The case against films that make me laugh and get emotional for all the unintended reasons is strong from my possibly unpopular view.  For one, they rarely include discharging firearms, laser helicopters fighting cyborg sharks, or Jackie Chan.

But the lack of awesomeness found in most romantic comedies only tops the con list.  Of the myriad other reasons to change away from Nora Ephron-written or -approved films aside from their nausea-inducing properties is that the credits begin when the story should.

Most films that focus upon a coupling treats the start like it’s the end.  The events whereby either Jennifer Aniston or Lopez meets her respective dream guy by chance and ends up in his arms despite personality differences, misunderstandings that at the time seem fundamental, and an engagement to Bill Paxton may seem cute.  But that’s only at first glance.

In reality, the point after each party has consented to being together is when the hard yet fulfilling work of creating a meaningful relationship truly begins.  With that in mind, the best case against romantic picture shows is Barack Obama, who obviously let his wife choose what cinematic offering they were seeing on most of their numerous date nights.

It may be gentlemanly, although not quite manly, that he nearly always went along with her theater ticket wishes.  But he clearly allowed too much of the sap dripping from the screen to get in his pores.  Thanks to the influence of seeing too many movies end in a happy couple that hasn’t been together long enough to have an argument, he thinks his work stopped on election night.

I blame Hollywood for our present lousy administration.  It’s fun to accuse the unentertaining entertainment industry of acting detrimentally in any situation, and not just because quirky thinker and speller John Cusack works there.  In this case, the film generators don’t so much ignore life’s tribulations as they misunderstand where they take place.  Similarly, Obama thought he was in a successful connection with America without even getting to the first date.

That takes us to the most misdirected feature ever, namely the disgustingly cutesy story of a charismatic smiler who bumps into us on the sidewalk one day and sweeps us off our feet an hour and 40 minutes later.  Needed Change starring Barack Obama is about a protagonist who thought landing a significant other led to perpetual happiness.  But beating out John McCain only meant the courtship may commence.

For Obama, the point of getting elected was getting elected.  He treats governance like an annoyance; his irritation seemingly indicates he thought the tricky part was over.  After all, he famously asserted that his mere nomination would make the Earth splendorous and trouble-free. Why would anyone be surprised he’s half-assing the job when he thought acing the interview would alone provoke success?

He also thought life for all would be smooth sailing after his climactic winning speech in the Chicago park.  Unfortunately for him, the plot continues.  That confuses a man who has obviously been handed the wrong script.

Accordingly, he bristles at any criticism or question that implies his awesome wonderfulness has not necessarily been transferred to the world.  It’s an offshoot of his philosophy: leftist claptrap is difficult to implement and even more useless at improving our circumstances. Who could be surprised that our affiliation with him has turned rocky?

We already know his statist convictions will lead us only into sustained misery.  Viewers have already found out what happens to the Obama/America couple, and let’s say that the ending won’t test well.  One of the leads turned out to be fantastically unappealing, too.

Blessedly, the story has a definite concluding date.  There will be no sequel where we find out what happens starting in year five of the relationship, as the pairing will be dissolved before then thanks to how many of us have wised up to his shenanigans.

We’re not just slightly mismatched: we’re like Glenn Beck and Rachel Maddow being brought together with the Reverend Al Sharpton presiding over the ceremony.  Replace the wedding cake with Little Debbie snacks, and the disaster is complete.

It’s some of our fellow citizens’ fault for being seduced in the first place.  To them, Obama was charming enough to get himself a date or two.  But at least his attempted conquest is noticing that he keeps forgetting his wallet while never asking about what we think.

That’s not even to mention his troubling dinnertime talk about how he wants to commietize our economy, the difference being that the Soviets at least had the sense to spend plenty on army stuff.  Sure, military funding pushed them into superbankruptcy, which was remarkable for a country that had no money.  But they still believed that even their crummy system was worth defending.  Our present companion would never willingly fight for our honor even after he’s emptied our wallet.

Actually, someone should produce a follow-up that doesn’t present a formulaic ending.  Let’s ditch him.  He can be the schlub we’re engaged to whom we lose for Liam Neeson’s sake.  That simply means the flick isn’t over, which in turn means we could still get an ending we enjoy.

Maybe we’re in the midst of a cliffhanger.  Dumping Obama and finding the presidential partner who actually completes us would make for the happiest plot twist ever.  As with so many romantic comedies, the present presentation contains neither romance nor comedy.  But let’s watch what happens next.  I may enjoy it even if the yet-unseen hero isn’t equipped with a flamethrower chainsaw.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

That said, hacky excursion narratives have their limits.  While they fit within the context of a paper that may never make it past your front bushes, they’re not quite presidential.  Of course, Barack Obama isn’t quite presidential himself, either, which explains why he’s working for an endless weekend.  He’s actually been doing his assigned tasks this week, which is notable due to the fact it’s notable.

If you’re among the one out of about 10 Americans who remains unemployed, know that Obama envies you.  The only man paid more to toil less than the head of state is Conan O’Brien, and even he’s managed to get rehired.

Obama doesn’t understand why anyone would bother with strenuous employment.  Can’t you just get someone to ghostwrite a book and slap your name on it so you can harvest royalties and work only when you feel like it?  Such a surefire method for generating income will be our president’s next suggested job creating or saving move.

Naturally, Obama thought his present job would resemble a vacation.  The recitation sensation figured he would repair everything busted in the world simply by showing up and speaking.  There would be no dirty work involved, as all those who were entranced by his campaigning seemed ready to execute his bidding.

Unfortunately for him and us, this particular planet isn’t named Nobelland.  He can’t just say he wants America to be a more prominent, ethnically diverse Norway and make it so.  The fact he is unable to will us into progressivism frustrates him to the point where he constantly flees his post.  I am shocked someone gave him a helicopter in the first place.

It’s apparent why the president spends much of his time at work thinking about getting out of work: Obama has genuinely never labored before.  Go from prep school to Columbia before lecturing about law and bitching that certain Chicago neighborhoods haven’t been stimulated enough before falling into the state and then national senates until finally exploiting an uncanny set of circumstances into the White House: he hasn’t had to sweat to find a job, not to mention after getting one, either.  Why would he have to strain himself now?

Oh, right: he should because he’s the most powerful man on Earth, although he’s doing his best to demote himself by weakening the nation.  It’s a chore for him to work, in part because he thought it would be more like being paid to have fun.

Wasn’t everyone happy when he got the job?  We all loved him, at least according to his memory, and we were apparently supposed to clear away any opposition to his edicts so his agenda could become fact.

But we collectively decided we prefer flying rattlesnake flags at Tea Parties to pushing progressivism, especially those of us who never fell for the gaudily oblivious sales pitch during campaign season.  We’ve made his job exponentially tougher, and we have earned an ale or cocktail for it.  As a result of our obstinate refusal to let him concurrently weaken our economy and global standing, he now doesn’t even want to bother showing up to whine for what he wants.

The fact that he’s better than you and me on account of how he is humanity’s savior isn’t helping, either.  Obama acts as if he necessarily deserves to be president despite the unbearably overwhelming contrary evidence.

But factors such as his skimpy résumé and historically rotten performance won’t keep him from wallowing in the office’s trappings.  By contrast, a worthier leader might decline to act like he’s better than us.

Someone equipped with humility would act modestly upon becoming president, especially considering the current economic climate for his fellow Americans.  That someone is not Barack Obama.

Of course, the incumbent embodies the precise opposite of humbleness.  But he’s not going to let his shady past or America’s uncertain future dampen his delighting in the office’s perks at present.

For Obama, holding his current job is all about how it affects him and not at all about how his performance impacts the nation of which he happens to be president.  I blame whoever hired him without performing a background check or calling references.

