What’s that sound? Could it be liberal discontent?

Very little makes me happier than knowing that a hippie is upset.

There’s family, of course. There’s friends. There’s good health, and good pastrami sandwiches and all of that. And, of course, I’d be thrilled if my Auburn Tigers derailed Alabama’s season next weekend, but other than a short list of things, upset hippies are right up there on the list of things which make me smile.

They’re just so fun when they’re angry, hopping around and huffing and puffing and getting all irritated in their itchy hemp underpants. I think that’s why I laugh until my sides hurt whenever I see that video of those crunchy, rarely-showered kids crying over dead trees.

And, oh boy, I can hear them getting all worked up now that Barack Obama is likely to break one of his most fundamental campaign promises. That’s right — Reuters and other news organizations are reporting that it’s all but official, that Obama will likely decide not to roll back the perpetually maligned Bush tax cuts and instead just let them expire in 2010.

(As an aside, 2010 is interesting timing, considering that will be the year when I finish law school, move, study for the bar, take it, and dance naked through the streets should I actually pass the darned thing. Regardless, as a fresh new lawyer, I will aspire to work my butt off and make $249,999 per year. — Jeff)

The whole thing amazes me. Looking back upon this election as a conservative, watching him renege on a campaign promise is nothing groundbreaking, as I watched as he went back on his promise to take public financing, flip-flopped on his opinion on offshore drilling, and so on and so forth. Still, for the lefties in the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, this has got to be fairly new ground. How much, after all, did Obama focus his campaign against John McCain on McCain’s promise to not roll back the so-called unequivocal Bush tax cuts, only to parrot his rival’s talking points since securing the win on November 4? How much, after all, did Obama campaign for “change coming to Washington,” only to fill his support staff and cabinet with still-warm Clinton accomplices (not to mention an actual Clinton herself)?

Oh boy, the hippies have got to be pissed. The folks over at Salon.com seem to be in a pre-panic denial mode, trying to convince themselves that they actually knew Obama would govern from the center-left rather than the hard-left known and loved by the progressive movement. Heck, I’m still not convinced that he wants to be as pragmatic as he’s been, but rather has been forced to migrate to the middle by extenuating circumstances, economic and otherwise.

Still, to me, this is just another affirmation that conservative principles really are correct. His inevitable decision to countermand the very foundation of his candidacy (besides celebrity and Messiah-worship, that is) and spit in the face of his lefternmost supporters shows the merit of reducing, rather than increasing, taxes in any economy. Furthermore, it shows that the ideas, ideals and policies of the progressive movement simply will not work when removed from the idyllic sanctity of Starbucks and academia and put to task in the real world.

In the meantime, I hold out the hope that Obama will continue to display pragmatism and that the adverse effects of his presidency will be tempered somewhat by extrinsic economic conditions. Even if the shift toward the center will not last, I will enjoy it as much as I can — it is not often, after all, that we can see hippie unrest in action.

A Public Service Message from America’s Right:

Not sure if your neighborhood hippie is upset?
Not sure if the changes you see are simply the honeymoon phase of the election coming to fruition, the effects of the herbal medication wearing off, or actual hippie discontent?
Look to the following video for the warning signs:



  1. Arkady says:

    Rolling back the bush tax cuts was never his primary focus, he discussed it on occasion, but for the most part – what i recall – was a promise to let them expire. Whereas McCain wanted to make them permanent.

    Correct me if I am wrong.

  2. Brad Fregger says:

    I’m new to this site … I hope this is an okay thing to do. The following scenario speaks to Obama’s actions that seem to be causing liberal discontent.

    In thinking about the Obama birth certificate issue I was trying to come up with a scenario that would solve all the problems and answer some vexing questions. Now, remember, I’m just a guy who operates a small publishing business out of my home … I have no connections and would probably be more surprised than most of you if this turned out to be true.
    Here are the issues that my scenario depends upon:

    1) Obama is ineligible to be president, either because he was not born here, or his citizenship was renounced when his mother married the man from Indonesia and moved there.
    2) This fact was not proven early enough to stop the “Obama” Democratic nomination.
    3) There is great concern about the potential for violence if the presidency is taken away from him.
    4) Determining who would become president of the United States at this time would be almost impossible. The resulting lawsuits would clog the courts for years.

