The Conservative Soldier

Do you ever find yourself wondering what it is that smells and why it won’t go away? It is like walking the halls of a frat house, wishing for a gas mask. I think I’ve figured it out.

The source of the odors hanging over our land is rotting leftovers, spilling out of the Left’s ideological Frigidaire. The liberals in this nation were emboldened by the mistaken election of Barack Hussein Obama nearly one (very long) year ago.  They rolled out a feast of old ideas veiled by hope and change. But Socialism is a flimsy premise for legislating. The core ingredients are highly perishable. Now that the party is over, we find that some of the guests are still wandering the banquet area (like Civil War soldiers in the battlefields after the surrender), desperately looking for morsels of left wing nutrition in a moldy, abandoned wasteland.

Some of these lost souls are even employed, as pundits and journalists.  Earlier today, I wrote to two of these intellectually malnourished scribes. Hopefully I got to them before the food poisoning set in.

Thomas Frank, a University of Chicago PhD who loathes Capitalism and the Constitution, writes a weekly column for the Wall Street Journal called The Tilting Yard (the venue for jousting in Medieval times, which seems fitting for a Dark Ages pundit). This a guy who has to call his doctor because his physical reaction to almost any Obama speech lasts “more than four hours”.

In Thursday’s Journal (where he is routinely overshadowed by an all-star team of credible, lucid columnists), Frank took up the cause of Team Obama’s frivolous vilification of Fox News. He concludes that the network exists merely to promote “conspiracy theories” even though he actually took exception to the childish approach by the Obama White House.

Frank writes: “Simply feeding Fox a slice of raw denunciation was like dumping gasoline into a fire. It did nothing but furnish the network with a real-world validation of its long-running conspiracy theories—and a nice bump in its ratings.”

In a firmly worded email, I replied: Your column is an absurd patchwork of historic references lacking context and evading the actual reasons why the frauds occupying the White House went on a public rampage against Fox News.

These always offended left wing radicals were ticked off that Fox exposed the backgrounds and questionable character of the many Obama czars, these people wholly unaccountable to the voting public. They were enraged that their buddy Van Jones was forced to resign. And, most of all, they were perplexed by the thorough outing of ACORN by the independent investigative journalists to whom Fox provided a forum to air their reporting.

Little wonder Fox is in (White House) cross-hairs. This is what radicals do. They attack without regard for the consequences. As you point out in your concluding paragraphs, the consequence is a President that fights fire with … gasoline, just like his mentors Alinsky and Ayers. #

Joseph White is a Journal editor who was inexplicably given a forum in the newspaper today to explain why he sold his car and resides on Capitol Hill in Washington. The premise was that he is joining the ranks of those goaded by environmentalists and tormented by the so-called climate change threat. He demonstrates this by living like a Stalin-era worker haunted by his carbon footprint and in deference to the wishes of his Great Leader, Barack Hussein Obama.

White claims he shed the car and a house for “sensible” reasons, but how then to explain the giddiness oozing from this passage? “My new life evidently makes me part of a trend. I am a New Urbanist, a Third Life Boomer or, to the green movement, an exemplar of the new sustainable lifestyle who leaves a lighter, smaller carbon footprint on our planet by driving less, walking more and forgoing the energy-intensive life that goes with owning an edge-city McMansion and two sport-utility vehicles.”

In a firmly worded email, I replied: This notion that we’re all pigs because we have cars and homes and choose to live in secure neighborhoods is such a tired one. Climate change is a myth perpetuated by power thirsty radical politicians who seek control of every aspect of American life. Look at how they’ve rushed to discredit the common sense solutions in the new book, Super Freakonomics.#

What a day it has been. Can somebody get me a can of Lysol?

Liberal Florida Congressman Alan Grayson is an ideological terrorist. He is now using the deceased as pawns in his quest to impose government monopolized health care reform on our citizens.

His pathetic web initiative, Names of the Dead, exploits people who have died. He claims they are deceased because we — the collective “we” — did not pay for their health care. What a load of unsubstantiated crap. Where were the family members of these people? Friends? Fellow churchgoers? Did we all let them down? Or were they neglected by their own? Grayson’s site can not back up its claims. It is a joke.

Acclaimed columnist and blogger Michelle Malkin agrees. She writes that Names of the Dead is based on a flawed, out of date study by single payer health care advocates that concludes around 44,000 people die every year solely due to lack of access to care.

“(The study) attributed deaths to lack of health insurance for all the participants who initially self-reported that they had no insurance and then died for any reason over the 12-year tracking period,” Malkin writes. “At no time did the original researchers or the single-payer activists who piggy-backed off their data ever verify whether the supposed casualties of America’s callous health care system had insurance or not.”

I pledge to launch a new site in 2010, Names of the Politically Brain Dead. Grayson will be its poster boy. But he will be among a sea of discredited names.

This disgusting excuse for a public servant needs to be returned to the rock from under which he crawled, and the people who voted for him should be institutionalized. That would be true health care “reform”. Put the mentally deranged away for good. Start with Pelosi, Reid and “Swamp Thing” (Grayson). And their supporters.

STRATFOR’s George Friedman is one of the few credible observers and analysts of U.S. foreign policy. He is a measured writer. He leaves interpretation to the reader, which is laudable. Friedman’s analysis of where America stands in Afghanistan, and where we are headed, concludes that Barack Hussein Obama does not want the unfinished work in Afghanistan to go down in history as “Obama’s war”.

That is not much of a revelation, given what we know about Obama’s lack of spine, of his naivete regarding foreign affairs, of his disregard for the mounting threats to our Homeland Security. What shakes fellow Patriots down to our cores is what Friedman’s current report does not say. It does not say that Obama’s cowardice toward “owning a war” is, in fact, a green light to the most violent, bloodthirsty Jihadist elements around the world, especially those hunkered down and aggressively recruiting along the Afghanistan-Pakistan border. Friedman writes:

Obama does not want this to be his war. He does not want to be remembered for Afghanistan the way George W. Bush is remembered for Iraq or Lyndon Johnson is for Vietnam. Right now, we suspect Obama plans to demonstrate commitment, and to disengage at a more politically opportune time. Johnson and Bush showed that disengagement after commitment is nice in theory. For our part, we do not think there is an effective strategy for winning in Afghanistan, but that McChrystal has proposed a good one for “hold until relieved.” We suspect that Obama will hold to show that he gave the strategy a chance, but that the decision to leave won’t be too far off.

When Obama and his Chairman Mao-adoring inner circle abandon the U.S. economy, the American intelligence community, small business owners and medical professionals, it is merely a pattern that plays into his Socialist master plan.

But what thinking person can compare one American President, George W. Bush, who stayed the course in Iraq in the face of unrelenting criticism and ridicule in order to secure a measure of victory, to another President, Obama, who readily cuts and runs at the slightest hint that leading freedom’s march might sidetrack a domestic policy agenda, without concluding that the former is a Patriot and the latter is a pathetic failure?