The recession has no doubt helped in highlighting the differences between these two systems and the results of this experiment are coming in loud and clear; Capitalism by a long shot.

Since the conclusion of World War II California’s growth has been extraordinary. In 1950 California’s population grew from 10.6 million to 36.8 million in 2008. During this period, the Golden State attracted commercial and industrial expansion of astronomical rates. The adoption of a Master Plan for Higher Education in 1960 allowed the development of a highly efficient system of public education in the Community Colleges which included the University of California and California State University.

By creating an educated workforce, California was able to attract investment, particularly in areas related to high technology. By 1980, California became recognized as the world’s eighth-largest economy. Millions of workers were needed to fuel the expansion.

The high population of the time caused tremendous problems with urban sprawl, traffic, pollution, and, to a lesser extent, crime. Accompanying this growth was a liberal, progressivism with labor unions dominating the public sector and an unquenchable thirst for big government spending. California’s budget has doubled from $59 billion to $120 billion in the decade 1995 to 2005 alone.

To feed this spending binge California has systematically increased taxes to 9.3% on individuals and to 8.84% on corporations. Despite its best efforts to expand its tax revenues, California is projecting a budget deficit as high as $25 billion.

There is even some talk of a $40 billion deficit, with a total public debt now approaching $500 billion. Its freeways are crumbling, public sector college tuition is up 30% and unemployment stands at 14.3%, 4.6% higher than the national average.

California’s economy is collapsing and citizens are voting with their feet. From 2000 to 2009 more than 1.5 million individuals have left the state and this trend is accelerating.

Contrast this to Texas. Texas’ economy is booming. Nearly 1 million have moved into the state from 2000 – 2009. Nearly 145,000 have moved into the state during 2008-2009 alone. It’s fiscal condition is sound. Public employee unions are weak or nonexistent.

It’s government is a fraction of the size of California’s. Despite its small government, Texas is delivering superior services. Its teachers are paid less than California’s, yet Texas’ test scores are higher than California. Texas has no income tax, a legislature that meets only ninety days every two years, is building new freeways and boasts an unemployment rate below that of the national average. Due to population growth, Texas is poised to add four more electoral votes in the 2010 apportionment, while California, for the first time in its history, will gain no electoral votes.

The differences between the two states is clear. California’s high-tax, expansive government verses Texas’s low-tax, low-services government. Or, better put; progressive socialism verses conservative, free market capitalism. The conclusion of the laboratory experiment between socialism and capitalism, between California’s and Texas’ two diverse economic systems is clear. With the debate raging in the U.S. over government expansion, increased entitlements, which may ultimately include socializing health care, and increased taxes to pay for all of this, we do not need to look beyond our own backyard.

Socialism has failed where capitalism has succeeded. Unfortunately for the citizens of the U.S. we cannot vote with out feet and leave for another state. We must stay and fight. We must wage the war against socialism and preserve the American Dream for our future generations.

It’s a battle worth fighting. Thanks to the genius of our founding fathers we have the means to wage revolution in this country, not with bullets or bloodshed, but with a more formidable weapon; the power to vote.

According to recently released reports from the College Board, most students and their families can expect to pay, on average, from $172 to $1,096 more than last year for this year’s tuition and fees, depending on the type of college. Private four-year college costs in 2009 averaged $26,273 (up 4.4 percent from last year).

Four-year public colleges raised tuition and fees by an average of 6.5 percent last year. Given the financial hardship of the country, it’s simply astonishing that colleges and universities would have these kind of increases.

What will it all mean? The Ivy league and other top tier schools will see very little, if any, impact to their enrollments. The colleges, however, that will be devastated will be the second tier and little known, private and public college programs who will see enrollments drop precipitously over the next five years.

Many will be unable to sustain themselves and will be forced to close their doors.

Lower enrollments translate into fewer college graduates. With our country’s spending seemingly out of control and a deficit which is expected to double to $24 trillion in just ten years, our nation’s future generation will be educationally ill equipped to meet the challenge. The effects of the 2008 economic meltdown, I’m afraid, will be with us for a very long time.

The necessity for a small federal government and independent sovereign states/governments, kept together by a voluntary agreement that became our constitution, was crucial to the success of the country. Our founding fathers knew that it was important to curtail the growth of government and so our founding document’s purpose was to ensure the federal government be kept in check.

