Pause For A Moment

The Foundation

"Our obligations to our country never cease but with our lives." --John Adams

Essential Liberty

Tomb of the Unknown Soldier

Col. Tom Manion, USMCR (Ret.), wrote in The Wall Street Journal about the remarkable men and women in uniform and what they give for our great nation. He should know -- his son gave his life in Iraq in 2007.

"I served in the military for 30 years. But it was impossible to fully understand the sacrifices of our troops and their families until April 29, 2007, the day my son, First Lt. Travis Manion, was killed in Iraq.

"Travis was just 26 years old when an enemy sniper's bullet pierced his heart after he had just helped save two wounded comrades. ...

"While my son's life was relatively short, I spend every day marveling at his courage and wisdom. Before his second and final combat deployment, Travis said he wanted to go back to Iraq in order to spare a less-experienced Marine from going in his place. His words -- 'If not me, then who...' -- continue to inspire me.

"My son is one of thousands to die in combat since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. ...

"When my son died in Iraq, his U.S. Naval Academy roommate, Brendan Looney, was in the middle of BUD/S (basic underwater demolition) training to become a Navy SEAL. Devastated by his good friend's death, Brendan called us in anguish, telling my wife and me that losing Travis was too much for him to handle during the grueling training regimen.

"Lt. Brendan Looney overcame his grief to become 'Honor Man' of his SEAL class, and he served in Iraq before later deploying to Afghanistan. On Sept. 21, 2010, after completing 58 combat missions, Brendan died with eight fellow warriors when their helicopter crashed in Zabul province. He was 29. Brendan and Travis now rest side-by-side in Section 60 of Arlington National Cemetery. ...

"Even after more than a decade of war, these remarkable men and women are still stepping forward. As the father of a fallen Marine, I hope Americans will treat this Memorial Day as more than a time for pools to open, for barbecues or for a holiday from work. It should be a solemn day to remember heroes who made the ultimate sacrifice, and also a stark reminder that our country is still at war."

(link here)

Millions of Patriots Have Already Paid the Full Price

"I am well aware of the toil and blood and treasure that it will cost to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States." --John Adams

Memorial Day provides a stark contrast between the best of our nation's Patriot sons and daughters versus the worst of our nation's civilian culture of consumption.

Amid the sparse, reverent observances of the sacrifices made by millions of American Patriots who paid the full price for Liberty, in keeping with their sacred oaths, we are inundated at every turn with the commercialization of Memorial Day by vendors who are too ignorant and/or selfish to honor this day in accordance with its purpose.

Indeed, Memorial Day has been sold out, along with Washington's Birthday, Independence Day, Veterans, Thanksgiving and Christmas Days. And it's no wonder, as government schools no longer teach civics or any meaningful history, and courts have excluded God (officially) from the public square.

In his essay "The Contest In America," 19th-century libertarian philosopher John Stuart Mill wrote, "War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

It is that "decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling" which accounts for why so many "miserable creatures" have downgraded Memorial Day to nothing more than a date to exploit for commercial greed and avarice. While units large and small of America's Armed Forces stand in harm's way around the globe, many Americans are too preoccupied with beer, barbecue and baseball to pause and recognize the priceless burden borne by generations of our uniformed Patriots. Likewise, many politicos will use Memorial Day as a soapbox to feign Patriotism, while in reality they are in constant violation of their oaths to our Constitution.

That notwithstanding, there are still tens of millions of genuine American Patriots who will set aside the last Monday in May to honor all those fallen Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines and Coastguardsmen who have refreshed the Tree of Liberty with their blood, indeed with their lives, so that we might remain the proud and free. My family, which humbly descends from generations of American Patriots from the American Revolution forward, will honor the service and sacrifice of our nation's fallen warriors by offering prayer in thanksgiving for the legacy of Liberty they have bequeathed to us, and by participating in respectful commemorations.

Since the opening salvos of the American Revolution, nearly 1.2 million American Patriots have died in defense of Liberty. Additionally, 1.4 million have been wounded in combat, and tens of millions more have served honorably, surviving without physical wounds. These numbers, of course, offer no reckoning of the inestimable value of their service or the sacrifices borne by their families, but we do know that the value of Liberty extended to their posterity -- to us -- is priceless.

Who were these brave souls?

On 12 May 1962, Gen. Douglas MacArthur addressed the cadets at the U.S. Military Academy, delivering his farewell speech, "Duty, Honor and Country." He described the legions of uniformed American Patriots as follows: "Their story is known to all of you. It is the story of the American man at arms. My estimate of him was formed on the battlefields many, many years ago and has never changed. I regarded him then, as I regard him now, as one of the world's noblest figures -- not only as one of the finest military characters, but also as one of the most stainless."

Gen. Douglas MacArthur

Gen. MacArthur continued:

His name and fame are the birthright of every American citizen. In his youth and strength, his love and loyalty, he gave all that mortality can give. He needs no eulogy from me, or from any other man. He has written his own history and written it in red on his enemy's breast.