But at least he’s kind enough to currently try manning his post, at least for a couple days.  It may take some time for him to get in his work groove.  But then he’ll be right back to railing against people who dare to earn more then $250,000 per year once he’s recovered from spending close to that on himself during one fantastically indulgent week. He expects to be thanked for standing on the class war’s front lines, although he’d prefer that we’d not ask about what side he’s joined.

Unfortunately, the White House did labor while he was gone.  Specifically, moaning about America’s utter dreadfulness to the United Nations remains this administration’s job one even when the boss is hammocking it up elsewhere.  Obama might have felt uneasy about personally singling out this nation’s atrociousness while away, as he did not do so even when he took a break from lounging about to acquire shellfish in one of America’s cushiest locales.

To be fair, he doesn’t hate the unending benefits of living here.  It’s the America the rest of us inhabit that’s so rotten, you see.  But he’s trying to change everything he perceives as being miserable about our country.  Um, hooray?

Instead, the next report the White House submits to the UN about our awfulness should detail how our leader is bleeding us dry while emasculating us.  The only reason we needn’t bother submitting such a report is that everyone already knows the damage the Obama administration has wrought.  Why submit a document that reveals nothing but an open secret?  It’s not very green; the Earth thanks us for not bothering to detail redundant information on paper.

A president who doesn’t care for this nation is this nation’s biggest problem.  We’re stuck with a hyper-leftist whose first act as president was locating the Oval Office escape hatch, and the country suffers accordingly.

But it could be worse: think about poor Michelle rotting away last week in Martha’s Vineyard while missing Spain.  It’s all about perspective.  Did you even care when Obama’s Hawaii time was interrupted because some inconsiderate terrorist tried to blow up an airplane on Christmas?  You’re so insensitive about our president’s recreation.

We should take an important lesson from our gallivanter-in-chief: life would be easier if we all tried to flee our problems.  Why worry about running out of currency or in which direction Iran will soon be pointing what kind of weapons?  Relax, dudes: there’s always going to be things about which to fret, but the ice cream parlor closes around dusk.

Even if he’s physically there, Obama’s heart might still not be into his revulsion for our way of life.  It’s going to take some time for the president to get back into the swing of at least feigning to be presidential even after he’s again punched his timecard.

Obama will have a case of the Mondays for weeks after he gets back behind his desk.  On the bright side, such revulsion at exertion will hopefully keep him from implementing some of his toxic ideals.  We could tell him there’s no money in the budget for him to stay for overtime, but worries about him being a workaholic aren’t really justified.

So, let him ditch whenever he wants.  He may be lounging as America gets kicked to the gutter.  But any time Obama steps from his presidential duties counts as a vacation for the rest of us.

We should treat Obama’s frequent scurries away from his profession as if they were trips to the Magic Kingdom with no lines and open kegs on Main Street, U.S.A. for the rest of us.  Next, voting him out of office will be more fun than shooting Mickey with paintballs.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

But liberals find me to be infuriatingly inscrutable.  It’s not a unique compliment, as it has more to do with what I believe than how I say it.  The left has a curiously high level of difficulty comprehending how any conservative like me could be a conservative like me.  Who could want war or be opposed to getting free stuff from the feds, they wonder?

They think we’re all unsolvable riddles wrapped in enigmas covered in American flag t-shirts.  We’re complex for such simpletons, aren’t we?  Condescending statists view Tea Parties the same way they would gawk at a museum exhibit or freak show.  As a Cro-Magnon pinhead, I am doubly offended.

More broadly, they are irritating because what we want is as unambiguously clear as it is reasonable.  Even they could figure it out, although their allegedly impressive Ivy-adorned degrees post a clear handicap to right-wing comprehension.

The left chiefly seems utterly baffled by our radical notion that people can take care most of their own needs.  By extension, we want a government whose primary purpose is to whoop those who would infringe upon same needs.  The state’s role is to preserve the conditions that enable prosperity; as for prosperity itself, we’re on our own.  It works better than Joe Biden trying to buy happiness for us.

Pairing liberty with overarching security may seem radical to those who still won’t pipe down about shuttering Gitmo, especially if they wish to make former inmates eligible for the Earned Income Tax Credit so the poor innocent victims of Dick Cheney may start fresh.

But liberals seeking to understand the right can hopefully learn to be tolerant of our lifestyle choice, assuming they don’t want to be bigots forever.  No hate, cleverly spelled with the numeral 8 in place of the “ate” part!

All conservatives want is a government as disciplined as our favorite federal employees, the Marines.  We seek a well-trained Washington that knows that jumping up and stealing from our plates will lead to a rolled-up newspaper whapping.

And we just want to make sure we know who’s here.  In addition to maintaining that we should be able to control who enters this country, it would be nice to fence in our capital to keep money from heading in either direction.  We should make congresspeople have to apply for day passes to leave, too, as they could use the hassle.

By contrast, one of the few things the government does well is one of the few things it is supposed to do.  Incarcerating or permanently incapacitating those who seek to harm the innocent is vital and kind of fun.  That explains why the term “common defense” appears in the Constitution.

Meanwhile, “health care” does not appear in same supremely hallowed wrinkly document, although in Nancy Pelosi’s defense there is no specific prohibition against crappy insurance.  She thinks she has us on a mumbo jumbo legal technicality, but it’s still not okay for her to try to make us buy it just because she wants to do so.  Opposing Pelosi’s made-up powers is one of our fundamental doctrines.

The instinct against having to buy health care ultimately controlled by the government complements the Constitution.  There isn’t all that much for Washington to do in there, which by extension means they don’t need a tremendous percentage of our earnings.  Buying what we want with what we earned is a more enjoyable way of creating jobs than subsidizing coked-up monkeys with money either confiscated from us or borrowed from China.  I might voluntarily subsidize such research as long as I got to party with same monkeys.

In a similar vein, mandatory sharing doesn’t count as kindhearted, especially when so many minor-league tycoons are willing to donate to anyone in genuine need.  We don’t need the government overseeing giving on account of Americans’ fabulous generosity.

Thanks to Barack Obama’s utter financial fecklessness, there are ample charity cases to prove how much we’re willing to help our fellow humans.  It’s kind of him to create the circumstances which lead to such compassionate moments.

Of course, there are some completely accidental misunderstandings where certain leftists portray us as ignorantly rank hypocrites.  Remember, they’re not purposefully ignorant just to make it easier to demonize us.  Undoubtedly, it’s a mistake how they caricaturize us as zero-tax fanatics who don’t realize we need money to pay soldiers and buy tanks.

We want defense spending and a few non-toll roads, duh.  It’s just that that’s about all we want.  But we do get the difference between a small and nonexistent government; academics studying our tribe should write that down.

At the same time, liberals should ponder that conservatives recognize the need to say “come on” sometimes.  Most notably, it’s logical to acknowledge the benefits provided when men and women pair off, just as it’s advisable to note that erecting a mosque within shouting distance of a terror attack perpetrated in Islam’s name might be a tad insensitive.

Yes, it’s too close even if its shadow would not be cast on the site.  If, say, a landing gear piece from a plane used as a missile on September 11 hit a building’s roof, same building’s site is too close to Ground Zero for an Islamic cultural center.

Conservatives tend to think it’s outside the bounds of decency to let people marry anyone they want or build any building anywhere they want.  Limiting marriages to people of differing genders and asking mosque-builders for some two-way sensitivity are entirely within bounds.

But I fear our ideological foes still won’t understand that we don’t hate gays or Muslims just because we hold these particular positions.  Might we be accused of intolerance?  If so, how ever would we recover?