Three branches of government were introduced and made part of the constitution in order to create a checks and balance on each separate branch of government. Yes, our great nation, the greatest economic power the world has ever known, was made possible by the well thought-out intentions of a few great visionaries so many, many years ago.

John Locke, Adam Smith and Thomas Hobbes, philosophers and economists, created the conceptual framework that become interwoven into the Constitution of the United States of America. Our founding fathers embraced their ideas and their principles. Life, liberty and the right to own and keep private property out of the hands of government, were the building blocks of our nation. Freedom for people to govern themselves and the necessity to create a firewall between government and the private sector are constitutional mandates.

The very idea of separating government and the private sector was extraordinary and, yes, intentional. That government must not be allowed to interfere with the private sector (laissez-faire) was, from the outset of our nation, a key ingredient in our founders recipe for creating a new nation, the likes of which the world had never seen.

These principles of life, liberty and the right to own and keep private property out of the hands of government are the bedrock of this great nation and are often referred to as the American Dream or Democratic Capitalism. Yes, capitalism. Unfettered capitalism means government does interfere with the private sector economy. It was a constitutional mandate.

For a time, this constitutional mandate remained in place. And for a long time, and as a result, America flourished. Then came the Great Depression. The Great Depression changed everything. It opened the door for governmental control and interference with the private sector economy.

Once that door was cracked open, governmental legislators (our employees) plowed through the door and forced upon us a flood of bureaucratic tyranny (numerous, repressive laws), not seen since the English monarchy attempted to flex its might in an effort to reign in the thirteen colonies at the end of the 18th century.

Contrary to what many believe, the Great Depression was not caused by the stock market crash of 1929. While this crash was certainly devastating to the economy at the time, it was not the cause of the worst economic event in U.S. history. Rather, it was the government’s interference in the private sector .

The Smoot-Hawley Act was intended to protect the livelihoods of American farmers by imposing importation restrictions on agricultural products coming from foreign nations. As soon as the private sector got wind of this legislation, even in proposed form, it reacted violently and the stock market crashed in 1929.

But then Smoot-Hawley hit a bump in the legislative road and, thinking this legislation would die on the vine, the stock market rallied and commerce re-started itself. But Smoot-Hawley was not dead. It re-emerged and became law in 1930. Once again the stock market plummeted.

To make matters worse, President Hoover, proposed, and Congress passed, legislation that created the largest tax increase, at the time, in the nation’s history; an increase in the federal income tax rate from 25% to 63%. Included in this tax increase was a tax on checks.

Every check that was drafted by individuals and businesses was subjected to an excise tax. Not surprisingly, consumers reverted to the use of cash, instead of checks, in an effort to avoid the excise tax they could ill-afford. Runs on the banks began to increase and by FDR’s election in 1933, banks were all but broke and the financial system was in ruin.

FDR saw this as an opportunity to experiment with a new economic concept, known as Keynesian Economics. Keynesian economics argued that in times of an economic downturn, the federal government, though spending measures, could help re-start the economic engine. FDR was a fanatical Keynesian. Law after law was passed creating knew, novel ways to spend our way out of the depression. None succeeded. After ten years of Keynesian economics, the U.S. unemployment rate stood fast at 13%. The Keynesian economic experiment failed and failed miserably.

Now lets fast forward to October 1987 when, for reasons still unknown, the stock market crashed once again. Ronald Reagan was our President at the time. That year before, 1986, the tax cuts he had signed into legislation, had just become the law of the land. How did Reagan react to this crash? He didn’t. He believed the U.S. economy would heal itself and the newly enacted tax cuts would eventually create an economic boom.

Limited government intervention was his response to the 1987 crash. Reagan, it turns out, was spot on. His laissez-faire, Adam Smith approach to the 1987 crash allowed our capitalist economic system to correct itself and the byproduct of his great leadership was an economic boom that lasted almost sixteen years. It is too bad we did not elect a Ronald Reagan in 2009. No doubt his response to the 2008 economic collapse would have been to cut taxes, reduce government spending and get government out of the way of the private sector.

The election of Scott Brown in Massachusetts on January 19th, 2010 was a repudiation of big government, plain and simple. Most Americans believe government is the problem and not the solution. We believe as long as the government stays out of our way, we can prosper as a nation. We do not subscribe to socialist principles. We do not believe in the European Dream. We embrace, instead, the American Dream.