But when I think of his patience under adversity, of his courage under fire, and of his modesty in victory, I am filled with an emotion of admiration I cannot put into words. He belongs to history as furnishing one of the greatest examples of successful patriotism. He belongs to posterity as the instructor of future generations in the principles of liberty and freedom. He belongs to the present, to us, by his virtues and by his achievements.

In twenty campaigns, on a hundred battlefields, around a thousand campfires, I have witnessed that enduring fortitude, that patriotic self-abnegation, and that invincible determination which have carved his statue in the hearts of his people.

From one end of the world to the other, he has drained deep the chalice of courage. As I listened to those songs of the glee club, in memory's eye I could see those staggering columns of the First World War, bending under soggy packs on many a weary march, from dripping dusk to drizzling dawn, slogging ankle deep through mire of shell-pocked roads; to form grimly for the attack, blue-lipped, covered with sludge and mud, chilled by the wind and rain, driving home to their objective, and for many, to the judgment seat of God.

I do not know the dignity of their birth, but I do know the glory of their death. They died unquestioning, uncomplaining, with faith in their hearts, and on their lips the hope that we would go on to victory. Always for them: Duty, Honor, Country. Always their blood, and sweat, and tears, as they saw the way and the light.

Duty. Honor. Country -- these are not for bargain sale or discount.

On Memorial Day of 1982, President Ronald Reagan offered these words in honor of Patriots interred at Arlington National Cemetery: "I have no illusions about what little I can add now to the silent testimony of those who gave their lives willingly for their country. Words are even more feeble on this Memorial Day, for the sight before us is that of a strong and good nation that stands in silence and remembers those who were loved and who, in return, loved their countrymen enough to die for them. Yet, we must try to honor them not for their sakes alone, but for our own. And if words cannot repay the debt we owe these men, surely with our actions we must strive to keep faith with them and with the vision that led them to battle and to final sacrifice."

President Ronald Reagan

President Reagan continued:

Our first obligation to them and ourselves is plain enough: The United States and the freedom for which it stands, the freedom for which they died, must endure and prosper. Their lives remind us that freedom is not bought cheaply. It has a cost; it imposes a burden. And just as they whom we commemorate were willing to sacrifice, so too must we -- in a less final, less heroic way -- be willing to give of ourselves.

It is this, beyond the controversy and the congressional debate, beyond the blizzard of budget numbers and the complexity of modern weapons systems, that motivates us in our search for security and peace. ... The willingness of some to give their lives so that others might live never fails to evoke in us a sense of wonder and mystery.

One gets that feeling here on this hallowed ground, and I have known that same poignant feeling as I looked out across the rows of white crosses and Stars of David in Europe, in the Philippines, and the military cemeteries here in our own land. Each one marks the resting place of an American hero and, in my lifetime, the heroes of World War I, the Doughboys, the GIs of World War II or Korea or Vietnam. They span several generations of young Americans, all different and yet all alike, like the markers above their resting places, all alike in a truly meaningful way.

As we honor their memory today, let us pledge that their lives, their sacrifices, their valor shall be justified and remembered for as long as God gives life to this nation. ... I can't claim to know the words of all the national anthems in the world, but I don't know of any other that ends with a question and a challenge as ours does: "O! say does that Star-Spangled Banner yet wave, O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave?" That is what we must all ask.

Indeed, in this era when Liberty is being crushed under the weight of Democratic Socialism, Patriots must all ask that question, and act accordingly.

For the Fallen, we are certain of that which is noted on all Marine Corps Honorable Discharge orders: "Fideli Certa Merces" -- to the faithful there is certain reward.

Thomas Jefferson offered this enduring advice to all generations of Patriots: "Honor, justice, and humanity, forbid us tamely to surrender that freedom which we received from our gallant ancestors, and which our innocent posterity have a right to receive from us. We cannot endure the infamy and guilt of resigning succeeding generations to that wretchedness which inevitably awaits them if we basely entail hereditary bondage on them."

We owe a great debt of gratitude to all those generations who have passed the Torch of Liberty to succeeding generations. In accordance, I humbly ask that each of you call upon all those around you to observe Memorial Day with reverence.

To prepare hearts and minds for Memorial Day, take a moment and read about theTomb of the Unknown Soldier. Join with other Patriots across the nation who will be placing flags at headstones in your local military cemetery (generally the Saturday prior to Memorial Day).

I invite you to view these tributes to our Armed Forces and to God and Country at the Patriot YouTube Channel.

In honor of American Patriots who have died in defense of our great nation, lower your flag to half-staff from sunrise to 1200 on Monday. (Read about proper flag etiquette and protocol.) Join us by observing a time of silence at 1500 (your local time), for remembrance and prayer. Offer a personal word of gratitude and comfort to any surviving family members you know who are grieving for a beloved warrior fallen in battle.

On this and every day, please pray for our Patriot Armed Forces now standing in harm's way around the world in defense of our liberty, and for the families awaiting their safe return.

