A Look Inside Barack Obama’s Head Would Prove Interesting

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Writer

Paul R. Hollrah

Paul R. Hollrah

In the Aug. 18, 2011 edition of American Thinker, writer Matt Patterson published an article titled, “Obama: The Affirmative Action President.”

The article began this way:

Years from now, historians may regard the 2008 election of Barack Obama as an inscrutable and disturbing phenomenon, a baffling breed of mass hysteria akin perhaps to the witch craze of the Middle Ages.  How, they will wonder, did a man so devoid of professional accomplishment beguile so many into thinking he could manage the world’s largest economy, direct the world’s most powerful military, execute the world’s most consequential job?

Imagine a future historian examining Obama’s pre-presidential life: ushered into and through the Ivy League despite unremarkable grades and test scores along the way; a cushy non-job as a “community organizer”; a brief career as a state legislator devoid of legislative achievement (and in fact nearly devoid of his attention, so often did he vote “present”); and finally an unaccomplished single term in United States Senate, the entirety of which was devoted to his presidential ambitions.  He left no academic legacy in academia, authored no signature legislation as legislator. 

Barack Obama Caricature by Political GraffitiLooking at Obama from a distance, Patterson provides an accurate picture of how any objective observer might see him.  But how does Obama see himself?  Putting ourselves inside his skin and inside his head would be a far more interesting and instructive exercise.

Just imagine a young black man living in a family of all white people… mother, grandfather, and grandmother… after having been deserted by his black father.  Just as welfare recipients come to resent the hand that feeds them, it is easy to see how a young black man growing up in a white family, his skin color a constant reminder that he was “different,” would come to resent his white parent and grandparents… and by extension, all white people.

Obama stressed his struggle with self-identity in his book, Dreams From My Father.  Regarding white people, he said, “I ceased to advertise my mother’s race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.”

In describing the man who gave him the only job he ever held outside the halls of government, his job as a “community organizer” in south Chicago, he said, “There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe.  And white.”

By the time he entered college, Obama was fully committed to the racial divide between blacks and whites.  Of his years as a student at Occidental College, he wrote, “It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names… I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn’t speak to my own.  It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.”

We have all been confronted on occasion by challenges for which we felt totally unprepared…  challenges that appeared insurmountable.  That being the case, it is all the more mystifying how a man of Obama’s meager background and experience could believe that he should be seen as a viable candidate for president of the United States.  How could a young man, such as Patterson describes, suddenly see himself in that role, knowing that he has never run so much as a sidewalk lemonade stand, knowing that he has no qualifications whatsoever for the job?

What must it be like to one day look into a mirror and say to the person reflected therein, “You’re a pretty good looking guy.  You were lucky enough to grow up in the tropics, in Hawaii and Indonesia, and even though your parents and grandparents weren’t wealthy, you were lucky enough to go to a private prep school and Ivy League colleges on someone else’s dime.  You spent several years working with black activists on the streets of Chicago and you spent a few years as a back-bencher in the Illinois state senate.  Hey!!  You’re something really special!  You should run for president of the United States.”  What sort of man could have that conversation with himself… and do it with a straight face?

Fortunately for Obama, there was an oversupply of pent-up white guilt within the ranks of the Democrat Party.  And in spite of the fact that party leaders knew him to be not only unqualified, but ineligible as well, he was the sort of “rock star” politician who would appeal to white liberals and young white Democrats.  It mattered little that he would be incapable of governing; all they cared about was that he would look good before the TV cameras and that he could read convincingly from a teleprompter.  They would put the necessary words in his mouth.

But, of all of Obama’s current responsibilities, his relationship with the military is where he appears to be most out of place and ill at ease… a pair of brown shoes at a black tie ball.  In neither of his memoirs does he give the slightest hint that he ever considered enrolling in the ROTC programs at either Occidental College or Columbia University.  Yet, just 16 years after graduating from Harvard Law School, he stood before the American people and proclaimed that he felt capable of serving as commander-in-chief of the largest and most powerful military machine in the history of the world.  What sort of outsized ego would that require?

Those of us who’ve placed our lives on the line as members of the uniformed services can’t help but experience a stomach-turning revulsion each time we see Obama bounding down the steps of Marine One on the south lawn of the White House, flashing a sloppy half-salute at the well-turned out young Marine standing at the base of the stairs.  Any normal person of Obama’s background and experience would feel an overwhelming sense of inadequacy.  But what goes though Obama’s mind?  And what goes through the minds of those young Marines?

