendations to support the reinvention of journalism" has been published.  Please clarify--Reinvention or Re-intention?  The 47 page draft details a number of proposals to prop up, primarily, newspapers which have seen ad revenues decline a whopping 45% since 2000.  Being a Businessman I can tell you quite easily why newspapers are failing; it's simple.  They charge far too much for their single day ads!  Nor have they embraced newer business models and modern revenue streams.  Regardless, below are a few of the recommendations from the draft:

• Create a journalism division of Americorps which places up to 75,000 people with various non-profits on an annual basis.
• Increase public funding for public radio and television and provide grants to universities to conduct investigative journalism (but not of Government, silly)
• 5% Tax on consumer electronics generating $4 billion annually to go towards news organizations.  Why electronics? Remember--the President thinks we use those too much.

Bearing in mind that this is simply a draft of recommendations, the Government's continuing efforts at shouldering their way into yet another industry that seems to be shakily surviving--like most others--is bad enough.  But when coupled with the fact that the Media is historically the initial bulwark of Liberty for a free Society, this is where caution soon turns to danger.  If Government were to be able to provide funding to a given newspaper, such funding can also be taken away in a tantrum of punishment for having reported items considered damaging to those in power, for instance.  Let us not forget that this particular Administration has shown a singular talent at bullying those who fail to worship at the "alter of Obama" in a universally acceptable format.

Therefore, you would be left with a media outlet whose editor's ears  would be forever pricked towards expunging any "near offense" to those who control funds and, as a result, a populace who would be in abject ignorance to what is actually happening within the "now informationally doomed" Republic.

The Founders Thoughts on a Free Press

The Media, such as it is, being one of the principle wards to a properly functioning Republic, those whom are in power must know that the line between Government and Media should be no less so bold as the liberally cherished line between Government and Church.  The Church being sustenance for the soul while the Media being sustenance for Liberty.

Thomas Jefferson, who seemed to have an ongoing love/hate relationship with the press, nonetheless made his feelings clear when he stated that "given the opportunity to have a Government without Newspapers or conversely Newspapers without a Government, he would choose the latter every single time."  Jefferson, in his extreme brand of wisdom was ever cognizant of the fact that the only true security of a free nation was vested within a free press.

Benjamin Franklin wrote that "whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freedom of speech."   James Madison wrote, "A popular Government without popular information or the means of acquiring it is but a prologue to a farce or a tragedy, or perhaps both."  Finally, Thomas Paine wrote, " those who expect the blessings of liberty must undergo the fatigue of supporting it."  A free press must be without any governmental influence in order to but be a "free" press.  The Progressives would have one believe that commercial interests on the press do damage to its veracity and yet commercial interests are both many and varied and have provided successful support to the press for over 200 years.  One singular Government influence would be disastrous in that there is but one Federal Government and but one Federal couching of the power to abuse by force.

The President's "Unique Ideas" on Job Preservation and Expansion:  Imbecellia

The President's plans, unfortunately, did not end with creatively taking over the media--now the President has decided to own the economy of the Gulf Coast.  Yes indeed, the President, as with all inexperienced, neophyte, Liberal leaders reacted rather predictably to the Oil Spill after a 38 day decision.  This time he announced an "Executive Decree" which would effectively suspend (read end) the drilling operations of 33 deep sea drilling rigs for little or no reason.

These rigs are all operating safely and have no logical reason to be shut down.  This would be akin to halting all flights due to one terrible plane crash or even suspending the act of driving a vehicle due to one terrible crash.  Kneejerk Liberalism knows only how to react and never how to pro-act unless such pro-action contains a measure of crisis opportunism--it would now appear.

The President, by his tragically imbecilic reaction, has now succeeded in effectively firing 7,000 oil rig workers from their jobs--but that's not all!  When one takes into account the five support jobs which will be lost for each oil rig worker job which has been eliminated, the total number of jobs just destroyed by El Magnifico will approach 42,000 jobs.  Let's not even begin to consider the oil tax revenues which will be lost by the Government.

So, yet once again, it falls upon us to say:  Bravo, Bravo Mr. President!  While having just added 41,000 government jobs which each requires five private industry jobs as support--you have just eliminated 42,000 high-paying private industry jobs on a whim.  Our apparently clueless President is quickly becoming  the "doomsday" equivalent to what once was our "super economy."  Not only will many of the Gulf's fishermen be out of work due to the spill, now a large sub-section of oil workers will also be out of work due to the President's spiel.  As we have said many times before--you just can't make this stuff up with such surreal if not disastrous implications.

The cherry on top, adding a certain je ne sais quois of conspiracy, would have to be that we have also recently learned the following:  One week before the Gulf Rig Explosion, Green Energy bank Goldman Sachs sold  its huge stake in BP Oil in what could only be described as a brilliantly prescient move.  But wait, that's not all, a few weeks prior to the spill, BP Chief Tony Hayward sold one third of his shares in BP thereby also saving himself a small fortune.  In fact,  BP shares have fallen by nearly one third since the Gulf Spill occurred, but our two anti-heroes continue riding financially high as most inhabitants both in and about the Gulf descend into what promises to be a long bout of economic suffering.

Ultimately we can soon expect the people of the Gulf region to begin begging the President to stay in Washington, explaining, "We'll handle it from here...er...no need to trouble yourself with your busy schedule and all--but thanks so much for whatever it is that you have done, good Sir."

Keep Your Enemies Close and Um, Who Needs Friends?

But the Administration's demolition efforts did not end in the Gulf.  No, no the State Department also took the time to, yet again, demoralize one of our greatest and most powerful allies--that being Israel.  Israel, working doggedly to maintain its security even while being surrounded by a host of Muslim enemies, was forced into seizing control of a vessel trying to break the Israeli-Gaza embargo--the vessel had refused to be inspected and was suspected of harboring Hamas war materials.  What Israel did not know was that these weren't activists onboard but rather hardened terrorist-types who were laying in wait.  The final result of this engagement left nine dead and a number of others injured.

The backlash from the world was predictable as all nations began piling on Israel for having the gall to enforce its own embargo while protecting its Citizens.  The Administration, rather than supporting its long-time US ally, instead chose to condemn Israel for doing precisely what the US has been doing in both Afghanistan and Iraq, that being preemptively going after its enemies.  The Administration and the UN growing an ever thickening relationship that belies historical convention might ominously imply a possible future of Third World status for America.

Finally, and in a metronome-like counterpoint, our economy stroked downward yet again--which seems to shock everyone except the general populace--as the latest  economic numbers  elicited much surprised disappointment from the media.  The stock market continued its overall slide while unemployment remains high, and private industry jobs have taken yet another round of losses.  (Has it not been said that insanity is the practice of doing the same things over and over again while expecting different results?)  Neither Congress nor Obama have made any meaningful moves to truly counter the damaging cycle--beyond expediting the carnage with repeated harmful legislation--for 18 months.

In other words,  "no good news"-- which has become a thing that is expected and even celebrated now within an America under the illegitimate control of the dreadful, pudgy thumbs of the clueless Socialist-Democrats.

Welcome to the 70's and welcome back Carter.

Barry Secrest