"Greater love has no one than this: to lay down one's life for one's friends." --John 15:12-14

(link here)

A Thing Or Two On Energy

Gas prices are considerably higher than they were three years ago, right?  Sure, it's tapered off a bit in the past few weeks, but with the Memorial Day weekend closing in (and summer right behind that) we typically see prices go back up again.  Regardless of the time of year, wouldn't we all rather pay less at the pump?  Actually, no, not all of us.  It's interesting to see what Barack Obama thinks (or claims to think) will bring the price down:

President Barack Obama said oil company profits justify abolishing $4 billion in annual oil and natural gas subsidies and shifting those savings to research on clean-energy fuels.

Um...really?  Making it more expensive for oil companies to do business will actually result in lower prices?  Of course, the Senate killed Obama's subsidy proposal anyway.  What you won't hear in the media about that vote is that the killing was led by Democrats.  Remember, the Dems are still in charge of the Senate, and that's where the legislation stopped.

Another common tactic he uses is to demonize self-appointed boogeymen like oil speculators:

President Obama unveiled a planTuesday to increase regulatory oversight of oil markets to limit the "illegal manipulation, fraud, and market rigging" that have contributed to gas price increases.  Citing many Americans' pain at the pump, the President asked Congress for an additional $52 million for the CFTC to clamp down on speculators.

...

Speaking from the White House's Rose Garden, the president said "we can't afford a situation where speculators artificially manipulate markets by buying up oil, creating the perception of a shortage, and driving prices higher — only to flip the oil for a quick profit."

Of course, that's not the correct answer, either:

Speculation is indeed a huge part of any commodities market, but hand-rubbing CEOs aren't the only ones who benefit from it -- even normal, everyday Americans like to grow their own personal wealth through investments in the futures market. The beauty of the free enterprise system is that it's just a collection of information, translated into prices through trading, and speculators do their best to hedge risk and predict price movements -- in the face of the global demand trends and the volatility in the Middle East that the president mentions.

The chairman of the world's largest futures exchange recently had some choice words on President Obama's crusade to punish oil speculation:

"People need to study their facts before criticizing speculators," Mr. Duffy, whose Chicago company is the largest futures exchange by volume, said in an interview on the sidelines of the Milken Institute's Global Conference. He argued that speculators provide vital liquidity to a host of markets. ...

Mr. Duffy dismissed the criticism, saying that speculators play an important part in financial markets. "When the Dow goes above 13000, Google goes above $600 per share and everybody celebrates, who do you think did that? The U.S. equity market is 100% speculators," he said.

It's a straw-man argument designed to push blame away from himself and his policies.  But there's another group of liberals who actually do understand what this proposal would have done, and they welcome it.  As we've discussed many times before, Barack Obama, his energy secretary, and other liberals like him genuinely want the price of energy (gas and oil in particular) to go up.  They've designed their policies to do just that, and they're succeeding.  The price of gas has doubled in the three years since Obama took office by his administration's strangulation of natural resource exploration, development, and production.

If you're wondering what universe Obama is living in, the correct answer is: liberalism.  I think that a lot of braindead liberals genuinely haven't stopped to think about what his policies actually mean.  They see the idea of sticking it to the rich oil barons and fly into an appropriately mindless fit of hooting and hollering about social justice and whatnot.  No logic, no common sense, no reality.

After all, the energy industry is pretty much the only sector of the U.S. economy that is genuinely adding jobs...despite what Obama has done.  And a lot of people (even Democrats) are now waking up to that fact.  For example, in a couple of recent Democrat primaries, we see this:

Barack Obama  had no national primary challengers in his second nomination race in most states, including Kentucky.  Who knew it would still be a tough choice for voters?  Kentucky voters in the Democratic primary preferred the empty slot to the empty suit, apparently:

About two out of every five Democratic voters in Tuesday's presidential primary in Kentucky chose 'uncommitted' instead of voting for President Barack Obama.

"I'm at a victory celebration for 'uncommitted' who performed admirably," said [state GOP chair Steve] Robertson. "I've never met the guy but know that he highly embarrassed Obama."

Robertson contended that the Democrats who vote most regularly -- those he termed 'the Democrats of Democrats' -- said 'no' to their president. If the Kentucky Democratic Party doesn't get it after this race, they need to stare long and hard at the results. This shows that Obama has even more than an uphill battle to win Kentucky in the fall."

That's not the worst of it.  Obama may end up losing as many as half of Kentucky's counties to 'Uncommitted' as well:

Kentucky's vote was notable, though, for the fact that there weren't even any other candidates on the ballot. The most the 'uncommitted' option won so far this primary season was previously 21 percent in the North Carolina primary earlier this month. Kentucky looks as though it will double that number.

In addition, Obama looked as though he may lose more than half of the state's 120 counties.

This follows on the heels of Obama's embarrassing outcome in West Virginia, where he lost 41% of the vote to a felon currently residing in federal prison in Texas.  Both states are big coal producers, and voters in both parties have become disgusted with Obama's attacks on the industry that keeps their economy running, and which keeps the lights on for the rest of the country.  Neither state was expected to support Obama in November, but this level of anger among rank-and-file Democrats has to have Team Obama worried about their prospects in coal-heavy Ohio and Pennsylvania, which are much more critical to their hopes for re-election.