    Accepting these issues as facts (if you think that’s a stretch, wait till you read the scenario), here we go. …

    Because of the above, the current leaders of our nation, not including Reed or Pelosi and most of the liberal elite (who probably can’t be trusted), but definitely including the Clintons, were forced to come up with a solution that would cause the least amount of damage to our nation … so they decided to let Obama serve one term, under certain circumstances:

    1) He would be moderate in his choices for cabinet decisions.
    2) He would be strong against the fight against terrorism.
    3) He would take the advice of his moderate cabinet and not the advice of the wacky liberal base.
    4) He would choose Hillary as his secretary of state.

    This was laid out for him, in no uncertain terms, when he met with President Bush. At that time, he was presented with absolute proof of his birth and the identity of his father, along with the proof that when he first came to the US he had an Indonesian passport and was determined to be an Indonesian citizen. At this time, he was told he had two choices: be stripped of the presidency, and, therefore, be the cause of massive violence throughout the US; or accept four years as president, announcing that he was not seeking a second term.

    In addition, the conservative media has been told to please lay off this story, as a matter of national security; the liberal media didn’t have to be told, they wouldn’t touch it with a robotic arm.

    While this scenario seems way out there, it does solve some major problems. In addition, it provides Hillary with a great opportunity to run in 2012. The added experience of secretary of state to her resume would make her a formidable candidate. I’m sure Bill would forsake any international speaking engagements for a couple of years under these conditions.

    What do you think of this fantasy?

    Brad Fregger, Publisher/Futurist
    Austin, Texas

  3. Jeff Schreiber says:


    His tax plans underwent several incarnations–somewhere here is an article about them–including the immediate rollback of the Bush tax cuts.


  4. Moránar says:

    Ahem, reading media outside the US, I haven’t had any doubt Obama would govern from the centre.

    But then again, we foreigners have such a different idea of what actually constitutes ‘hard left’ that it’s not even worth arguing.

  5. Greg Goss says:

    Brad…If Obama is declared ineligible the constitution is clear as to whom becomes POTUS. It would be Biden.


  6. Anonymous says:

    Jeff, no nude street dancing when you pass the bar exam, PLEASE! Might come back to haunt you when your readers convince you to run for office one day :-)

  7. purgequeen says:

    I like the reporter’s framing of his question as implicative that we the people await verification as to his Constitutional obligation.Very clever!

  8. rls says:

    Brad…If Obama is declared ineligible the constitution is clear as to whom becomes POTUS. It would be Biden.

    I think the declaration of who would become president would depend on the timing of such declaration. If it would come before the electors meet, then I would say it would be McCain. If it came after, I would say it would be Biden.

    I do not claim to be a constitutional authority. Just a layman’s reading.

  9. Anonymous says:

    Heck, I’m still not convinced that he wants to be as pragmatic as he’s been, but rather has been forced to migrate to the middle by extenuating circumstances, economic and otherwise.

    I believe that he knows of all the rumblings beneath the earth, in the background, about his illegitimacy, and needs to establish himself, at least in the beginning, as a “secure” choice, during this time leading up to the “crowning”. Then he’ll probably figure he’s home safe and will begin planting all the liberal seeds, cleverly, until their roots seem as though they are permanent within the culture…forever into the future of the country…or what’s left of it.

  10. Author says:

    Greg Goss you are worng.

    If Obama is declairedineligible before Dec 15th then the candidate with the most electral votes, which is McCain would automaticall become President Elect, since OBAMA and Biden would not have any votes perion.

    If after the 15th, then it would be Biden or whoever the coutr say’s.

    Ya need to do a bit more research

  11. Anonymous says:

    rls said…
    Brad…If Obama is declared ineligible the constitution is clear as to whom becomes POTUS. It would be Biden.

