For some time now, the anti-Hillary camp of the Democratic Party have pinned their hopes on the lackluster, highly overrated Illinois Senator, Barak Obama. This "clean" Black as the paternalistic and closet racist Sen. Joe Bidden referred to him, has been hailed as the symbol of a new era for the Democratic Party, just as then Governor Bill Clinton was championed in 1992. In reality Obama is no differenty than the likes of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry or any other DC liberal.

Sen. Obama has one of the most liberal records in Washington. In reality, Obama is more akin to the Paris Hilton of DC politics he is simply famous for being famous for being famous, not for any great accomplishments. The Democratic establishment champion him, much like the GOP paraded JC Watts. He is a token Black in a party that pays lip service to equal opportunity, but in reality is perhaps the most racist, paternalistic organization in the country.

Obama, who wants, and never will be president, however, in his musings of the merists of liberal politics has demonstrated that he is nothing more than a mouth piece with no clear un derstanding or reason to speak of.

According to Obama, "The arguments of liberals are more often grounded in reason and fact..." No greater a distortion of reality has been uttered by an American politician since Nixon proclaimed he "was not a crook." Liberalism is the enemy of truth and fact, it is a philosophy predicated on the suspension of reason and logic and the embrace of incoherence and emotion.

Only an unreasoned politican could promote so many proven failed policies as a "new direction" for America. Only the logic averse could make such passioned arguments in support of increasing the minium wage so irresposnible people who continue to have children they can't afford can become self sufficient. If Obama is the savior of the Democratic Party and an acceptible alternative to Hillary, why not opt for Hillary. Would it not be better to have the puppet master as leader rather than the puppet?

www.observer.com/20070205/20070205_Jason_Horowitz_pageone_newsstory1.asp

www.examiner.com/a-538596~Perception_vs__reality.html

OK, perhaps we are a bit late to the game but this story is compelling enough that its better late than never. Recently and Air Tran flight from Florida to Massachusetts was the site of a disturbance. The culprit, a 3 year old girl. The Kulesza family was traveling back home from a Florida vacation when their 3 year old child, who has probably never heard the words No in her life, began to throw a tantrum. The tantrum which began with crying and flailing eventually culminated in the child climbing under the seat in front of her.

As anyone who has flown before can attest, the flight can’t depart unless all passengers are safely buckled in their seats, and that includes unruly, undisciplined children and their over indulgent parents, for whom discipline and actual parenting is a foreign concept.

After over 20 minutes of listening to the parents try to “reason” with the toddler, the flight staff informed the Kulesza family that they would have to deplane so the flight could get underway. Naturally the parents were “shocked.” How dare they be asked to leave the plane after all the world surely revolves around the Kulesza and who cares if the rest of the passengers miss their connecting flights or business appointments, its all about the 3 year old child and placating her every whim.

To add insult to injury, the Kulesza, who will likely sue, claim they were thrown off the plane because their child was “crying too much,” this of course is nonsense. No one has ever been thrown off of a plane because of a crying child. They were thrown off because their crying child refused to sit in her seat and the parents did nothing to ensure that she was safely buckled in before take off.

The entire flying community can take solace in the fact that the Kulesza family has vowed to never fly Air Tran again, which certainly helps me to breath a sigh of relief if I’m ever on an Air Tran flight.

www.associatedcontent.com/article/134009/airtran_airways_tosses_toddler.html

www.tampabays10.com/news/national/article.aspx?storyid=48035

www.chicagotribune.com/travel/sns-ap-flight-tantrum,1,3025207.story?coll=chi-news-hed

In Venezuela, that nation’s gradual regression to totalitarianism is total with the latest act of the Venezuelan parliament. Today, Venezuela’s so-called National Assembly has given initial approval to a bill, which would give President Hugo Chavez the authority to rule by decree. Any supposition that Venezuela is a democracy is now utterly preposterous.

This legislation, if approved, (and make no mistake about it, the assembly filled with Chavez cronies will certainly approve it) will give the Mussolini of South America virtual dictatorial powers to implement his socialist agenda.

With the passage of this legislation, Chavez will join an elite group of leaders whose rubber stamp legislatures have bestowed them with God-like authority, to that group belong the likes of Hitler, Stalin, Napoleon, Caesar and others…
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/6277379.stm

Well its that time of year again…its that time of year when every body who is anybody, except the most rabid of racists, anoint the memory of Martin Luther King, Jr to near godlike status.