On top of the embarrassing results in Kentucky, Obama also lost 40% of the Democratic vote in Bill Clinton's home state yesterday, too.  So far, challenger John Wolfe has 41% of the vote with 67 of 75 Arkansas counties reporting.  Wolfe appears to be carrying almost half of the counties in Arkansas as well, just as 'Uncommitted' did in Kentucky.

He's struggling to beat felons in prison and, well, no opponent at all in these states...in the Democrat primary!

Let's hope this trend continues, and that Obama rides off into a much needed (for America, that is) retirement.  Only then, when his policies are wiped away, can this country truly get back on the road to economic prosperity and recovery.  It all starts with energy, and that's why he's desperate to point the finger at someone else every chance he gets: the eeeevil oil-loving, rich-white-man-business-supporting Republicans.

Reality not included.

Liberalism = Intolerance

Counter to conventional wisdom?  Sure.  But totally accurate:

I'm sitting here thinking more about the ideology of intolerance, the classic liberal. That intolerant teacher in North Carolina was a bully, telling her students that it was criminal to criticize Obama. You know, when you get right down to it, maybe one of the best ways to explain liberalism to the uninitiated is to simply say that it is intolerant. It's a philosophy of "no." It's a philosophy of domination and "no," and it's not at all what people think it is.

It's not open-mindedness. It's not tolerance. It's not good intentions. It's not sweetness and light and love and all that. It's a philosophy of "no." It is intolerant. Socialism, fascism, communism, all forms of liberalism dictate behavior. You must conform. Individuals? Private businesses? You must conform to what they say. And if you don't they'll pass laws and regulations that force you to. And in order to have uniformity, there must be an enforcement mechanism, because people are not the same.

People don't want the same things. They don't believe the same things. But if you are going to have uniformity -- which is what liberalism wants, 'cause that's equality to them: Everybody being the same. Outcomes especially. Being the same. Nobody richer than anybody else. If you are to have that, you must have an enforcement mechanism that shuts down what? Creativity, choice, and innovation. You have to shut down all the things that differentiate people.

And in a free society, the things that differentiate people are creativity, choice, and innovation. And that has to be shut down. That is why, folks, an ever-expanding government is job one for liberals. Whatever expands government, whatever makes it bigger: Global warming, feminism, amnesty for illegals, whatever. Whatever needs more regulation, whatever needs more control, is sought "for the common good" and uniformity.

"It's all for the common good," they say. But anything that grows the government, that's job number one for liberals.

Government is the enforcement mechanism.

Government is the practical manifestation of the ideology of "no."

Government is where the intolerance is.

Government is the all-powerful engine that prevents innovation and choice and creativity.

Look at that slideshow that Obama did: Julia. That's how you remake millions of individuals in 50 states into a faceless cartoon. You have a cartoon for your own reelection and you come up with a fictional character: Julia, the average American woman who turns to government at every stage of her life when she needs or wants something. Not a husband, not a family, not a church, but to the government.

The government makes her birth possible.

The government makes her prenatal care possible.

The government makes her garden possible.

Except it's not hers. It's a "community garden."

So now you have Obama dictating a uniform health insurance policy that has to be purchased by all Americans. HAS TO BE! It's enforced by a fine. It says "no" to individual needs and wants. If you don't want health insurance, that doesn't matter. You have to buy it. If you don't buy it, there is a fine. A moratorium on drilling for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. That is the government saying "no." And the enforcement mechanism is the government.

"No" to jobs.

"No" to cheap energy.

Regulations are variations of the "Just say 'no'" theme. Regulations are how liberals "just say 'no.'" Regulations are how they enforce their own intolerance. Regulations and laws are how they enforce their mandated behavioral codes. Obama has said "no" to any budgets. The Democrat Party has said "no" to budgets. Obama has said "no" to the Keystone pipeline. Obama has said "no" to reforming entitlements! He has said "no" to doing anything about runaway debt.

It's all "Shut up and sit down, America! Do as I say and there won't be any trouble."

And that's what liberalism is.

It all stems from a mind-set of intolerance.

"Don't you criticize Obama! That's criminal! You can't criticize a sitting president! That's sedition; you can't do it."

And the student says, "It's free speech, my First Amendment right."

"There isn't one here!"

So liberalism is a mind-set of total control. It's why our schools now favor indoctrination over education. See, freedom of thought is bad to them. We see example after example, be it what you bring from home for lunch or what you say. Lunch from home is not even tolerable! What you bring from home for lunch, a federal agent can regulate! Uniformity is the goal. That's liberalism, where the people reflect and represent the views of the state, not their own.

For yet another view of liberal intolerance in action, take this YouTube video that made quite the splash yesterday that captured audio of some high school students being bullied by their teacher about Obama (***language warning***):

If you can't watch the video, here's a partial transcript:

So, how bad was the exchange? It got fairly heated, with the teacher shouting at times. The kerfuffle started after one student asked a question about the teacher’s  “fact of the day” that said Romney was a bully back in high school. A student asked:

“Didn’t Obama bully somebody, though?”