    I think the declaration of who would become president would depend on the timing of such declaration. If it would come before the electors meet, then I would say it would be McCain. If it came after, I would say it would be Biden.

    Well, if Donofrio wins his case re: Obama, a way out for the liberal Supremes would be to also declare Donofrio’s equal argument re: McCain to also be worthy, thus attempting to smooth over any criticism of unequal justice, etc.

    Then…what would happen, Constitutionally???

  12. DB says:

    Re: “There’s good health, and good pastrami sandwiches…”

    What is it with pastrami sandwiches? My ex-wife used to drag me from deli to deli in search of a ‘good’ pastrami sandwich. The Bronx, Brooklyn, Manhattan, even to Rascal’s in Miami.

    I’m joking a little here, but pastrami was once serious business around our household. And in lieu of a good pastrami, a [lean] roast beef on rye with Russian dressing.

    Now I’m getting lovesick (hungry!).

  13. Anonymous says:

    I’m guessing here, but I think the people voted Nov 4th for the elector pledged to the candidate nominated by the parties. So if there were a decision prior to the meeting of the electors (Dec 15th), then the electors would still be obligated to vote for the nominee of the DNC.

    I have heard (not confirmed) that the DNC’s party rules are that if the nominee has to be replaced, the members of the House of Reps from the Dem party vote for the new nominee.

    So it is conceivable that even (arguably – most likely) Hillary might still be sworn in as POTUS.

    All this makes me sick because it is totally not necessary. If Obama has a legitimate birth certificate that proves his eligibility, he should allow the State of Hawaii to release it. If not, he already knew he was ineligible and never should have sought the office to begin with.

    The other travesty is why the lawsuits demanding disclosure keeping getting dismissed. Since the rule (US Constitution) is obvious, however the power to enforce the rule is not, I don’t understand why every American doesn’t have standing to bring suit based on the 10th Amendment. The enforcement [is] “powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

    Is the 10th Amendment dead / obsolete?

  14. rls says:

    Then…what would happen, Constitutionally???

    I would then say it is Barr….I believe he got more votes and was on more state ballots than Nader.

  15. Anonymous says:

    There maybe other choices:
    1.New election Hillary vs ? Republican (Romney?)
    2.Cheynne becomes interim President due to emerging circumstances
    3. After Jan 20 if Obama gets in
    it would be Biden

  16. Anonymous says:

    If Obama were declared unfit to be POTUS, before the Electoral College meets, then it would be most likely, McCain and Palin who would be the team in the White House. IF it were between Dec 15 and Jan 20, 09; then it would still be McCain and Palin, but maybe only for a short time, unless Bush were convinced to stay in office until a new set of candidates were to be vetted and voted on to be POTUS, by an election. Biden would not beccome POTUS because WE THE PEOPLE DID NOT VOTE FOR HIM at all, we (or they) voted for a ticket that he was included on by the choice of the Primary Candidate. We had no say in that choice and were not included in a vote process about Biden for President…. so, he would not be President, he might stay in office if it were discovered after Obama is sworn in in Jan, if the Courts didn’t negate the whole election and do another one and instill Nancy Pelosi as President in interim untill a totally new election with new candidates were done. At least, that is the way I read it from the few places in the Constitution that state what and who would succeed after such a thing might happen, although, there really aren’t that many precedents to follow, as nothing like this has happened before. Therer have been deatahs in office and assinations, but there never has been a fraud that has to be removed from Office.