Surprisingly, Pew reports that the number of Americans who believe Barack Obama is a Muslim has jumped from 12% in early 2009 to 18% in 2010.  Similarly, Pew reports a decline in the number of respondents who identify Obama as a Christian – 34% today compared to 48% in March 2009 and 51% during the Presidential campaign in October 2008. As usual, there is a less decisive group floating out there – adding up to a plurality of 43% – who respond that they do not know what is Obama’s religion.  These undecided respondents are up from 34% in 2009.

I’m certain that if Pew telephoned me, I would have been one of the folks who said Obama was a Muslim and who would not have been given the time to fully explain what I mean.

First, I know that Obama’s step-father, Lolo Soetoro, was a practicing Muslim.  According to freely available press accounts, Soetoro took little Obama with him to the mosque to pray and enrolled little Obama in school as a Muslim.

Second, I know that Obama grew up in a predominantly Muslim country, Indonesia.  Third, when I met the young Obama – while he was a sophomore at Occidental College – I can report that his closest friends were the Muslim Pakistani students on campus, in particular, an older Pakistani student named Mohammed Hasan Chandoo.

Hasan visited Obama while he was a student at Columbia and attended Obama’s wedding to Michelle in 1992, unlike the African-Americans at Occidental who now claim they were close friends with the young Obama,.

As for Obama’s more contemporary connections to Islam, I pay the most attention to his words in his book, Audacity of Hope, where Obama calls into question the divinity of Christ.  This is, in my view, a bright dividing line between being a Christian believer and being a Muslim adherent.

I also know that Rev. Wright is a former Muslim and maintains close ties to the Muslim community.  All of this information gives me confidence that Obama’s world view, his basic mental architecture, has more links to Islam than Christianity.

Nevertheless, I’m sure the media will spin the results of Pew’s poll as evidence of racism or religious intolerance or an effort to portray Obama as the “other.”  My perspective, however, gives me an advantage over mainstream journalists who are puzzled about how Obama could be so completely foolish as to endorse the Ground Zero Mosque.  In my view, he is simply defending his base, a base of Muslim adherents to whom Obama has shown considerable loyalty ever since he was a little child.

I think the simplest answer is that Obama was being loyal to his Muslim-American base…not to African-Americans…not to his Democrat party…and not to the American people. I have found some supporting evidence for this thesis in an article in Politico on August 15, 2010 in which Carol E. Lee writes that an undisclosed administration official says this was “purely” Obama’s decision.

See, http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0810/41077.html In Audacity of Hope, Obama writes that he is intent to assure Muslims that he will stand with them during the ultimate crisis.  Apparently, Obama’s brain decided that moment has arrived.

What is missing from all the reporting on this issue is what an incredibly stupid thing this was for Obama to do in terms of electoral politics.  Obama has ignited a firestorm of controversy that can only do damage to his party’s chances in November 2010 and to his own chances in November 2012.  Already, Rasmussen shows Republicans opening up a 12-point lead in the generic polling results.  See, http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/generic_congressional_ballot Obama’s job approval rating, according to Gallup, is at an all time low of 42%.  On a scale of one to ten for political stupidity, Obama’s endorsement of the GZM is a ten.  It is the equivalent of running toward a burning car wreck and then squeezing yourself into the trunk.

Since I knew President Obama while he was a radical, Marxist sophomore at Occidental College, I think I have an unusual insight to share regarding this politically inept decision.   Based on my face-to-face talks with the young Obama, I’m among those who do not see Obama as an intellectual genius.

I’ve never gone along with those who think they can find evidence of a high IQ in Obama’s election as the editor of the Harvard Law Review, or his role as an adjunct at the University of Chicago Law School, or his success in winning office.  Since I never bought into the inflated view of Obama’s intellectual skills, I was not surprised by his dependence on the teleprompter.  I do, however, think I know why he has not released his undergraduate transcripts from Occidental College or Columbia University: His charismatic reputation for genius would not survive the harsh reality of his ordinary grades.

Accordingly, I’m not convinced that Obama’s endorsement of the GZM was an example of a political genius playing chess while we are all playing checkers.  Instead, I see Obama’s recklessness as more similar to a funny, stupid criminal story where the bank robber submits his demand for cash on the back of his own business card.  I think the stress of his job is getting to him.  Under stress, Obama’s thinking has become cloudy, impulsive and irrational.  Reviewing this last week, even Obama may now understand that he cannot drive and should not have the keys.