The United States Marine Corps Color Guard, Silent Drill Platoon and Ceremonial Marchers executes movements on the parade deck during the first Marine Barracks Washington evening parade of the season May 1, 2009.  (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Richard A. Bliss)

The United States Marine Corps Color Guard, Silent Drill Platoon and Ceremonial Marchers executes movements on the parade deck during the first Marine Barracks Washington evening parade of the season May 1, 2009. (U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Richard A. Bliss)

To serve as a member of the Silent Drill Platoon and Color Guard at the 8th & I Street Barracks in Washington… the Marine contingent responsible for guard and escort duty at the White House… is a much coveted assignment in the Marine Corps.  But it would be interesting to know what went through the minds of all those young Marines when they first learned that Barack Obama,  a man who was too cowardly to wear the uniform of the U.S. military, a usurper who was ineligible to serve in the office, would be occupying the White House for at least the next four years.  How could they bring themselves to salute a man so undeserving of their respect?

Most Marines would rather take their chances on the field of battle in Iraq or Afghanistan than to suffer the embarrassment of standing in the rain next to Barack Obama, dressed in spiffy blue-white dress uniform, holding an umbrella over the usurper’s head while he addressed a small group of fawning sycophants in the White House Rose Garden.

And while it is easy to understand the revulsion felt by the men and women of the enlisted ranks, what goes through the minds of long-serving generals and admirals, their chests covered with row upon row of medals and service ribbons, evidence of their long service to God and country,  when they are forced to salute him and address him as “sir” or “mister president?”  What sort of colossal ego does it take for such an unremarkable man to expect that kind of treatment from men and women of real accomplishment?

What all of this tells us is that what motivates Barack Obama is far more than a super-inflated ego, far more than pathological narcissism.  He is, as some have described him, a “total incognito with zero accomplishment.”  But even that does not describe how Obama sees himself, what goes on inside his head.  Instead, we can only conclude that Obama’s opinion of himself is simply beyond human comprehension.  Just as the human mind is incapable of comprehending the infinite nature of the universe, neither can the human mind comprehend the boundaries of what Barack Obama appears to see in himself.

When Barack Obama proclaimed in his June 4, 2008, nomination acceptance speech that, “This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal,” most of us laughed because we knew that just the opposite was true.  But there were many who actually believed him and were inspired by his soaring rhetoric.  What those of us who laughed knew, intuitively, is that what appeared to be bravado was actually a cover for nothingness.

What best describes Barack Obama is a brief two sentence quotation from Eric Hoffer, the renowned longshoreman/philosopher, who said, “Our greatest pretenses are built up not to hide the evil and the ugly in us, but our emptiness.  The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”

Yes, Barack Obama is an evil man and the political philosophy that guides his every word and deed are truly ugly.  It is that evil and that ugliness that Obama seeks to hide by his bravado and his pretentiousness; it is the emptiness of his promise of hope and change that is at the heart of his pretentions.

And while a majority of Americans still find Barack Obama to be “likeable,” an even larger majority have come to see that there is no real substance to him.  As Hoffer tells us, “The hardest thing to hide is something that is not there.”   Where Barack Obama is concerned, there is no there, there.

Paul R. Hollrah is a two-time member of the Electoral College and a contributing editor for the National Writers Syndicate and the New Media JournalHis blog is found at OrderOfEphors.comHe resides in the lakes region of northeast Oklahoma.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Nancy Pelosi Website Shows Apathy Toward Military

CMSgt. John Stewart is one of my most-reliable sources for information about issues affecting military veterans.  Last night, the retired Air Force Special Operations veteran pointed out something that seems to show how much U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) really cares about veterans:  The most-recent update in the veterans section of the website of the top Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives is almost two years old, published Dec. 7, 2011.

Pelosi Veterans Page Screen shot 2013-09-30 at 11.37Chief Stewart is the father of Army Green Beret Sgt. 1st Class Kelly A. Stewart, the man whose life is chronicled in my first nonfiction book, Three Days In August.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct '11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May '13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Bob McCarty is the author of Three Days In August (Oct ’11) and THE CLAPPER MEMO (May ’13). To learn more about either book or to place an order, click on the graphic above.

Senator Claire McCaskill Trying to Fool Missouri Voters

Incumbent Democrat U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill would love for Missouri voters to think she is fiercely independent and not the dyed-in-the-wool Barack Obama supporter that she truly is.  Perhaps that’s why, according to this June 29 report by KOMU-TV in Columbia, Mo., she won’t be attending the 2012 Democratic National Convention in Charlotte.