See, the difference is that we just want commonsense boundaries that have nothing to do with hatred or truly restricting rights, because. . .  Eh, I’m done trying to sell them.  I prefer receiving their racist/sexist/homophobe/bigot-category insults.  For one, they are fun to use as Facebook profile quotes.

Even better, accepting the unvarnished truth about us beats caring about the patronizing tone of leftists who have difficulty even fathoming a life not governed by the sort of bureaucrats who don’t want or couldn’t get private-sector jobs. 

All Tea Partiers desire is fidelity to the Founders, and not just out of a sense of tradition, either: the wig-wearers’ system works.  But the left will ignore our reverence and instead churn out more essays and sound bites on why the stimulus just can’t have wholly failed like it did.

That’s of course when they’re not branding people who don’t, for example, want an open-bordered single dual-continent-sized nation as hatemongering W. Bush Library supporters.  Thankfully, our snottier opponents will be easier to ignore when they’re relegated to minority status.

The chance to ignore their nastiness is as good a reason as any to elect conservative candidates everywhere.  The consigned leftists won’t learn, but we can still teach them a lesson.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

For one, I am sure you would like all the possessions I have piled around.  But if you knew you would suffer no consequences if, say, you were assigned to watch my collection of glassware swiped from some of our nation’s shadier public houses and gin mills, it’s understandable that I would be more bothered than you if they got busted into a million shards.

But the left insists we’re all wrong about liking what we have.  They maintain they’ll take what’s ours and not only treat it well but even better than we would.  With their totally non-arrogant view in mind, it’s unsurprising that they want to oversee a higher percentage of your income.  They do so in the name of efficiency: the Barack Obamas of the world argue that streamlining is just a matter of turning a few Ezra Klein blogs into law.

Life’s micromanagers keep telling us that we only need geniuses to confront massively uncontrollable governmental financial abuse.  By chance, the people suggesting such also think they happen to be the visionaries in question.  That startling coincidence makes sense only if they think they are smarter than us to the point where they must make our life decisions.  So, it makes sense.

They’re brainy enough to know everything textbooks can teach.  Of course, such knowledge doesn’t necessarily translate to learning about this real life that seems distastefully untidy to them.  That explains why they ignore actual crises, although it of course doesn’t justify it.

For one, President Obama never quite addressed the Gulf oil spill, although he’ll say his strategy was to wait it out all along.  In reality, he lucked out via dissipation.  Up until now, his plan seemed to consist of hoping that the escaped petroleum froze over.

Waiting for the next Ice Age should have been Plan K at best, but our big-government president banked upon it.  Now, with the hype about environmental apocalypse shown to be as overblown as the Lost finale, he can claim it was his plan all along and continue his attempts to shut down oil wells.

His plan will succeed as well as all his others.  Oh, no!  The chances of creating an efficient government that sweats over wasting your dollars are as low as those of John Kerry becoming something other than America’s most pathetic yacht-dwelling hypocrite.  Nothing will change, as big-state backers work with a budget that requires no budgeting.

Government drones pull the kegerator’s tap, and beer flows.  It’s the polar opposite of private sector life, where those who don’t set aside a Labatt budget spend their sad days tragically sober.  They work for an entity that by design fails to fear failure.  Naturally, they won’t be concerned about their virtual booziness running dry, as they keep getting handed piles of empty nickel-deposit beer cans to return at will.

The difference stems from the fact that failure is life’s greatest motivator.  The left eternally fantasizes of a world without competition, discord, or losers.  But striving to emerge from the fray just eliminates the sluggishly frail.

Private firms are by definition more streamlined than any program that the Department of Education could ever generate.  Restaurants and merchants must make us happy if they wish to avoid being devoured.  Keeping both customers happy and the other sharks in the tank at bay provokes accounting for every dollar.

But competition might hurt the losers’ self-esteem.  You don’t like feeling glum, do you?  That’s why Obama couldn’t let mortgage dispensers or car concerns fail, as it would have hurt their feelings.  A lot.

That would have in turn put a damper on the incessant positivity he inflicted upon us, which you of course feel coursing through our nation’s veins at every moment.  Disregard that rundown sensation it’s producing.

As a result of his fiat-driven style, Obama wants to stick us with an uncountable number of Treasury check-drawers who will totally be responsible about spending a fat chunk of your own check properly.  His utopian vision is oddly comprised of a bloated, monolithic structure of bureaucrats spending a seemingly limitless supply of funds that aren’t its own.  For them, shoveling more cash into the furnace merely means it’s a workday.

There’s no accountability.  And it will never be created, either: human nature is to care more about the dollars you earn instead of the ones you are handed.  If I go to the mall with 50 dollars of my own, I might leave with 50 dollars.  If I go with 50 dollars of yours, I won’t make it past Auntie Anne’s.  You’re wrong if you say multiple pretzels don’t count as dinner.

There is also an astounding lack of consequences for the individual government worker bees in question.  Even those toiling in the House of Representatives are jealous.  Their member reelection rate hasn’t dipped below 90 percent since the days when Color Me Badd was getting radio airplay, and that was only a momentary slight dip, as it’s hovered around that preposterously high rate throughout recent memory.  Still, House members get sacked far more frequently than most Washington-based workers who don’t have to win their jobs via ballot.

The immovable nature of public servants destroys accountability.  The cost of such detachment is already reflected in the diluted not-really free market health care system.  The current, and currently endangered, employer-issued setup exasperatingly separates us from actual health care spending.

When your job hands you a plan and tells you to get drugs and doctor visits for the cost of a copay, your first thought is not to limit your pill-popping and medical-office-hanging-outing.  You will naturally spend until someone from the insurer calls and tells you your plan has been exhausted.  It’s not free, but it seems close, which leads to astounding expenses.

While inefficient by buffered design, the semi-private health sector still isn’t as embarrassingly wasteful as the Mediplans.  Yet, sigh.  Obamacare would add even further distance between you and your money.  I’m planning on really watching my health care spending when the government subsidizes my coverage; are you?  Pinky swear!

The same goes for buying houses.  People aren’t particularly concerned about paying off mortgages when the interest rate is basically equivalent to a rounding error.  The government makes money close to free and then wonders why we don’t seem particularly keen about making it.

On the other hand, one of the few places where there is justifiably a governmental monopoly is the military.  It’s acceptable that the Pentagon is not quite a hallmark for spending efficiency considering how we must be able to intimidate or take action against nefarious ruffians.

Still, the Defense Department wastes by nature.  It’s what the uncompetitive government does by nature.  We have to tolerate a little profligacy when it comes to the government performing one of its few indispensable roles.  But we shouldn’t have to accept the same wasteful style when it comes to jobs best left to us, such as, well, finding jobs.

Otherwise, don’t be shocked when Washington keeps carelessly inhaling money for all eternity.  Obamanauts don’t trust the people who make up the private sector.  Instead, they place their faith in people who have been given money taken from the private sector.

As a balance on federal power, we should be able to spend their salaries.  They’d learn what it’s like to give up spending power over what you’ve earned.  To the food court!

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Even JournoList groupies would concede that Republican officeholders should represent a specific viewpoint, as that’s the fundamental purpose of having competing parties.  Naturally, the wan pinko media dorks would still claim that those who lean right are evil violent hatemongers.  In that light, it’s understandable that liberal communicators fantasize about hurting their political foes, watching them die, or just tossing some good old-fashioned fake racism charges at them.

Regardless of what Killer Spencer Ackerman would think, many Republicans are doing it wrong.  It’s certainly not everyone in the party.  But far too many embrace what is essentially a slightly less socialistic philosophy than our wealth-spreading president.  They spend like amateur Democrats.

A reduced rate of bloat growth is not quite an appealing option.  Republicans are going to win November’s lottery even though they found their ticket in the gas station parking lot.  But they’ll be back in the trailer park by 2012 if they don’t use the fortuitous windfall wisely.