The teacher started to get angry and said:

“Not to my knowledge.”

A couple of students relayed the story about Obama admitting that he bullied someone when he was younger. And that seemed to light the fuse on his teacher’s anger. A couple of the students exchanged words with the angry teacher.

“Stop! Stop! Because there’s no comparison. He’s running for president. Obama is the president.”

As one student attempted to argue for a fair, two-sided debate on the history of the candidates, he was shouted down and talked over by the teacher. She continued:

“You got to realize, this man is wanting to be what Obama is. There’s no comparison.”

Once again, the students pressed for equal discussion of the histories of both men, with one saying:

“If you’re gonna talk trash about one side, you gotta talk trash about the other.”

The teacher just seemed to dig her heels in deeper and press her defense of Obama telling the defiant teen:

“You will not disrespect the president of the United States in this classroom.”

Again the student persisted and invoked his First Amendment right.

“I’ll say what I want.”

The still unidentified teacher read the student her rules…her Obama rules.

“Not about him, you won’t!”

The back and forth continued and the most strident of the two students reminded his teacher that President Bush was constantly treated to negative statements about him while he was in office:

“Whenever Bush was president, everybody talked sh-t about him.”

To which the teacher responded:

“Because he was sh-tty.”

The social studies educator went on for a full minute with more ranting, saying that people were arrested for saying derogatory things about President Bush. The student correctly reminded the teacher that opinions are protected, but you cannot be arrested unless you threaten the president.

Our research has not turned up a single case of anyone in America being arrested for speaking ill of former President Bush. The local newspaper story also mentioned that their discussions about the story with a political science professor could not recall the arrests that the teacher was speaking about.

In my humble opinion, it's hard to envision a better example of blind intolerance than this.

Illustrating Liberal Enviro-Tyranny And How It Is Destroying Freedom...

...like no one else.  Just listen.  Seriously.

Enviro-tyranny and its attack on freedom

So if that's the problem, what's the solution?  It's not rocket science:

The solution

I think that about covers it...

What's That? Something Bad For Obama? Quick, Bury It!

Bombshell...?

Breitbart News has obtained a promotional booklet produced in 1991 by Barack Obama's then-literary agency, Acton & Dystel, which touts Obama as "born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii." 

The booklet, which was distributed to "business colleagues" in the publishing industry, includes a brief biography of Obama among the biographies of eighty-nine other authors represented by Acton & Dystel. 

It also promotes Obama's anticipated first book, Journeys in Black and White--which Obama abandoned, later publishing Dreams from My Fatherinstead.

Obama's biography in the booklet is as follows (image and text below):

Barack Obama, the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, was born in Kenya and raised in Indonesia and Hawaii.  The son of an American anthropologist and a Kenyan finance minister, he attended Columbia University and worked as a financial journalist and editor for Business International Corporation.   He served as project coordinator in Harlem for the New York Public Interest Research Group, and was Executive Director of the Developing Communities Project in Chicago's South Side. His commitment to social and racial issues will be evident in his first book, Journeys in Black and White.

The article goes into some depth about attempts to contact the publishers of the booklet and whether or not this information should be taken at face value.  Breitbart's conclusion:

The errant Obama biography in the Acton & Dystel booklet does not contradict the authenticity of Obama's birth certificate. Moreover, severalcontemporaneous accounts of Obama's background describe Obama as having been born in Hawaii.

The biography does, however, fit a pattern in which Obama--or the people representing and supporting him--manipulate his public persona.

David Maraniss's forthcoming biography of Obama has reportedly confirmed, for example, that a girlfriend Obama described in Dreams from My Father was, in fact, an amalgam of several separate individuals. 

In addition, Obama and his handlers have a history of redefining his identity when expedient. In March 2008, for example, he famously declared: "I can no more disown [Jeremiah Wright] than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother." 

Several weeks later, Obama left Wright's church--and, according to Edward Klein's new biography, The Amateur: Barack Obama in the White House, allegedly attempted to persuade Wright not to "do any more public speaking until after the November [2008] election" (51).

Obama has been known frequently to fictionalize aspects of his own life. During his 2008 campaign, for instance, Obama claimed that his dying mother had fought with insurance companies over coverage for her cancer treatments. 

That turned out to be untrue, but Obama has repeated the story--which even the Washington Post called "misleading"--in a campaign video for the 2012 election.

I'm sure the 'Birthers' will be out in force over this, but since Breitbart seemed to take particular joy in poking the liberal media in the eye, it seems to me that the intent of this revelation is not so much to reignite the Birthers as to provoke the American public into questioning the validity and motivation of the liberal media (just in time for the biggest ramp-up to the election, mind you...good timing).  I'm sure they're madly spinning this even now, and since the simple act of addressing the topic will raise questions which Obama (and the liberal media) don't want to see reported, they'll probably do their best to either ignore it or conjure up some way of minimizing what it really means a la Bill Clinton: "it all depends on what the meaning of 'born' is..."