Clearly, “Claire Bear” is trying to fool Missouri voters into thinking she’s opposes President Obama’s healthcare plan (a.k.a., “ObamaCare”); in reality, she supports it, voted for it and wants it to remain the law of the land.

If you do your homework, Missourians, you can reach only one logical conclusion:  The Show-Me State needs a new U.S. senator, and the person for the job is Todd Akin.

Democrats: ‘Herman Cain Must Be Destroyed’

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

I remember it well.  I remember the Supreme Court’s Brown v. Board of Education decision of May 1954.  I remember Rosa Parks and the Montgomery bus boycott.  And I remember Martin Luther King Jr., his non-violent protests, his Aug. 28, 1963, march on Washington, and his famous “I have a dream” speech on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial.

I remember exactly what I was thinking back then.  It was during those years that I published a newsletter for the Tulsa County (Okla.) Young Republicans.  I remember an article I wrote in which I discussed the choices that black people… mostly black mothers who were left to raise their children in single family homes… would have to make.  I remember thinking and writing that, finally, the door of opportunity was open for all of our citizens, and that so long as black mothers were wise enough to lead their children in the way they should go, there was nothing to prevent them from realizing the American Dream.

I remember thinking that, if black mothers got their children out of bed each morning and got them to school on time; if black children were taught to behave themselves in school, to respect their teachers, and to do their homework; and if, when they finished school and entered the work force, they had the self-discipline to go to work every day and to give their employers at least eight hours of their best effort in exchange for eight hours pay, nothing could hold them back.

It was simple arithmetic: if black people were given the opportunity to educate themselves and to have access to good-paying jobs, they could produce at the same level as whites.  And if they produced at the same level as whites they would also consume at the same level as whites.  In spite of what Democrats and labor leaders insisted, it was not a zero-sum game.

But that’s not what happened.  For whatever reason, black children have not taken full advantage of the educational opportunities available to them.  In almost every national study, they lag well behind white and Asian students in reading, mathematics, and the sciences.   And to the extent that education correlates directly with economic success, it is easy to see why unemployment and underemployment among blacks is now more than twice that in the white community.

With the growth of social welfare programs in the Kennedy and Johnson administrations, it was to be expected that those who are always on the lookout for a free lunch would find it easier to take advantage of the system than to work hard and pay their own way.  Conversely, it was not unexpected that taxpayers would soon develop a hostility toward the payment of benefits to able-bodied men and women.  In response, Democrats rewrote the rules governing Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC), prohibiting the payment of benefits to families with an able-bodied male living in the household.  And when fathers were forced out of their homes, more and more black children grew up without the benefit of a male role model in their lives.

Short of human slavery, violent racial cleansing, and systematic racial oppression, all of which Democrats actively supported from the day their party was founded, it would be difficult to imagine a crueler, more devastating attack on a racial or ethnic minority.

Instead of doing whatever was necessary to bring blacks into the economic mainstream, the same Democrats who had populated the KKK and enforced the Jim Crow laws and the Black Codes, decided that if they could buy the black vote with taxpayer dollars… and yes, “brainwash” them into believing that the Democratic Party was their friend and their savior… they could continue to oppress black people just as if the civil rights movement had never happened.

In a recent article, “Educational mediocrity hurts blacks,” writer Ray Wallace reminds us that “Statistics for black unemployment have risen to 16.2 percent, with teen numbers as frightening as 40 percent.  If true, this means that one out of every four black people in America now exists below the poverty line.”

All of this is occurring at a time in history when, for the first time, black Americans are seeing a graphic demonstration of what happens when a young black man follows the Republican formula for success, and what happens when a young black man follows the leftist Democratic model.

On the Republican side, we have a black man named Herman Cain whose parents taught him the only true way to economic success in America.  Although born in poverty, he went to school every day, he did his homework, he earned an undergraduate college degree in mathematics and a masters degree in computer science, he served the U.S. Navy as a systems analyst, he climbed the corporate ladder at Coca-Cola, Pillsbury, Burger King, and Godfather’s Pizza (where he served as CEO), and he served as president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City.

Without rancor, without bitterness, without victimhood, and without a reliance on affirmative action, Herman Cain pursued the American Dream.  He is the personification of the American success story and he is now a frontrunner for the 2012 Republican presidential nomination.