The best example of a tepid version of Obama is Obama’s predecessor.   When it came to spending our money, George W. Bush presented a sneak preview of the horror flick ahead.  In dietary terms, he offered a half-calorie version of Obama’s profligate spending style.  Specifically, it was slightly less fattening while still tasting awful.

Yes, Obama is worse by a factor of a national debt-sized number.  But Bush was merely heading toward the cliff at a slower pace.

In fact, liberals should have embraced Bush’s habit of spending as recklessly as Joe Biden at a miniature golf course.  They may still despise him for inflicting major damage against the terror network that sought to destroy and murder all of us; they’ll additionally keep whimpering about tax cuts which allowed people to keep more of what they made and help the economy.

But Bush II was unsettlingly liberal when it came to spending money he, and we, didn’t have.  The left’s only beef could be that Bush didn’t go far enough in, say, buying prescription drugs for old folks or bailing out private companies.  He was such a half-hearted progressive.

It’s therefore especially frustrating/amusing when Obama drones that the Bush administration handed him a raw deal during every third sentence he utters.  In reality, he should be praising Bush for opening the bottle that he is in turn emptying.  At either rate, the final step is smashing it into a million shards.

Limitless private company rescues paired with goodie giveaways and a consistently meddlesome federal government created our quasi-depression.  Oh, and they’re sustaining it, too, unless working people are only telling pollsters they’re unemployed so they can change their status right before the president’s birthday as his surprise.

With the ruinous circumstances in mind, conservatives should crib Rahm Emanuel’s oft-repeated advice to never let a crisis go to waste.  He’s surprisingly and inadvertently useful when he’s not shedding his skin.

The difference is that we didn’t plan to exploit misery to score political points.  On top of that, we’re not members of the White House that’s causing same crises.  At least the economic apocalypse provides a chance for Republicans to embrace conservatism as an alternative to thinking that the solution to being jobless and in debt is to keep spending until you’re rich.

National Republicans can’t excel by merely squandering at a marginally reduced pace compared to Democrats.  They must provide a genuine, non-burden ourselves into oblivion on everything but defense alternative.

An unfortunately high percentage of congressional Republicans tend to weasel out of commitment, largely because they think being shifty is beneficial.  They’re willing to cut any spending as long as it doesn’t get sent back home, lower entitlements, or lead to them getting called meanies by some unwatchable, unwatched MSNBC host.

As a result, America porks up regardless of which party is in power.  That means we’re at present seemingly doomed to die of heart disease either in a decade or two or a year or two.  Such a lifestyle is still disgustingly unhealthy even if we’re indulging in it at a slower rate.  A couple hundred extra calories per day is gradually unwitting suicide.  Instead, we want representatives and senators who are actually willing to put our government on celery for dinner.

It’s maddening that the John Cornyns and Lindsey Grahams of the world are often barely less fanatic about spending than their sworn political foes on the aisle’s other side.  Voters suffer the most: jumping overboard to battle the ocean beats fighting the pirates, but not by much.  But there’s hope, as contemporary circumstances offer an uncommon opportunity for us to rid the seas of scallywags and take control of shipping lanes.

It’s up to us to put the Grand back in GOP.  We should make it more of an Old Party, too, complete with gatherings featuring wooden kegs and tins of moustache wax as we wear our jauntiest and most dapper outfits.

It would be fun showing up to same gala on our old-timey bicycles with the big front wheel.  But it would be even more of a blast to support politicians who want to reverse course, not just reduce speed.

Besides, Republican aspirants should recognize they’re actually better off standing for something worthwhile.  Advocating a limited government, personal liberty, and badass military that preserves both is a risky proposition for the party’s candidates, but only if getting elected is something they fear.

Fighting for Ted Nugent-style principles seems counterintuitive to politicians in general and the gaggle of weak-kneed, lukewarm, vaguely right-leaning Republicans who make up a disturbingly high percentage of Congressional seat-fillers in particular.  But there’s good news for small-government backers: conservative positions are so appealing right now that spinelessly wayward politicians are best served by acting like they’re principled.

Republicans have to suck up to Tea Party types if they want to win more than once.  With that in mind, the contenders have to at least feign interest in the same principles we do.  Considering the shifty character associated with members of the profession in question, we’ll take it.  Fakery may get you somewhere.

Lukewarm Republicans who need convincing can find inspiration in the history of presidents from their party who doubled as conservatives.  Or maybe not.  For every Ronald Reagan, there is a man like the one who brought us wage and price controls, Title IX, and the EPA, namely Richard Nixon.  Being despised by the left is fine.  But, as with W. Bush, it’s not enough, especially when the haters agree with a distressing number of your actions.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

The willingness to punish everyone who makes money is serving as his most glaring domestic failure.  Of course, Obama’s baffling desire to stick everyone in a level hole is a relatively secondary blunder compared to an impending nuclear Iran or irritably nuclear North Korea.  Those horrifying prospects serve as his potentially greatest worst accomplishments.

But even limiting ourselves to his domestic follies breeds brutal exasperation.  That’s especially true considering his attitude toward people who would be considered rich even though they make much less than he did before he conned his way into the ultimate promotion.  Even I have a fuller résumé than the President of the United States of America, and I’d have to check to see if I’ve ever held a job.

Personal work history-related memory lapses aside, I at least know that what’s yours is yours, and not just because you’ve emphasized repeatedly that you won’t give me a dollar.  I’m not bragging about my realization, as it’s not precisely a big deal to know more than the incumbent about anything.

Obama taking what he wants will leave everyone wanting.  While everyone will end up getting soaked by a plethora of new taxes, it’s especially true for people who already presently lose nearly half their untold millions to vast-government capriciousness.

The classless class warfare won’t help the recipients of ill-gained largesse, either.  By contrast, the well-off help everyone else live well when they spend away or try to get richer.  Obama expresses gratitude by setting out to ruin them.  He doesn’t strike me as one who’s liberal with dispensing words like “please” and thank you.”

Presidential grudge aside, there’s no justification for legalized pilfering.  For one, the jealous advocates of income appropriation proclaim that the targeted wealthy marks can afford to get by even if the government gobbles much of the prodigious checks.  But we can’t base tax policy upon a willingness to inhibit thriving.

Someone with 500 dollars in the bank can afford a Nintendo Wii and copy of Mario Kart.  Yet that doesn’t make it a wise purchase.  On a bigger scale, having enough capital set aside to buy a house without a subprime loan doesn’t mean that much of the pile should be surrendered to Washington.

That’s especially so because the receiver in question doesn’t precisely ask nicely.  Just because someone has funds in reserve doesn’t mean it’s wise to fritter away same funds, either through frivolous purchases or taxing.

Even worse, nobody is genuinely aided by redistribution.  Taxpayers end up obligated to throw sacks of money at whomever the feds think deserves it.  Based upon the government’s ability to recognize worthy recipients during the stimulus’s course, the impecunious are doomed.  A bloated, monolithic entity collecting mandatory payments doesn’t quite seem like the best means for assisting the needy.

And, oh yeah, sucking money away from those who earned it sinks the economy and naturally causes more poverty.  But don’t worry: there are federally-funded programs to combat the result of federally-funded programs.

Obama wants to place liens upon the earnings of the successful in the name of helping others.  Of course, nobody has yet through the course of human history created a society where spreading the wealth via involuntary handouts has benefited the economy, to say nothing of those suddenly thinner fat cats.  At the same time, it was also never thought possible that we could have a president who could despise Britain and Israel while sucking up to Earth’s lowlifes.  So who could be sure what comes next?

