Has anyone else wondered why we are not where we thought we might be with technological advancements? Looking back during the 80's with movies like Back to the Future, we were all so sure that we would have flying cars and instantaneous oven pizza by now. Why the slow down? Why are the only scientific and technological advancements of the last decade the ability to make existing technology smaller?

Is it because scientists have stopped dreaming? Fiction writers, from movie and television to novelists and fan-fictions, seem to be the only ones capable of coming up with an original thought. Maybe it is because scientists are afraid of dreaming. Scientists who question theories like Darwinism and Global Warming are often chastised and ridiculed before being laughed out of a grant application.

Maybe that is why: all funding comes from government entities. Look at Space travel. Space travel has long been a popular genre of fiction. Star Wars and Star Trek have been around since at least the 70's. Why have we not obtained the depth of space travel everyone dreams of? Is it because space is off limits to private entities, be it corporations or even citizens?

I'll leave you with this. It just seems to me that the truly exciting science, like space travel and medical cures, are completely untouched by a majority of the scientific community. However, if you want to know 50 different ways to get an erection, well that is information you can be sure scientists are hard at work at.

If one were to Obama's word on the matter and actually believe that the market and its gyrations are indeed "a tracking poll", one would have to assume that Obama has failed considerably. The market is polling and Obama is consistently becoming less and less popular. Michael Boskin of the Wall Street Journal has a brilliant piece on exactly why Obama is "tracking" less and less favorably, but that is not the reason for my bringing it up. My commentary is not meant for the investors, it is for the oblivious Obama voter.

As an Obama-voter, if I were to ask you about the tanking market, the most likely response would be something moronically similar to the rubber-stamp, non sequitur response that as became popular during the campaign season: "What is good for Wall Street, isn't necessarily good for Main Street." This sycophant promoted talking point has been used as recently--and as high up--as Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary, in response to comments made by Peter Santelli on CNBC. He used the phrase "derivatives trader" but the point remains. The problem with the statement is it implies that the two are not interdependent. Whatever happens to Wall Street does not affect Main Street, and vise versa. This is, as with most statements out of this Orwellian administration, completely false.

Most of the money invested in the stock market is not from some day trader who making his living flipping stocks and selling oil futures, most of the money is in the form of main street's pension plans and 401k's. Company stocks that are falling--and ironically, these company's are typically demons of the Democrats (oil companies)--are held by mutual funds which are the most common form of long term (retirement) investing. And these company's share prices are falling daily.

"Doesn't affect me. I don't own stock." Don't think your out of the cannon fodder's way yet. How many products created by corporations and publicly traded companies do you own? Do you rely on? Quite a few huh? What happens if Apple's stock continues to fall? They might not have the money to invest in that new ipod or MacBook Pro. What happens if that pharmaceutical companies stock continues to fall? Might they lack the money to research and develop new medicines to treat new diseases?

Why are people so quick to loath corporations? They are responsible for 99% of the technological and medical advancements of the last century. What has the government done? Build roads? Why do we think they are able to do anything correctly? I'll bet Wal-mart could build roads better and be more cost effective at it, but this is a topic for another day.

What happened to Obama's pledge to look out for the little guy? Punishing Wall Street directly punishes the little guy. Of course, it is always this way. Taxing corporations doesn't hurt the corporation. They simply pass that cost on to the consumer, aka. the little guy. Don't believe me? Ask yourself: Where do these corporations get money to pay taxes?

So today marketed the first day of the Obama endorsed health care summit in Washington. Today, the best minds Washington has to offer, the same minds that said trillions in bailouts funds given to banks, insurance giants, and automotive companies would fix the problem, decided to come together under the watchful eyes of our leader and deliver unto us a solution for individual inability to buy health care.

Aren't these the same people that held a fiscal responsibility summit, then the following week, introduced a spending with 9,000 earmarks in it? Is it safe to assume that next week, we will have a bill moving through Congress that does nothing to fix any of the problems with health care?

I truly do not understand people who think Washington is the correct body of people to oversee every one's health care. It's beyond me. What have they ever done right? This line of thinking never seems to work on those who can't think, so let me put it this way (if you are not a sycophant Obama supporter, you may stop reading here). Would you want George W. Bush, or an individual with his intelligence, running your health care? We elected Bush twice. There is nothing stopping us from electing someone just as stupid in the future.

When dealing with anything Republican, I find myself in a more awkward position than I do with the Democrats. As a conservative, the Democrat machine has become place where my kind are not welcome. One might ask about the "Blue-Dog" Democrats that occupy seats in the house that voted for McCain during the election, but it is apparent in order to get along, you have to go along. When faced with a tough decision of voting with their party or their actual voters, these Democrats have to either revolt or run to mommy and ask permission. So, for Democrats to conservatives in their party, were vote our way or lose campaign money.

My feelings for the Republicans are a bit more jaded, though. Conservatives seem to have a bigger voice in the Republican party, but when they support policies and practices like earmarks and growing the size of government (seen plainly during the Bush years), my beliefs shift between anger and disappointment. If they had focused better on controlling the budget and the size of government, I honestly believe the Democrat party would still be in the minority. But that is the past, we must look forward. Which brings me to Michael Steele.

According to Politico, "key party leaders are worried that the GOP has made a costly mistake". Is it just me, or are there some Republicans who are more than happy to throw their compatriots overboard in an attempt to please liberals?