    By the way, Brad, your theory sucks, mostly because in having a posuer in office, everything that that person did acting as President would be null and void, and for that reason, we can’t and neither can the Supreme Court or the Current President allow this to take place, someone has to act on it, and the sooner, the better, rioting be damned. And any rioting that might take place would all totally rest on Obama’s Head, because he is the one who is responsible for this action and for taking it to the place that it has to go to get him removed. Tantrums and riots do not hold water when the total world respect for this country is at stake. All laws signed onto by him, all the Treasury options and banking financial transactions that the Government entered into, all orders and treaties and national conferences, and anything at all to do with his job as Commander in Chief concerning the Military, and how all those men overseas would act and what they might be doing and any people that they captured or killed, those soldiers could be tried in Criminal Courts in those countries and put to death for following even the simmplest orders from Obama, and the rulings from the Supreme Court would all be negated that were made to be acted upon during his time as POTUS. That is what is meant by this whole thing having to be acted upon by the Supreme Court and it being a Constitutional Crisis that needs to be dealt with. Everything Obama would touch during his “time” in office, should he get there would be suspect and Null and Void or negated, and our Country can’t take that loss of stnding in the world theater. All those rulings and laws would also necessairly trickle down to the local states and counties and cities, and laws would become a thing of the past in many instances. This thing about his Birth Certificate has to be dealt with by the Supreme Court, and it has to be done sooner rather than later. It would be much better if he simply showed it and walked away, but he won’t do that, and even if he did just show it, he can go to prison for up to a few years and potentially have to pay back all of that $650 Million that he collected on his way to the White House. There is already a punishment set in the Constitution for him, should he be found ineligible to be POTUS and having already duped the public out of monies.


  17. l says:

    Jeff… I was sitting here trying to catch up on my reading …and umm….I start to see red…so I have to say.. ROLL TIDE ROLL!! :) hahaha ….should be a good game.


  18. goddessdivine says:

    Is that video for real? It leaves me in a stupor of thought, wondering how people like this exist. Honestly, get a life people. (I too like to see hippies upset…..)

  19. Anonymous says:

    That would be one helluva deal if Obama was ineligible and the electoral college had to actually pick the president as was originally intended by the constitution… and they picked HILLARY! How could the left protest the choice or the electoral college??? Hillary could even be so magnanimous as to appoint Barry as, uh, Sec of HUD, (community organizer extraordinaire :-)

  20. Anonymous says:

    When will people (hippies, peta, and the like) finally wake up to the reality of our existance: life feeds on life. We cannot scientifically prove its origin, but we CAN prove that without sustained nutrition (from plant or animal source), animal life would cease to exist (yes, that means us). Conversely (this is apparently the side most “tree huggers” seem to miss), plant life would cease to exist without the constant influx of carbon dioxide needed for photosynthasis to occur, created through the animal metabolic system (yes, I realize there are species that do not rely on co2, but it is the “fuel” needed for the majority of plants as we know them to “feed” on and exist…). It seems to be a well balanced, effective system… definately much older than our existance and developed in ways that we cannot yet comprehend.

    Maybe this is just evolution stepping in and “weeding out the weak”. These seem to be a group struck by an affliction of ‘too sensitive to survive’. I fear for humans: our gifts of intelligence, emotion, and the ability to rationalize seem to be our undoing. We are a great leap in the evolutionary chain, but we take our advantages for granted and forget to accept the inherent weaknesses we exposed by embracing those “advantages”.


  21. Anonymous says:

    I watched the hippie video…Laughed so hard I spotted….

  22. Anonymous says:

    To all those hippies, my slogan is:
    “Amoeba have rights, too.”
    To all those Liberals, :
    “Political correctness offends me.”

  23. Tilli says:

    I have to agree…please do not run nekkid through the streets. The scarring on the world would be unbearable.

    As for hippies crying in the woods; dress them in argyle and cardigans.

  24. Jeff Schreiber says:

    Thanks, Aaron, for the confidence booster.

    Perhaps I’ll go to the beach instead, that way, people might think I’m a manatee.

  25. TypewriterStreaming says:

    Jeff, there’s a huge difference amongst liberals. I am a centrist liberal – a PUMA who was completely against what was coming out of Obama’s mouth during the Primaries and the GE. I am delighted to see those pushy u=ber liberal worms squirm now as Obama -(the Ohopie that PUMA Dems knew to be a liar, liar pants on fire) – change his tune. Thank heavens is all I can say. And a big tough luck to the DailyKos lunatics.

  26. Southerngirl says:

    This has nothing to do with the actual post…but I need ‘bama to win. Big. I got a lot riding on that!!

    (Sorry Auburn)

Speak Your Mind