What we do know is that state intervention is wholly unnecessary.  Importantly, rich jerks already help the less fortunate without using the feds as a middleman.  Um, they give them jobs.  At least that’s what I believe to be the typical result of free commercial transactions, although it’s tough for many Americans to remember firsthand.

The ivory- and silk-clad among us would love to be hiring people to work in their profitable foundries and dry goods retailers.  But there is presently a small quantity of affluent people who not only possess both enough to invest but also the willingness to do so.  Unfortunately, entrepreneurial risks are as rare under the conditions manufactured by the confiscator-in-chief as a genuine Blue Dog Democrat.

Further, it never occurs to Obama or his holdout backers that rich people might volunteer to assist the less fortunate.  He has apparently never written a check to the Salvation Army or even dropped a few bucks in the Christmas kettle.

Why would he?  It’s Washington’s job to feed the naked, clothe the hungry, and buy all poor suckers health insurance, right?  Well, some charitable types who willingly give to worthy private agencies might disagree.

Where could people have acquired the concept of compassion without coercion?  Many of Obama’s fellow Americans learn the principle of sharing kindness on their own at church; sadly, he was instead learning to condemn the country from his pew.

Failing to grasp how money works is a common Obama theme.  Most strikingly, the multi-degreed president can’t figure out why opulent folks aren’t hiring after he initiated the process of taking even more of their currency.  The targets of economic envy should instead be permitted to do whatever the hell they want with more of what they’ve earned, especially considering their transactions help all us schlubs.

Tax breaks designed to reward the hiring of redundant broom-pushers won’t cut it.  Companies hire people when they need work completed, not to drive down the unemployment percentage for the White House’s benefit.  Why didn’t anyone else think that the best way to end joblessness is to hand jobs to people?

Alternately, allowing tycoons to keep more of their earnings would aid the economy than another century of Joe Biden-led recovery efforts.  Lower- and middle-class people get jobs as a natural byproduct of fantastically wealthy Americans building heliports on summer chateau roofs.  They have to buy their useless junk from someone, after all.

As with “stimulus,” “fault,” “teachable,” and a pocket dictionary full of other words, Obama doesn’t grasp the definition of “greedy.”  In reality, the truly greedy are those who feel they are entitled to redistribute someone else’s property.  They take your money and spend it as they want to teach you a lesson about selfishness.

Grabbing from those with ample means in the name of enriching the disenfranchised means that neither group will feel like working hard.  There’s also a practical crisis that accompanies the moral shakiness of taking an individual’s largesse and spreading it among people who have been conditioned to consider holding out empty palms to be work.  Namely, we’re running out of victims.  There are only so many people Washington can mug so many times.

But that won’t stop the White House from looking for easier innocent earners upon which to prey.  In addition to the rich and poor, the Obama administration wants to tax both the alive and deceased.  There aren’t many planes of existence upon which to hide.

Our best bet is to have nothing.  Certainly, don’t try too hard to accumulate cash for about two and a half more years; consider it a vacation, especially if you’re already jobless like so many. Unemployment benefits will last for a while, anyway.

These are inopportune times in which to earn, inherit, or win fortunes, as Obama is doing what he can to crack down upon success.  Everyone will finally be equal.  I still won’t like a lot of people.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Most of all, it’s eternally infinitely better to do and not say than to say and not do.  Running off one’s mouth typically doesn’t coincide with stuff happening.  That’s unless you’re a particularly compelling speaker who can motivate disciples to alter the world.  Often, even the ability to read aloud convincingly doesn’t initiate positive change, as Barack Obama would admit when Skyping with Bill Ayers.

It’s better to complete positive tasks than talk convincingly about how you’re totally going to do them tomorrow.  In that light, Karl Rove admitted he was bad in the best way possible.

Specifically, he conceded that the George W. Bush administration won the shooting war in Iraq while conceding the journalistic battle. He admitted he should have sold the war’s virtues better.  But, while they only did it half-right, they at least addressed the important half.

After all, they weren’t the only ones who thought the fight was just.  Of course, many Democrats joined the rest of the determined war backers in maintaining that Saddam Hussein was rotten for far more than simply being Satan’s lover, as depicted in the South Park documentaries.

It’s important to remember how treacherous Iraq appeared to us at the time.  Intelligence is like assembling a puzzle without the box picture and all the pieces turned upside down.  Even then, situation appeared grave based upon the incomplete picture.

Crucially, the war’s justification went beyond Iraq’s real-time ostensible mass destruction capability the then-White House cited.  Disregard the time the Hussein regime was given to scramble during the oddly interminable rush to war.  What was important is that Hussein was an American-despising bad guy with bad friends who wanted bad weapons.

Would it have killed White House officials to say that a few times?  I don’t even need to be classified as a speechwriter for pay grade purposes, although it would be nice.  At the same time, the administration was perhaps too busy to address the media on account of how they were driving Hussein out of his palaces and into a more appropriate dirt hole.

The Bush administration was more focused upon public actions than public relations.  By contrast, there is Barack Obama’s life.  While stumbling upward could be considered a skill, he’s still nothing more than a marginally efficient narrator who is rendered useless when he’s not reading his administration’s own rulebook off a screen.

Most notably, his entire foreign strategy is based upon saying pleasing things to nasty nations.  They appreciate him telling the world how weak he is, as it allows them to plan dastardly deeds accordingly.  Coincidentally, America’s present counterterrorism strategy is also sadly word-based: we recite prayers in the hopes that the next monster who attempts an attack fails like his recent loser buddies in Times Square and over Detroit.

Obama says all kinds of other pleasantly empty things, as he figured his electoral triumph would be sufficient to fix all.  By coincidence, he’s always saying that spending all our money or putting us in debt will keep us afloat.  Of course, our despondent economy proves that it’s not so.

His ability to waste our money without helping us explains why he has been rendered politically radioactive.  In his case, it shows why big talk can be preferable to deleterious actions.  But he’ll revert to emptiness soon.  Once he no longer has Congress in his pocket following Election Day, his statist boasting will undoubtedly, thankfully become fulltime idle talk.

Unsurprisingly, Obama’s biggest teleprompter-licking fans emulate him.  The exposed JournoList embody not only partisan nastiness but also people who are bigger talkers than doers.  The Daily Caller has provided an invaluable glimpse at banal nastiness by unearthing their dull invective.

For one, a classy lassy named Sarah Spitz made a name for herself by hoping to watch Rush Limbaugh die. Maybe she’d like him more if he had been a Klansman or let a campaign worker suffocate.

Even better, total badass Spencer Ackerman spent his free time fantasizing about throwing conservatives through plate-glass windows when he wasn’t urging his secret handshake club to randomly pick a conservative and call him racist.  Like Fred Barnes, Rove must have been flattered.

It would be easy to feel sorry for the JournoListers were they not so miserably hateful.  In a way, they’re in the perfect field: as media members, they’re more focused upon yapping than accomplishing.  They spent too much time in communications school, which is to say any time in communications school.

It’s not that my journalism degree and I fail to contribute to the problem.  But I try to be less of a drain on civilization than the nasty weenie schemers in question.  For one, I’m glad I faked my way through all those liberal arts classes so I could turn out well-rounded.

Also, I don’t conspire with my ideological buddies on the best way to sully the good names of others in order to advance my political cause.  I may have dozed through the classes where they taught such a skill, which means I inadvertently lucked out.  I knew I’d eventually be rewarded for slacking.

On the other hand, the fraternity’s released conversations are as infuriating as they are amusing.  Some tree house club members whine that the Daily Caller is only publishing the most salacious tidbits, which means that they’re upset that someone is employing editorial discretion.  Further, they can fume about their private e-mails getting leaked; national security documents handed to them by unnamed sources are apparently still fine to share publicly.