I'm not a Birther myself, though I do believe that most of the time where there's smoke there's fire, and the fact that Obama's college and young adult life has been utterly, completely, and totally ignored or obscured at every turn makes me wonder what is being hidden from the American public.  My position on the matter is this: even if it were proven beyond the shadow of a doubt that Barack Obama wasn't born a U.S. citizen and thus his entire Presidency has been illegal and unconstitutional...so what?  The damage has been done.  The same failed liberal ideology that Obama has employed with brutal success over the past three years existed long before he was elected and will exist long after he exits office.  The key is what do we do now?  Do we continue allowing that same failed liberal ideology to dictate our national policy and culture, or do we turn away from it and go back to what the Founders intended and what made America great in the first place?

If nothing else, one ironclad takeaway from this is that Barack Obama is a fundamentally dishonest person -- and apparently always has been -- willing to bend the truth into whatever kind of pretzel he needs to best benefit himself at the moment.  That same willingness can be seen throughout his Presidency, too, whether by Obamacare, the stimulus, green energy, the economy, Fast and Furious, racial tensions, gay marriage, or pretty much any other issue you want to examine.  Political expediency seems to be all that matters to him.  That fundamental dishonesty alone should be cause enough for the American people to reject him.

Barack Obama: The First Gay President (Uh...Oops?)

Newsweek was the first (but not the last) to proclaim it:

This was, of course, in response to Obama's new (evolved) position on gay marriage a few days ago:

"In an interview with ABC News' Robin Roberts, the president described his thought process as an 'evolution' that led him to this place, based on conversations with his own staff members, openly gay and lesbian service members, and conversations with his wife and own daughters."

This is being called an 'evolution' because that's a much nicer way to say 'flip-flop'.  After all, his past position has been solidly opposite of this.  Nevertheless, this 'evolution' is being lauded as a sophisticated, thoughtful, and meaningful change on a key issue (and, by the way, you're supposed to ignore the fact that Mitt Romney took all kinds of heat for mentioning that he valued his wife's opinion on what it's like for stay-at-home moms - it's perfectly legitimate for The One to value his family's opinions on gay marriage).  Interestingly, if you look at what he actually said, he really didn't commit to anything new, though you'd never know it from the giddy tittering of the liberal media complex.  He merely said this:

"...I think same sex couples should be able to get married..."

No commitment for a new policy, no call for new legislation, no promise of even an executive order that he can sign himself any time he wants to.  Nope, it was just a purely political ploy, as most Americans easily figured out.

Of course, this new position presents a bit of a problem for Obama for a couple of reasons.  First, think about his most loyal support base...African-Americans.  Most African-Americans are pretty religious, and thus...against gay marriage.  Was it a coincidence that the interviewer, Robin Roberts, is an African-American woman, and thus helped soften the blow?  I'm sure it probably was...

Anyway, they knew this would cause problems, so shortly after the interview aired Obama hopped on the phone to beg some prominent African-American church leaders to continue supporting him.  Some undoubtedly will, but some are already off the bandwagon.  Several months ago the Obama administration more or less admitted that they're not going to even try for the white working class vote, so one would assume they're relying even that much more on the black vote, so this has got to be a major concern to them.  Another concern: most Americans just don't think gay marriage is that important right now.  In fact, only 7% think that it's a 'top issue' in the upcoming election.  It's hard to get too worked up one way or another about gay marriage when you don't have a job and can't afford to feed your children, you know?

Regardless, the liberal media complex instantly leaped into action to prove that Obama's newly 'evolved' position was the correct one, spewing out contrived poll after contrived poll to support it.  For example:

When asked whether they approve of O's new stance on SSM, 51 percent say yes versus just 45 percent who say no. (Among independents, it's 53/44.) Good news for O, right? Not quite:

Interesting how a poll showing 51% approval for the position also shows that 13% of adults to be less likely to vote for him, don't you think?

So why did he do this?  Well, one reasonable explanation is that a very high percentage of Obama's bundlers -- the fundraisers who bring in millions of dollars for a candidate -- are openly gay or lesbian, with some estimates as high as 1 in 5.  Given the disturbing lack of donations pouring in to Obama's and the DNC's coffers lately -- despite Obama holding more fundraisers than the previous 5 Presidents combined -- this could help connect some dots, don't you think?

When you break it all down, we must keep this issue in perspective:

If national polls show support for gay marriage, why does it keep losing in state votes?

That's the question of the week after Gallup's national poll two days ago showing 50 percent support for SSM was abruptly followed by North Carolinians voting overwhelmingly to ban the practice. That makes 42 states that now define marriage as between a man and a woman. How do we get from that national point A to the state level's point B? Can't be that Gallup is wildly off; Pew got similar numbers when they polled this issue too.