Make no mistake about it Dr. King was a truly inspirational figure whose actions and leadership were pivotal during the civil rights movement, but was just a man. Generally only dictatorships and monarchies celebrate the birthdays of individuals. Alone, King was nothing more than an eloquent speaker. The success of the civil rights era was the result of the tireless efforts of many unknowns and hard working individuals and many eloquent speakers, not just one man, is it appropriate in a republic such as ours to relegate one individual to almost divine stature? Why not recognize the King Holiday in deference to civil rights in general rather than one individual? Can one seriously argue than King’s efforts were more important to the rights of all Americans than Harriet Tubman or Elizabeth Cady Stanton or Frederick Douglas? Thousands of Americans have labored for our freedom yet King is honored, while others are forgotten why?

Indeed, many of the fossils of the civil rights era use King’s image to promote their own questionable agendas, which serve only to sully the image of King. Indeed during yesterday’s King celebrations around the country many participants noted the need to focus on new rights that should be the focus of carrying on MLK’s dream, principal among these new “rights” is the right to a job.

Does every American have a “right” to a job? Hardly, indeed some of us are too inept to hold any job. Every American has a right to put forth the necessary effort to achieve through the sweat of their own labor not through the hand outs of others or through the use of the government’s police power.

Over and over again, on Monday, we heard how King’s dream had yet to be fulfilled, this is in error. If by King’s dream we mean a paternalistic society in which individual responsibility has been abolished and citizens are little more than wards of the state, then yes the dream has not been fulfilled, but if by King’s dream we mean every American has an opportunity to succeed or fail in life, regardless of race, then yes the dream has most certainly been fulfilled, unfortunately for some, race has been used as a crutch to justify inaction or as part of an effort to create a feudal society, with our loyalty beholden to political patrons thanks to the promise of further government handholding.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/US/01/15/king.holiday.ap/index.html

Remember the financial crisis that brought down the inept leadership of California Governor Gray Davis, it may soon be repeated. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed a variant of universal healthcare for all Californians, not unlike the healthcare proposal adopted recently in Massachusetts. Under the California proposal all Californians would be required to have health care, either provided by their employers or subsidized by the state. Businesses with 10 or more employees would be required to either provide healthcare to their employees or pay a supplement to the state.

Schwarzenegger’s plan poses great risk. Considering the fact that the health care plan would include illegal aliens, the potential for bankrupting the state is great, as the flow of illegals in to California, and other states, continues unabated.

If this proposal becomes law, and there is a strong chance it will, the beginning of a wave of copy cat universal health plans may be in our future and with it a wave of tax increases and a stagnant economy and why? Because so many people, who lack responsibility and a sense of individual achievement, continue to add to the growing number of minimum wage under achievers who look toward the government for handouts.
www.usatoday.com/money/industries/health/2007-01-08-california-health-plan_x.htm

Today Nancy Pelosi and the Democratic Cavalcade of Stars (sorry Jackie Gleason) once again took control of the United States Congress. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared it an historic day, and proclaimed herself the most powerful woman in America, Hillary Clinton may beg to differ.

But just how historic is it?

For decades the Democrats were in sole possession of the Congress and with what result: the election of a Republican Congress, which turned out to be equally dismal. Exactly how long will it be before the Dems fall into the same trap that snares most politicians once they arrive in Washington. For the left it surely won’t be very long. Even before taking power, they have been befuddled by ethical questions of their own.

One thing is for sure the era of big government, ushered in by FDR remains with a host of social programs and wealth redistribution schemes on the horizon. So is it historic, perhaps, if you regard America’s continued slide into social and political decay and the rejuvenation of US socialism historic.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-01-04-democrats-congress_x.htm

It is the first day of 2007 and what can we say, in the past few days we have seen the death of a flamboyant singer and entertainer, a former president and a former dictator. For the world of music we can certainly say that James Brown made a tremendous impact on the world, its debatable whether the same can be said of Gerald Ford, a decent man to be sure but for the most part, nothing ventured and nothing gained. And as for the pardoning of Nixon, if this country is so fragile that the trial of a criminal president would drive it to the brink, then perhaps this country should not exist in the first place.

On the other hand, had Ford won the election contest of 1976, perhaps this country would have been spared the farce that was the Carter presidency and the birth of the 2nd wave of Islamic radicalism.

The death of Saddam Hussein is notable, perhaps mostly because of the lack of attention the act has garnered. Here we have one of the most brutal tyrants of the modern era and his death means nothing in the grand scheme of things. His death will change nothing for the US or the war in Iraq, much less further the cause of “democracy” in the embattled country.

Aside from these deaths there isn’t much in the way of eventful stories to report, one could speak of John Edwards recent announcement that he will once again vie for the presidency, but why, does anyone in their right mind truly believe that this hack politician has a chance of winning the presidency. Even the anointed one, Hillary Clinton appears destined for setback in 2008.

In Somalia, Islamists face further setbacks in the bid to seize control of that wretched country, in Europe 2 new countries join the EU and 3000 Americans have now died in Iraq…Happy New Year!