And we’ve also learned that JournoList’s members are consistent: they’re self-righteously, insufferably smug whether at work or hanging out at their 1996-style internet lounge.  Did they use AOL private chat rooms?

Unfortunately, similarly wayward journalists have also shown themselves to be effective at rhetorical subterfuge.  Most prominently, the “Bush Iraq lie” meme took hold among much of the public.  That said, at least many are waking up and realizing that Iraq is a marginally functional democracy thanks to David Petraeus and countless other American superheroes persevering and crushing our dishonorable foes.

But JournoListy types will still try to damn the evidence and convince us that their cunningly nerdy spin reflects reality.  It is their custom.  They do the same thing when they proclaim that Sarah Palin said all the dumb things Tina Fey actually did, the free market and not Barney Frank-led intervention pushed us to the brink of collapse, and that Tea Partiers are racist for wanting to reduce the debt to 13 figures or less.  They also point out that same small-government protesters are raging monsters when they’re not engaging in aforementioned fantasies about Mr. Limbaugh passing away.

Their strategy is to repeat risible claims so often that they appear true.  While not particularly clever, such a path is marginally effective in a rotten way that doesn’t bring about anything tangibly beneficial.  Their own hollow bitterness doesn’t count as a worthwhile byproduct.

But I’m still entertained by their efforts.  My new life goal is to make myself prominent enough that the erstwhile Journolists attempt to paint me as someone who’s as bigoted as I am prejudiced.

Enduring such lamely baseless insults would be as fun as Media Matters obsessing over you, John Stewart displaying a crap-eating grin after mentioning your name, or being named the Worst Person in the World by an alumnus of Fake Cornell.  Being the target of dirt clumps thrown by dirt bags is a badge of honor, as Palin clearly knows.

Of course, the agenda-laden journalists don’t achieve much at work or otherwise even if some of their craven smears take hold.  Their inability to engage in any activity that doesn’t involve speaking or typing must get frustrating.  It also explains why they’re so eager to paint their enemies as monsters: same figurative painting is all they can do.  Their results don’t precisely inspire humanity.  It’s to be expected considering they use such drab art supplies.

For comparison’s sake, the Bush administration was focused upon enhancing global safety instead of worrying about how the actions would look on the next job application.  They did what was right instead of talking about what they might do that would be right.  Fighting evildoers beats saying that evildoers will disappear, Mister Current President.

At least Rove has plenty of time to sell his boss’s side now.  One who tunes into Fox News Channel at any random moment is as statistically likely to see him onscreen as an ad for The Villages; he can use his time to explain why they did what they did.

It’s unfortunate that he waited for one administration too long to make his sales pitch.  But such an approach is worlds better than running commercials for a product that hasn’t quite yet been invented.

A gaggle of tough guy lefty journalists can keep trying the latter.  Maybe they should have switched majors to advertising, where we at least expect the practitioners to conniving.  Buy what Ackerman is selling or he’ll mess you up, yo!

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

On the other hand, I just can’t get the carbonation right, which means I should probably leave it to the people who already succeeded.  My marginal ability to recognize a campaign I shouldn’t wager still puts me ahead of the fake Party.  They’re trying to cultivate a lush lawn by yelling at individual blades until they grow.

The movement, which Politics Daily amusingly and apparently un-ironically refers to as “grassroots” despite the fact it’s more obviously staged than Bill and Hillary Clinton’s marriage, is pushing some march in October where the people walking past will outnumber the people participating.  Their head schemers are undoubtedly presently drawing up a detailed outline on how to be spontaneous.

You can’t be surprised they’re doing it backward.  Compare them to the originals.  The one true Tea Party’s greatest virtue is its organic nature, especially considering it is comprised of people who aren’t sold on the value of separating recyclables.

Instead, they congregated because they believed: enough people were motivated to not be robbed blind and babied by law anymore that they spontaneously amalgamated as a consequence.

By contrast, the success of the alleged liberal alternative is based upon the expectation that people will show up to their contrived soiree once they get around to inviting them.  Sigh: so much French onion dip goes to waste when you plan a party without guests. 

You can also tell who’s real by who each side listens to enroute to rallies.  As expected, the small-government gang tends to choose Rush Limbaugh’s pontifications to accompany the journey.  “Choose” is an important word: the broadcaster gained a formidable audience he’s kept for years without initial corporate planning or backing.

He merely offered something people wanted, and program directors in virtually every market took notice.  He succeeded in a marketplace where people are free to choose; it would be cool if we had a name for it.

By contrast, liberals listen to nothing, at least when it comes to programming that your tax dollars don’t support a la NPR.  Their preferred option vanished into frequency oblivion.  Specifically, Air America doesn’t air in America anymore despite featuring such charming rays of sunshine like Al Franken and Rachel Maddow.  Why did it fail worse than the policies its hosts hyped?  Well, it sucked, for one.  And one is all you need when you actually have to compete.

Other than laughing about how Ed Schultz is a remarkable lunatic, there is precious little that’s entertaining about leftists paired with microphones.  Air America’s dreamers thought that all they needed to succeed was funding provided by painfully rich Marxists.  Set aside that it’s an odd approach for anti-fat cats: what’s truly amusing is that they decided that the audience needed them.

Air America subsidies were like federal solar panel bribes: the reasoning behind each amounts to thinking that the only thing keeping them from dominating consumers was a vast pile of startup money.  Of course, there are insurmountable real-world limitations when nobody wants a useless product despite inconceivable subsidies.

The difference is that it was much more enjoyable to think about Air America’s failure, as the financial losers were rich jerks who burned their money on Janeane Garofalo’s prison tattoo fund.  By contrast, we all pay for useless sun collectors thanks to our generous, and generously naïve, federal government.  It’s just the millionth waste of our money that prompted us to assemble despite minimal administration.

That said, liberal “Tea Partiers” enjoy the inherent advantage of not despising minorities like we on the right of course do.  But I still can’t ditch the suspicion that the only thing the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People advances is themselves.

Actually, that’s not fair: the clueless dinosaurs also push their baffling theories about how the truest racists are the ones who never do anything racist.  That’s us!  The one-time useful civil rights crusaders now shamefully busy themselves condemning narrow-mindedness that nobody has quite seen.  But they just know it happened.  That’s why liberal critics of the true Tea Party inevitably return to sputtering about the “N-word, spitting” narrative they’ve created, even though that the accusation isn’t, in the word’s dictionary sense, factual.

Claims that Tea Partiers have raunchier mouths than mid-80s Eddie Murphy are this year’s “Bush lied, thousands died,” as leftists figure the claim will stick if they keep throwing it.  Maybe the wholly disproved charges would be more effective if they composed a rhyme.  The G-20 Starbucks smashers should get on the case.  Chanting is their only skill, after all.

On the other hand, maybe we are using secret racist code words again, Bravo Tango Quebec.  There I go again.  But I’d like to emphasize I mostly do not talk in clandestine riddles.  For one, I think the NAACP is a sadly rusted hull occupied by mean-spirited dolts who sadly engage in dreadful race-baiting that fails to correspond with reality.  At least they can’t accuse me of cloaking my language.

Of course, it’s true that the Tea Party is packed with bigots.  We’re intolerant about ridiculously high taxes, for one.  Also, people outraged at Washington’s current state of affairs are prejudiced against a 14-figure debt and an entitlement culture.  Above all, small-government backers are racists for hoping that America will someday have its first good black president.

Wait: judging the incumbent by his dubious character might actually prove our tolerance.  But the Bizarro version of our polite uprising still won’t accept that we don’t hate the president for his complexion.