This is in stark contrast to Barack Obama who was taught nothing but leftist ideology.  He is a bitter and hate-filled man who has never held a real job, who has never had to meet a payroll, who has no idea how the free market economy works or how to create private sector jobs, who has not so much as run a sidewalk lemonade stand, and who was elected to the Oval Office by Democrats in spite of the fact that he lacks the constitutional qualifications for the presidency.

Because they allowed themselves to be corrupted by dreams of the free lunch, and because they allowed themselves to be led by professional blacks and welfare pimps whose only qualification for leadership was the color of their skin, the life experience of the vast majority of black citizens alive today is vastly different from that of Herman Cain.

Two of those black leaders, Tavis Smiley and Cornell West, have just completed what they call a “poverty tour.”  It is not necessary to view their documentary to know what they will say.  In a brief appearance on Fox News on Sunday, Oct. 9, Smiley and West both insisted that, while American taxpayers have spent some $15 trillion on social welfare programs since the beginning of the War on Poverty… a “war” that the U.S. has apparently lost… the primary reason that one in four blacks still live under the poverty line is because “we haven’t spent enough.”

Like Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, Smiley and West are “professional blacks” whose careers depend on keeping minorities dependent on government handouts.  They appear not to understand that $15 trillion, spread equally among 40 million black people, averages $375,000 per person.  We could just as easily have given every family of four a check for $1.5 million.  At least we would not now be saddled with millions of unionized government employees who have been hired to dole out the public largesse.

Smiley and West were also highly indignant over Cain’s suggestion that black voters have been systematically “brainwashed” by Democrats.  They seem to suggest that, while the Chinese and the North Koreans were successful in brainwashing American POWs in a matter of weeks during the Korean War, black Americans have been immune to Democratic propagandists for more than half a century.  In the past, such race-baiters may have been successful in getting a conservative black man to retreat from that statement, but Cain refuses to be intimidated.  He knows what all reasonable people know, which is that, without unwavering support from the black community, Democrats would be unable to elect majorities in either house of Congress.

How important is the “brainwashed” vote to the Democratic Party?  An analysis of the 2006, 2008, and 2010 elections shows that, if blacks voted in roughly the same percentages as the rest of the population… 52-48% or 53-47% Democrats over Republicans, or vice versa… the balance of power in the U.S. Senate would now be 59 Republicans, 39 Democrats, and 2 Independents.  With the all but certain pickup of two or more Democratic seats in 2012, Republicans would be anticipating a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate beginning in January 2013.   That is how important the black vote is to the Democratic Party.

So what’s next for Herman Cain?  The things that he has said and the example he has set tells us just one thing:  Herman Cain must be destroyed.  Liberals and Democrats simply cannot afford to have millions of young black people exposed to Cain’s success story because it is a complete contradiction of everything they have taught blacks, from childhood, for many generations.

If a man of Cain’s caliber can convince blacks, by example, that Democrats have been “using” them for more than 50 years, he can lead as many as half of the black population back to the Republican Party… their natural and traditional home… and the Democratic Party will cease to exist.  That, in a nutshell, is what is at stake in Herman Cain’s quest for the presidency.

Harry Belafonte, Tavis Smiley and Cornell West are but the vanguard of the quest to destroy Herman Cain.  As Cain continues to gain support among white Republicans, the army of attack dogs will multiply exponentially and the attacks will become even sharper and more vicious.  But what liberals and Democrats apparently fail to understand is that, the more they attack this fine man, the more black voters will be attracted to him.  It is a zero-sum game they cannot win.

Paul R. Hollrah

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Follow me on Twitter @BobMcCarty. Thanks in advance for your support!

The DNC is a WMD

A realization suddenly popped into my head today:  The Democrat National Committee is a Weapon of Mass Destruction.

While the Democratic National Committee might never discharge a nuclear, biological or chemical weapon, the things they support — such as the public sector union employees protests in Madison, Wisc., among other things — are nearly as dangerous.

FYI: If you enjoy this blog and want to keep reading stories like the one above, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support!

Ten ‘Mama Grizzlies’ and a ‘Fat Guy’ GOP Future

By Paul R. Hollrah, Guest Blogger

It has not been a good year for President Barack Obama and the Democrats. And while most of the bad news was generated by Obama himself and the “ship of fools” he has surrounded himself with in the White House, it was congressional Democrats who paid the price Nov. 2.