In case you missed it, this infighting started with little miss communication on Steele's part, a reprimand by Limbaugh, and ended with Steele's apology. Democrats some how equate this to Steele--and by extension the whole party--having some sort of obligation to Limbaugh. This is not the case. At best, Steele's apology was meant to appease not Limbaugh myself but Limbaugh listeners, and who are Limbaugh listeners? By and large, they are conservative Republicans. This is no different from Democrats paying their respects to moveon.org or "kissing the ring" at annual DailyKos conventions. These are constituency groups, and you don't bite the hand that feeds you.

The Politico story goes on to mention a few gaffs. Hardly enough of a reason to kick the guy out. At best, it makes him Vice Presidential material.

Don't misunderstand, Steele has a lot to work on. He needs to realize that he is the leader of a party that is quickly falling apart. Their base is quickly dispersing and the public in general does not trust Republicans anymore. Steele needs to get back behind the current and fix problems before they destroy our party. He needs to find candidates to replace Spectar, Snowe, and Collins (for you Obama voters, they are the only reason the stimulus passed). He has expressed a desire to reach out to the black population. Great! But he isn't going to be able to do it alone and talking to D.L. Hugley isn't going to do it. You need to find black, conservative candidates to reach out to these communities for you. Am I wrong in thinking that blacks want a candidate on the streets with them and not a talking-head on TV? I don't think I am.

We have a long way to go, and this is the perfect opportunity for it. More and more people are not happy with the spending and bailouts coming from Congress, but you only have one and a half years to capitalize on it. Get to work before we lose this chance to redefine what Republicans stand for.

As a conservative, I would consider it counter-productive to give the Obama administration and his Democrats in Congress advice on how to handle... well, anything. But, when I saw this headline on the Politico, I felt it was my duty as a human-being to pull the proverbial gun away from their head.

Let's start at the beginning. The Left needs an enemy. Ever since 2007, the Democrats has realized that demonizing a person is incredibly effective, more so than demonizing what people stood for. Whether this comes from Rules for Radicals or the Dems have their hands on a excellent strategist, we may never know for sure. But one thing is clear... it works.

Look at the 2007 mid-term elections. After their election back to power in the House and Senate, the Dems and the Left-wing media and blogs went on a rampage demonizing Bush. Every chance that presented itself was pounced on like a cat hunting down its first meal in days.

It would be ignorance to think that Bush had no effect on the outcome of the election. The Obama campaign--as well as the media and his internet mafia--had as one of their main strategies was to put Bush on the ballot. Rahm Emanuel said as much. Titles and slogans like "McSame" and "Bush's third term" were used fervently to describe John McCain, even though he sometimes fought day and night against President Bush. This, coupled with Obama obtuse pledge of change, saw an easy win for the Big O.

Now that Bush is gone, and the elections have been won, one could conclude that there would be no need for anymore demons. As Obama might put it: Time to move forward. But, one would be wrong. You see, Obama was elected with the largest majority of young voters ever. These young individuals might seem like they are energetic for Obama and his change, and they probably are. But there is another characteristic these kids carry that scares Obama and his prospects for the mid-term election in 2010. They are lazy, and they need to be entertained. Thanks to at-your-command media venues like YouTube and the internet in general, kids these days have lost the ability to be self-entertaining and require others to do it for them. This is were the last election came into play. Having someone to vote against is much more exciting and entertaining than voting for someone you agree with. This is why they need a demon, but this is also why Rush Limbaugh is the wrong choice.

Bush was a perfect target for the Left, while he was in office. Attacking him required little creativity, and Bush never fought back. Whether he held a respect for the office of the Presidency that meant not responding to detractors or just didn't care is unknown. What is known though, Limbaugh is not a quiet person. Limbaugh has three hours, five days a week to talk and respond to allegations thrown from the White House. But even more threatening is Limbaugh's show itself. Does the White House and the Obama Administration really believe that people are going to take what they say about Limbaugh at face value, shrug in agreement, and continue to drink the coolaid? Some will, but some won't. They will listen to Limbaugh's show, and what happens when these young, impressionable minds begin to hear conservatism articulated as it has never been before?

I make no secret of the fact that I like Rush Limbaugh. I, like many other conservatives, listen to Rush not only for his insight and political commentary on today's events, but also for his entertainment factor encapsulated in his show. Seeing this, one might think that this post is some desperate plee to leave the man alone; to pick on someone your size--considering Obama has the backing of the Oral Office. One would be wrong. My plee is not to leave Limbaugh alone for Limbaugh's sake, but to leave Limbaugh alone for Democrats sake.

If nothing else convinces you Democrats out there, just ask Harry Reid how well attacking Limbaugh works out.

Like most on the internet, this is not my first blog. I enjoy writing and would love to get back into blogging as it is good practice. Here is my old blog if any are interested reading views on old issues.

Yahoo Blog Tiny Link
http://wakeupus-bd.blogspot.com/

I hope I don't get side tracked and loose interest like I did with my last blog. Keep the fingers crossed.

Posting a little early on this, but I want to say to all those veterans past, present, and future: thank you for what you do and the sacrifices you have made. Thank you to all those fighting in the middle east. Thank you to all that have served and gave up a part of your life to keep this country safe. Thank you to all the POW's, those MIA or not. Your sacrifice has not gone forgotten.

Regardless of how the media, Hollywood, or even those in our own government portray you, you are loved and appreciated. I can't think of any greater sacrifice one can give, but at least four years of your life to serve the freest, greatest nation on God's Earth.

Thank you all!