As a result, tens of them will storm the capital.  But they still face planning-stage crises.  One of the things the Lefty Tea Party (I can’t bring myself to refer to it as “Leftea” even though I want to) needs to plan before their wholly improvised gatherings is what sort of slogans and flags they’ll use.

Maybe they could fly an ensign with an image of a Play-Doh snake captioned Please Tread on Me.  Or, they could wave a standard featuring a cannon reading Come and Take It, Really underneath.

Hmm, those don’t seem to work.  Extend the Fed, I Think You Know What Stimulus Means, It Doesn’t Matter What This Sign Says Because We’re Going to Call Our Foes Racist Anyway: none of the suggested placard mottoes sound quite convincing, at least on paper.

I might dislike their Yippee for Obama-themed banners because I am closed-minded and also hatefully sexist/homophobic.  But I’m not worried about them luring me away despite my desire to live as a decent non-secret Klansman.

The whole manufactured left-of-center outrage doesn’t appeal to me, probably since I oppose the stimulus just because it made things totally worse.  But that doesn’t mean you should aim contempt at the alternate Tea Partiers.

In fact, be nice to them.  Wave at their softball team-sized group as you pass them on the way to meet hundreds or thousands of fellow small-government enthusiasts at a genuine event.  As a result, you’ll feel like Americans of different persuasions can coexist even though the other side is bad at it.

We’re going to win soon, anyway.  I don’t have the heart to tell the left-wing rip-off artists, but they’ll figure out on their own late on Election Day that lamely attempting to steal the Tea Party concept is as effective as an Obama endorsement.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Our oily examples would undoubtedly come back with a fleet of Camaros featuring 8-ball gearshift toppers, crates of alcoholic malt beverage, and a Bowflex if presented with an inconceivable cash sum like that.  It might not be much.  On the other hand, making money vanish with absolutely nothing to show for it is a talent that requires vapidity on a presidential scale.

In that light, Barack Obama is acting out another New Jersey-connected classic, namely Brewster’s Millions.  He’s spending away without producing assets, which I assure anyone who has not seen the Richard Pryor non-classic is the protagonist’s goal.

This stimulating-free version is even less amusing, and not just because Joe Biden is a pale imitation of the late John Candy.  As seen with his failure to produce anything for our money, the resident president seems so hollow in part because everything he does generates practical emptiness.

It’s not just that Obama fails to deliver as often as his beloved Postal Service: people know he shouldn’t even be promising the things he does anyway.  As Tabitha Hale points out, Americans are making a habit out of checking our most beloved crinkly document.  By doing so, more are discovering it’s designed to run our government, not our lives.

Minor-league constitutional scholars realize that our president’s promises during his ceaseless campaign are not quite precisely allowed under our current governmental system.  More importantly, his words are wrong in more than a “making us buy health coverage is unconstitutional, duh” sort of way: what he says invariably means nothing because he isn’t good at getting anything done.  The only occasional exceptions are for bad stuff, although we’ll remove one exception once we void his health bill before it makes us all ill.

What good things has he implemented?  Take your time.  Actually, you don’t need to take any.  The greatest present success on American property is a petroleum-spewing fissure, as the fact it’s in federal water adds irony to the ceaselessly indifferent cruelty.  We can only hope the latest cap caps it, although the feds’ call for more analysis first makes it seem like they’re cheering for the oil.  Either way, big government comes up very little when something bad happens, as is being proven by its biggest proponent. 

He thinks that wanting something to be swell is the last step before having it.  For one, he’s crusading against the same product that, as mentioned, is mucking up our Gulf instead of fueling motorized land trips to Chili’s and Target like it should be.  Despite his haranguing about bio-whatever, oil is intrinsically useful despite how much we wish we didn’t have to use it.

Switching to sunshine or breeze power is not about marketing: discussion regarding eliminating gasoline consumption-based emissions is pointless when the alternatives work so poorly that they’re destined to remain as alternatives.  Of course, His Wordiness doesn’t understand, as he’ll keep droning about an addiction to foreign blah yip yap as if his speeches could change human needs.

Besides, Obama’s more worried about pretending he’s able to get people to work  than doing other things like sucking up oil.  Check that: he wants you to be in charge of creating work, totally, and he completely means it even though he doesn’t.  Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner’s ludicrous claim that the administration understands the private sector creates jobs is as convincing as a Nancy Pelosi grin.

What does Geithner know?  Other than not much?  Well, he understands government work: the administration’s most prominent tax cheat has spent most of his adult life working for the national government aside from brief stints at Washington-sounding places like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Kissinger Group.

Geithner is the perfect Obama Treasury Secretary in that he has spent his working outs treasuring your money without your permission.  That’s why he and his boss are always scheming to jury-rig the economy: it’s their way, even though there’s no way their way works.

Obama is reminiscent of a VH1 I Love the (random decade) special: he fills time in an utterly meh way when you’re not infuriated by how criminally stupid the programming is.  Viacom’s most disposable channel inspires people to counter-react by reading or visiting the outdoors; similarly, the executive’s prattling about how we’re in Year Two Anno Obami is getting people to patronize Tea Parties and ask Paul Ryan for his autograph.

To be fair, liberals will point out that Adolf W. Satan was president before Obama.  But the incumbent still knew who his predecessor was when he assumed office.  Blaming Bush is an Obama hobby that’s even more boring than his golf habit.  That’s especially so considering that he’s basically acting like Bush Enhanced on many issues.

It’s true.  George non-Herbert Walker really wasn’t a conservative on many points, especially near the end.  His constant financial profligacy was sadly accompanied by a conciliatory tone toward North Korea and Iran.  At least he still irritated liberals, although that wasn’t enough.

Bush in 2002 versus how he was by 2008 is the difference between seeing KISS in 1977 and checking them out today: you’re spending worlds more and getting much less in return.  If Ace Frehley isn’t playing, stay home and listen to Alive! instead.  That said, Obama is like seeing a KISS tribute band named Crazy Nights that doesn’t know all the chords for “Detroit Rock City.”  It’s bad things made worse.

And we don’t like it.  Media foes think Tea Parties are nothing more than torch-making seminars for Republican shills.  But we’re angry Bible-thumping mobster monsters when it comes to any elected money-waster.  With that in mind, attentive independents are discarding Obama in their independent way as they see his postures don’t resemble his results. 

It must be nice to be a political mercenary.  At the same time, the tradeoff is not having fixed ideals.  Many unaffiliated types may actually gain a philosophy after all this Obama hoo-ha, as the current four-year planned crisis will cause them to choose the opposite tack.

All it may take is the aforementioned Speaker of the House telling us that paying the unemployed is the best way to lower unemployment.  She’s teaching them while reaffirming us.  It is beyond obvious to acknowledge that Pelosi embodies the arrogance of Obama allies.

Such a trait is inherent to anyone who thinks they’re both entitled to and capable of bossing you around.  Obama is still trying to plan your life, which isn’t as kind as it sounds.  It’s nothing personal, but you can’t even do it: draw an outline of what will happen during your next five years, then read it in summer 2015 and either giggle or weep.  Now recall that Obama is attempting to map out what will happen for the entire nation.  It’s as if he considers himself an omniscient deity.  Oh, right.

The shrinking band of Yes We Can holdouts aren’t willing to give in because it was supposed to go differently.  They like him because they’re supposed to like him: Obama was convincing about uniting us and making us famous.  The plan for doing so is forthcoming, presumably, but the important part is believing, right?

Nope.  They should give in and cheer for an accomplisher who shows up the president daily via competence.  Specifically, Bobby Jindal is emerging as the most fantastic of leaders while facing the aforementioned catastrophe, largely because of how he does stuff that’s actually useful.  It takes substance to deal with the substance polluting the Gulf; in true federalist fashion, what works has emerged on the state level.