Unfortunately, given the quality of Republican leadership in the years since the departure of Newt Gingrich, we have no guarantee that Republicans will take full advantage of the coming shift in the political balance of power. The uncertainty evidenced by their handling of issues in the recent lame-duck session leaves us to wonder whether the male-dominated House and Senate leadership won’t once again snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Sen. Tom Coburn, M.D. (R-Okla.)

On the Republican side of the aisle in Congress we find few truly courageous and outspoken members. Sens. Tom Coburn and Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Jeff Sessions of Alabama, and Jim DeMint of South Carolina are notable exceptions. When asked why they are not more aggressive in their response to Democrats and their policies, Senate Republicans would likely murmur something about the Senate being the world’s foremost “gentlemen’s club.”  A “gentlemen’s club,” indeed… run by the likes of Harry Reid and Dick Durbin? Not!

As matters now stand, the shortage of testosterone among conservative and Republican men has become so critical that, as Republicans move to capture the ground that Democrats have relinquished, the strongest leadership potential in the Republican ranks is to be found among women and minorities.

Sarah Palin

Among the most effective and outspoken conservative elected officials, dubbed “Mama Grizzlies” by former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin are Senator-elect Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H.); Rep. Michelle Bachman (R-Minn.); Rep. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.); Attorney General-elect Pam Bondi (R-Fla.); Gov. Jan Brewer (R-Ariz.); Governor-elect Mary Fallin (R-Okla.); Governor-elect Nikki Haley (R-S.C.); Governor-elect Susana Martinez (R-N.M.); and Congresswoman-elect Kristi Noem (R-S.D.).

Outside the realm of elective office, we have an equally impressive cadre of strong conservative female writers and thought-leaders, including Tammy Bruce, Amanda Carpenter, Mona Charen, Linda Chavez, Liz Cheney, Ann Coulter, Monica Crowley, Mary Katharine Ham, Laura Ingraham, Michelle Malkin, K.T. McFarland, Kate Obenshain, Dana Perino, Phyllis Schlafly, and Teri Thompson… to name just a few.

Congressman-elect Allen West (R-Fla.)

They are joined by a growing number of strong and eloquent black conservatives, including former corporate CEO Herman Cain; Republican political strategist Angela McGlowan; Lincoln Institute President Jay Parker; conservative columnist Star Parker; conservative author, Rev. Wayne Perryman; National Black Republicans President Frances Rice; Congressman-elect Tim Scott (R-S.C.); Congressman-elect Allen West (R-FL); and economics professor Walter Williams.

Deborah Blum, author of Sex on the Brain, tells us that, “Feminists become understandably annoyed by the oversimplified, back-to-the-kitchen notion that women don’t have the hormonal underpinnings for competition. And plenty of men… are equally annoyed at being dismissed as a bunch of naturally bad-tempered apes.”

Clearly, Ms. Blum has not spent a great deal of time around conservatives and Republicans in recent times. At a time in our history when events call for conservative leaders to be “naturally bad-tempered apes,” almost to a man, the best-known conservatives and Republicans tend to be milquetoast wimps. It’s hard to imagine the likes of Tim Pawlenty, Mitt Romney, Mike Huckabee, Mitch McConnell, or the weepy John Boehner in the role of “naturally bad-tempered apes,” a personality type that will be absolutely essential in dealing with badly-wounded House and Senate Democrats and a “shellacked” Obama armed with a veto pen.

Gov. Chris Christie (R-N.J.)

Because liberals and Democrats are what they are, the last thing the country needs is wimpish “nice guy” Republicans in the Oval Office and in the congressional leadership. Other than Newt Gingrich, the only man in the ranks of Republican leaders who appears to have what it takes to go toe-to-toe with liberals, Democrats, and their bought-and-paid-for special interests, is Gov. Chris Christie, the “fat guy” from New Jersey.

In a recent Trenton press conference, Christie chastised a columnist for the Newark Star-Ledger.  When the columnist questioned whether the governor had adopted a “confrontational tone” with legislative Democrats and the politically powerful teachers’ unions, Christie replied, “You should see me when I’m really pissed. I love when people say they don’t want to have argument. That’s what we were sent here for.” Holding up a Democratic press release, Christie said, “Here it is:  Bigger government, higher taxes, more spending. I believe in less government, lower taxes and in empowering local officials who are elected by their citizens to be able to fix their problems…”

He continued, “This is who I am. Like it or not, you guys are stuck with me for four years and I’m going to say things directly. When you ask me questions, I’m going to answer them directly, straightly, bluntly, and nobody in New Jersey is going to have to wonder where I am on an issue… and I think they’ve had enough of politicians who make them wonder. I came here to govern, not to worry about re-election. I came here to do what people sent me here to do, and so, ‘blunt?’ ‘direct?’ Maybe you might say ‘honest and refreshing.’ Maybe we could see that in your paper tomorrow.”