Ross Douthat speculates:

In a 2010 paper, for instance, the New York University political scientist Patrick J. Egan compared polling in advance of state same-sex marriage referendums to the actual results, and found that

"the share of voters in pre-election surveys saying that they will vote to ban same-sex marriage is typically seven percentage points lower than the actual vote on election day."

That seven-point gap between appearances and reality may help explain why same-sex marriage supporters lost referendums they expected to win in liberal states like Maine and California. And it explains why a savvy White House might take polls suggesting that the issue is a political winner with a very large helping of salt.

I think the biggest takeaway here is that little number: 42.  As in, 42 states have explicitly voted -- the people, not the judges or politicians -- to uphold marriage between a man and a woman in some way, whether to clearly define it or ban same-sex marriage altogether.  In fact, not a single voter effort has ended in favor of same-sex marriage, not even in liberal states.  The only reason same-sex marriage is 'legal' anywhere is because individual federal judges sometimes overrule the will of the people, essentially writing legislation from the judicial bench.  This just isn't an issue that is important (compared to issues like the economy and national defense) to Americans at the moment, nor is it something that most Americans are willing to embrace anyway.

But, as usual, Barack Obama is positioning himself in opposition to the American people.

The question is whether or not it will harm him in the upcoming election, and if so by how much.  Let's look at North Carolina for a possible signpost:

Eight days ago, North Carolina voters added the previously existing statutory language defining marriage as between one man and one woman to their state constitution.  The very next day, Barack Obama -- who won North Carolina by 0.3% in 2008 -- endorsed the legalization of same-sex marriage.  A new Rasmussen poll shows the predictable consequences, which will likely end North Carolina's status as a battleground state this cycle:

Mitt Romney has moved out to an eight-point lead over President Obama in North Carolina after the two men were virtually tied a month ago.

The latest Rasmussen Reports telephone survey of Likely Voters in the Tar Heel State shows the putative Republican nominee earning 51% of the vote to Obama's 43%. Two percent (2%) like some other candidate, and four percent (4%) are undecided.

That's a big change from last month when Romney posted a narrow 46% to 44% lead over the president in Rasmussen Reports' first survey of the race in North Carolina.  Democrats have signaled North Carolina's importance as a key swing state by deciding to hold their national convention in Charlotte this summer.

In North Carolina, Romney is ahead of Obama on both the economy and favorability, and with men, women, and senior demographic groups.  In fact, the only real lead Obama still has is with young voters, which are historically unreliable at the voting booth.  Whether or not this will play out similarly on a national scale is, of course, subject to change, and six months is a virtual lifetime in politics...but the White House has got to be near-panic with all of this.

Mitt Romney, on the other hand, maintains his consistently-held position against gay marriage, and is trying to bring the conversation back to real issues facing Americans today.

Forward! Uh, Forward...?

How did we ever deal with politics before YouTube?  Here's the latest campaign video from Barack Obama:

Hm.  Interesting.  Let's take a deeper look, shall we?

As the headline for an article by Yahoo News White House correspondent Olivier Knox, put it:

“New Obama ad strikes ‘don’t blame me’ tone on economy.”

The new ad plays right into the hands of the Republican National Committee’s effort to re-brand the 2008 Obama campaign “hope and change” theme with “hype and blame.” Worse, after attempting to avert blame by once again talking about the “inherited” recession, and another reminder about getting bin Laden, the ad ends with this admission:

“Instead of losing jobs, we’re creating them. Over 4.2 million so far. We’re not there yet. It’s still too hard for too many. But we’re coming back.”

This is a huge mistake for Obama. Having said that if he doesn’t have this “done in three years, then there’s going to be a one-term proposition,” admitting that after three years “we are not there yet,” is the same as admitting that he is going to be a one term president. Perhaps Obama was paying attention when Romney said, the presidential campaign is “still about the economy…and we’re not stupid.”

The new Obama ad is also notable for the fact that it fails to mention Obama’s signature still unpopular ObamaCare, Dodd-Frank financial reform, and $831 billion-dollar so-called stimulus package.

The reason why the ad didn't mention those 'signature' pieces of legislation, of course, is that Americans didn't want them at the time, and Americans still don't want them years later.  Obama simply can't run on his record:

That's why he has to attempt to blame someone else and distract wherever possible from reality:

For example, as mentioned in the “Hype and Blame” video:

• On the campaign trail in 2008, Candidate Obama promised tightening the belt on fiscal spending: three years later, Obama has come up short on his promise to rein in federal spending. After he increased our national debt to more than $15 trillion President Obama has fallen “far short of his goal to halve the deficit in four years.”
• Candidate Obama promised homeowners relief so they could “get back on their feet”: President Obama has failed to follow through on his housing promise. After more than three years Obama’s efforts to aid homeowners, boost housing market fall far short of goals.
• Candidate Obama promised to rid the White House of lobbyist influence. PolitiFact rates Obama’s pledge his biggest broken promise.
• Candidate Obama promised lower premiums by the end of his first term. Two years after the Democrats passed the unpopular ObamaCare in the dead of night, health insurance costs are rising as fast as ever.