People still moaning about Jindal’s underwhelming State of the Union response need to give him a break.  Focusing upon the seventh Brady kid’s style plays to the obsession with making suckers feel cuddly with empty phrases.  That’s exactly the tendency we should be avoiding from the 45^th president forward.

Jindal is too busy saving his state to, say, pause for iconic photographs of himself.  Of course, he’s addressing his present tasks before even considering moving on to higher office.  He’s not complaining about his chores, either; it’s his job, after all, and he voluntarily applied for it.  Of course, Jindal realized that dealing with bad things is far more effective than talking about good things.

As for the nation’s biggest mouth, Obama’s foremost problem is going to be getting out all his junk in January 2013.  Can anyone see him doing much heavy lifting?  He’ll instead give a speech about the potential of rainbow-powered moving trucks, and meanwhile everyone else will be doing the lugging.  At least Robert Gibbs will finally make himself useful, assuming he can lift half a couch.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.

Who would have thought one could create fantastic demand by taking what used to cost a dollar and asking five dollars for it?  The audacious overcharging wouldn’t work without a willing partner, and they’ve found untold millions of us.

At the same time, their locations multiply faster than tipsy rabbits for good reason: they cater to a limitless need.  All good and decent Americans who think that every day should be Flag Day crave what the business peddles; specifically, amusingly, and perfectly, Tea Partiers to be coffee fiends.  Given the choice, many of our fellow patriots turn to Starbucks for their fix, thus affirming both parties’ awesomeness.

More crucially, we know who doesn’t like it.  Namely, our favorite mermaid draws the particular ire of hippie thugs who express their desire to unite the world by laying waste to much of what’s in it.  They specifically use every gathering that’s aimed at promoting international commerce to literally ruin local commerce.  Doesn’t all that protesting and breaking stuff interfere with their work schedules?  Just kidding.

For one, destroying what useful human beings have contributed to society is seen as a chance to prove one’s red cred on May Day.  The marvelous Dahlhalla recently detailed a horrific afternoon when walking through Manhattan turned into running for one’s life thanks to worthless anarchists doing the only thing at which they’re skilled, namely wanton trashing.

At least the smashers are changing minds: I’m certainly more inclined to consider the opinion of a Molotov cocktail-heaver hiding behind a bandana.  Explain to me that we should open the borders?  Then throw a garbage can through a plate-glass window, tough guy?  They both sound great!

Most recently, some Canadians and their scumbag friends from abroad did what they could to confront the stereotype of the nation as politely civilized.  They did so by beating the daylights out of structures that embody civilization and commerce as the G20 summit took place.  We were having a blast teasing President Obama for being more of a Euroweenie than the Euroweenies, but the mace-worthy kids sucked the fun out of it.

Famously, the showerless included a ubiquitous coffeehouse on their cowardly hit list as they always seem to do.  Leftists love fighting anything that won’t fight back, seen in how they take out their seething rage upon inanimate objects.

The vile cannabis fiends are just jealous.  Trust fund wonders are unwilling to respect the perfect free enterprise success that is Starbucks.  What a scenario: people voluntarily walk in and dump their wallets’ contents upon the counter in exchange for a quick jolt of cheap alertness and a status symbol of a logo-adorned plastic cup.  It’s ingenious in a manner that couldn’t even be comprehended by a hemp poncho-wearer.

Still, actual earners should question the cost.  Is spending enough to cover a sensible dinner on a booze-free beverage a rip-off?  Is there a suitable answer other than, “Duh?”  A splash of coffee, ice, and milk topped with chocolate shavings is the sort of thing I could assemble for a 20-cent investment were I not a slacker who would prefer to avoid interacting with other humans, much less customers.

Movie popcorn is a bargain compared to what Starbucks brews.  But nobody makes us participate in the transaction.  An object’s value is whatever people are willing to pay for it, even if, as in Starbucks’ case, it’s a lot.  That’s entirely different than too much.

As usual, I’m part of the problem.  My name is Anthony, and I’m a Frappaholic (“Hi, Anthony”).  I’ve been hitting the sauce for years now, as I first discovered Starbucks years ago during a summer spent interning in Washington, D.C.

Looking for a pick-me-up, I ventured into this mysterious, ubiquitous chain after spending the day ferrying documents to Kinko’s and pretending I knew what I was talking about during editorial meetings.  The menu board initially confused me: “Coffee with ice?  Wha?  Could that be good?”  Yes, it could, I’d like to tell pre-caffeine junkie collegiate-era me.

But, it’s too late, so I may as well enjoy the concoction now while recalling fond memories of my mocha discovery then.  The revelation consumed me as I consumed away.

It was a struggle living on about 10 dollars per day when about half of that was being sipped up in five minutes.  While overindulgently enthralling, I still eventually learned to control my drug habit.  Yes, I can quit anytime I want.  Now, I only partake occasionally, usually when I feel like being stimulated in a way that the federal government never could.

We should also appreciate the opportunity to seek out the same company via patronizing certain corporations.  Rule Number One about life on Earth is that, if leftists hate it, it must be good.

While it sounds reflexively simplistic, it’s invariably true.  McDonald’s, handguns, a flat tax, convenience stores that sell liquor, the Ford F-150, casinos, Sarah Palin: you only need to look at each item’s foes to realize that you’re on the right side simply by liking them.

That’s true despite how the corporate behemoth in question employs phony communal values.  Starbucks notoriously embraces fair trade mumbo jumbo while willingly foregoing the dimes saved by those lugging in their own mugs.  And the high-percentage post-consumer fiber hot drink sleeves promote efficient kinetic energy transfer by not working well and thus warming the customer’s hand.

Yes, locations tend to be infested by hipster geeks wearing fake nerd glasses and ironic t-shirts as they chip away at criminally unreadable blogs on their MacBooks.  But shallow public relations ploys designed to rope in shallow greenies can’t hide the conglomerate’s delightfully self-interested soul.

Starbucks’ play-liberalism resembles that of Whole Foods or parking lots adjacent to venues hosting Grateful Dead concerts: they talk about embracing Mother Gaia while railing against the system when they’re meanwhile acting as the embodiments of pure capitalism.  It’s as ironic as it is profitable.

Best of all, the coffeehouse is serving us more than precious, delightful, wholly necessary drinkables.  People are obviously getting some worth out of supporting their local baristas whether they’re actively pondering it or not.  That’s true whether they’re obliviously vacuuming their retirement accounts to shop for daily coffee cocktails or conscientiously appreciating a liquid dessert as a pricey but luxuriously obtainable treat.

It’s entirely up to them, or you, in your case.  How others spend their money is none of our business, which serves as a revolutionary notion in Joe Biden’s America.  Incessant recession aside, there’s no stronger sign of broad prosperity than a country that can afford everyday extravagances.  People have no right to complain about economic conditions if their morning drink is prepared in a blender.

That’s partly why I’m always glad to patronize/defend my nearest location.  In fact, I’m planning on skipping a credit card payment this week so I may instead pay for a monkeyccino.  I earned a caffeinated brain freeze for doing. . . something, I’m sure.

Okay, I got one: I didn’t pop over the Canadian border to loot one of their locations late last month.  I’m not saying I deserve a gift card for that, although it would be nice.  Hint.  That’s reason enough; other than that, I just want something cold to drink.

As with innumerable Americans, I’m happily fueled by Starbucks’ jitter-inducing deliciousness.  That invigorating effect also makes us well-suited to confront dastardly rioters.  Once again, espresso trumps whatever they’re inhaling.

Anthony Bialy is a freelance writer and “Red Eye” Conservative in Western New York.  He blogs at http://thebuffalobean.com and tweets at http://twitter.com/AnthonyBialy.