It is the kind of straightforward and unambiguous leadership that Republicans at all levels will have to display in the years ahead if the elections of Nov. 2 are to have any meaning at all.

Newt Gingrich

In 1994, Gingrich and other Republicans signed a hard-nosed “Contract with America,” promising much-needed reform in Congress. The voters responded positively and Republicans experienced four productive years between January 1995 and January 1999, conducting themselves as we would expect them to. But then, when Gingrich chose not to seek reelection in 1998, House leadership fell to Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Tom Delay (R-Texas)… both of whom set about organizing a Republican majority that was indistinguishable from Democrats.

Hastert and Delay were still there when George W. Bush arrived in 2001, claiming to be a “compassionate” conservative… which proved only that he hadn’t the foggiest notion of what a conservative was. By failing to exercise any party discipline over a free-spending Republican Congress, all Bush did was to make it impossible for lifelong rank-and-file Republicans to defend the party they had always thought of as the last best hope for America.

Who can deny that the ultimate fate of our country was set in concrete during the Roosevelt Administration when New Deal Democrats decided that political power could be solidified by purchasing the allegiance of special interests… interest groups and individuals who wanted something from government… and using other people’s money to do it?

The complete socialization of America and the destruction of the capitalist system has been the sole raison d’être of the Democratic Party for more than seventy-five years, and were it possible to paint a picture of what party leaders have seen as their ultimate dream during all those years, the Obama Administration and the Pelosi-Reid Congress would be their ideal. The current crop of Democrats in the White House and in Congress are simply the most evil and corrupt group of politicians ever to set foot in Washington. It is Chicago-San Francisco-Las Vegas social and political morality transported to Washington and tailored to engulf the entire nation.

Liberals and Democrats have not failed to notice the power (and danger) of feminist gains on the right. In an August 28, 2010 New York Times editorial by Anna Holmes and Rebecca Traister titled, “A Palin of Our Own,” they wrote, “An older generation of female Democrats, including Mrs. Clinton and Ms. Pelosi, are about as eager to mount a Palin-style girl-powered campaign as they are to wear a miniskirt on the House floor…

“But as women of a different generation – of, gulp, Sarah Palin’s generation – we wonder if Democrats shouldn’t look to her for twisted inspiration, and recognize that the future of women in politics will be about coming to terms with (and inventing) new models… If Sarah Palin and her acolytes successfully redefine what it means to be a groundbreaking political woman, it will be because progressives let it happen – and in doing so, ensured that when it comes to making history, there will be no one but Mama Grizzlies to do the job.”

On Feb. 28, 1854, some 30 devout abolitionists, opponents of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, met in a small one-room schoolhouse in Ripon, Wisc., to create a new political party… the Republican Party. And if a lack of strong leadership and a departure from Republican principles demands that we do it all over again we have a good beginning. We have ten Mama Grizzles and a fat guy from New Jersey to build on.

Hollrah is a senior fellow at the Lincoln Heritage Institute and a contributing editor for Family Security Matters and a number of online publications.  He resides in northeast Oklahoma.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you enjoy this blog and want to help keep stories like the one above coming, show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right.  Thanks in advance for your support! Have a wonderful 2011!

Media ‘Carrying Water’ for Democrat Congress

WARNING: To ensure you realize you’re not in the middle of a bad dream, pinch yourself before watching the Breitbart.com video below.

Every thinking American knows the 111th Congress was, perhaps, the worst — definitely not the “most productive” — Congress in this nation’s history as news anchors nationwide might have us believe. The new Harris Interactive poll results I published this morning seem to prove that.

Now, everyone who watches the video above needs to make an effort to ensure everyone they know watches it prior to the 2012 election cycle.  Only then can we be certain — I know, it’s wishful thinking — that every American voter truly understands what media bias is.

EDITOR’S NOTE: If you enjoy this blog and want to help keep stories like the one above coming, you can show your support by using the “Support Bob” tool at right. Thanks in advance for your support! Have a wonderful 2011!