Be warned: the unemployment rate isn't going down.  It's all smoke and mirrors because no President in history has been re-elected with an unemployment rate over 8%.  Wanna bet what the rate will be when November rolls around?  Just watch.  Anyway, even the fudged numbers -- as inaccurate as they are -- are caused by Obama:

No wonder that during his so-called official start to his reelection campaign, President Obama told Americans not to ask if they are better off than they were four years ago, but how they’ll be tomorrow.

Only 115,000 jobs were added in April, far fewer than the 180,000 economists were expecting. The reason the unemployment rate declined slightly to 8.1 percent and the broader “U-6″ measure remained at 14.5 percent is because 342,000 more people gave up looking for work and quit the labor force.

As Mitt Romney said, “It’s still about the economy…and we’re not stupid.”:

• The unemployment rate has remained above 8 percent for 39 straight months.
• Only 115,000 jobs were created in April, which is the smallest monthly jobs gain in five months. Hiring has now slowed in three straight months.
• The labor force participation rate declined in April to 63.6 percent, which is its lowest level since 1981.
• If the size of the U.S. labor force as a share of the total population was the same as it was when Barack Obama took office—65.7% then vs. 63.6% today—the unemployment rate would be 11.1%.
• When President Obama pushed through his $800-billion stimulus bill, his administration claimed unemployment would drop to 5.9 percent by April 2012.
• 22.8 million Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, or are only marginally attached to the workforce.

Millions of Americans are suffering in silence as a result of President Obama’s failed economic policies. No, they are not satisfied.

"Forward?"  Hardly.  And, if one is inclined to examine history, the phraseology presents a bit of a problem all by itself:

The Obama campaign has announced its new slogan -- "Forward." Despite the fact that his change has nearly crushed hope, he arrogantly decided to double down and press forward, bitterly clinging to failed policies. Sadly, too many voters remain under the delusion that Obama is "winning the future."

The campaign's latest ad recounts numerous "achievements" of Obama's first term, but only after thoroughly blaming George W. Bush for the nation's troubles. Obama stood up to the challenges, even though, as images of the Tea Party flash across the screen, "some said America's best days were behind us." Obama proceeds to brag about how he "saved" millions of jobs with the so-called stimulus, took on the credit and health insurance industries with regulations and "reform," grew green energy with taxpayer cash (though he neglected to mention Solyndra), took over the student loan industry, and socially engineered the military by repealing "Don't Ask, Don't Tell." Hilariously, he even boasted of $1 trillion in spending cuts, though we're not sure how that's possible while racking up $5 trillion in debt. Obama is aghast that, instead of going along happily with every desire of his heart, Republicans actually oppose his leftist ideology.

One could be forgiven for thinking that perhaps he chose "Forward" as in "Forward to the next campaign fundraiser!" To date, Obama has held 132 such events, far surpassing his predecessor. In fact, he has already held more re-election fundraisers than the last five presidents combined. For our part, we anticipate seeing his mail forwarded back to Chicago.

In all seriousness, "Forward" seems to be optimistic and to exude progress, but the history of the word lies in the socialist and communist movements, which as Ronald Reagan contended lead nowhere but downward. We certainly don't think this choice was by accident or coincidence, either. Leftists have always fancied themselves "progressives," as if only their policies will move the world "forward." In 1905, Vladimir Lenin, leader of the Soviet revolution in Russia, founded a publication called "Vpered," the Russian word for "Forward." Before that, Friedrich Engels and Leon Trotsky wrote for one called "Vorwaerts," the German word for "Forward." The Communist League featured a biweekly reader by the same name, with which Karl Marx and Engels were involved.

Obama will begin his campaign (officially) on May 5, which just happens to be Marx's birthday.

Obama's policies of taking over industry via regulation and redistribution of wealth are absolutely inspired by and differ only in degree (so far) from those of his socialist, fascist and communist predecessors in Europe. Small wonder, then, that his campaign now features such a prominent mantra of his ideological kindred.

In related campaign news, Obama has devoted much time and energy "celebrating" women, and indeed he should -- because, by a wide margin, they elected him in 2008. More than 56 percent of women voted for Obama versus only 49 percent of men, and women may well be the deciding demographic again in 2012. Check out this 2012 Obama campaign socialist appeal designed to lure female voters with cradle-to-grave Hope 'n' Change. To be fair, Obama should also let each woman know her share of the federal debt. You can calculate yours here.

The fictional "Julia" in the Obama appeal can look "forward" to a life lived at the expense of others, from taxpayer funded school programs to subsidized birth control and single motherhood to retirement drawing from bankrupt Social Security and Medicare. Such a "forward" vision doesn't empower women; it enslaves them to the tyranny of the socialist state. By contrast, the American ideal of Essential Liberty would lead to a Better Life for Julia.

The bloom is off the rose, and Obama has been essentially revealed for what he is.  That's why his official launch event for his re-election campaign looked like this:

Apparently the "Hope and Change" isn't moving "Forward" very well.  Kind of hard, when most people are firmly entrenched in a reality that is obviously less desirable than where we were three years ago.