“90 percent of this game is mental, the other half is physical” – Yogi Berra

Howard Houchen

Like the fuzzy-math Team Obama uses to tell us that so many millions of jobs have been “saved or created” due to stimulus funds;  like the strange logic he uses to describe how appeasement and apologies lead to a sound foreign policy and like the show of “Noble Arrogance” he displays when telling American citizens “you just don’t understand things as well as we do” or his comment to America’s conservatives,  “you ain’t gettin’ the keys to the car back” all of which  don’t truly coincide with reality very well.

Yes, I understand that his speech on the state of our American economy was geared towards pumping up unions and union workers so they feel the need to get out there and raise the dead to vote for more pro-government interventionist ideologues in November, but Mr. Obama can’t even complete a sound analogy (the teleprompter must have froze).

In case you missed it, our President likened the American economy to a car traveling down road that was being driven by Republicans.  The driver(s) ran the car off the road…put it in the ditch and it got stuck right there.

At this point along comes the rescue team, with Barack the Brave as it’s fearless, All-Knowing leader and they un-stick the car and are just about to get the car back on the tarmac (excuse me…the black-top) and along come the Republicans again wanting the keys back.

The Fearless Leader proclaims; “No way, we know how to drive this economy better than you”, and standing with the sun glistening off his Rescue Man’s visor and with cheering hordes of on-lookers in the background…Team Obama bounds into action (Biff…Boom…Bam)!

(Flashback to an earlier time) – The 2006 mid-term elections brought these United States of America the most LIBERAL Congress in our short history with Pushin’ Pelosi at the helm.  That’s correct, Congress, that branch of government that controls how, where, and why OUR money is spent.  It didn’t help matters that the Bush Team became economically “drunk” and couldn’t steer this economic machine down a straight path along an eight-lane super-highway.

We all know that both sides of the aisle were responsible for getting that car in the ditch and we also knew that removing that car from the ditch was going to be a monumental task.  So, yes Mr. President you are somewhat correct (about 30%) in your little analogy.  The problem with what happens next and how you seem to neglect reality is where you are 100% wrong.

Instead of reducing government interference and regulation relative to that car, the engine that drives the American economy, and letting the rightful and trained drivers of the car take control…the principles of a free-market economy…you just had to open the doors to the asylum and let out the wretched refuse of ideologies long thought forgotten.  Central-planning “managers”, statists, Socialists (Progressives), and even Communists put on their Pit-Crew outfits and went to work.

(Fast-forward to present day, Our Dear Leader and His Team are at Work) – The car is in the ditch and things are looking bleak, Team Obama descends on the car, surround it, place jacks under four points of the frame, jack it up, removes the wheels, place it on blocks, and proceeds to strip OUR car of all its most valuable parts.  They drag the shell of OUR car back onto the tarmac (excuse me, black-top) and with a wave of the magic wand (the same magic wand that has failed so many nations in the past) they expect this hunk of junk to roll.

The cheering hordes of on-lookers are stunned and quiet as many among them have no jobs and at seeing the pathetic excuse of OUR new car, realize that this vehicle will not provide transportation to recovery.  They realize that Team Obama is worse than the drunken shade-tree mechanics that wanted their keys back.

They realize that they can, at the very least, sober-up the previous drivers and once that car is moving again…momentum keeps it on a pretty straight path.  In fact, left alone, OUR car is pretty fantastic and we could name it “The Fantstico Fury”.  History tells us The Fantastico Fury can travel very long distances and carry an entire nation with promises of economic Freedom that lead to prosperity for all who are willing to jump on-board.

Mr. President, you may not be willing to give the keys back but where you are 100% wrong is that those keys are not YOURS to give back.  The keys are OURS, they BELONG to the market and we are the market.  You, the political class, are not the market and we want OUR keys back.  Go ahead and try to hold on to OUR keys with your soft, political-class, hands.  The hands of the market, the working-class, of We, the people are forged of longer lasting mettle…We will have them once again.

Right now, I’m a resident of Orange County, CA.  Nevertheless, I grew up in the northern part of Los Angeles County.  I trully identify with the concerns of Rep. Sherman’s constituents.  For personal reasons, I was struck by the attached YouTube video – newly released – of Sherman’s constituents reacting to his comments that he did not know anything about this highly inflammatory mistake.  You can hear the crowd erupt with anger.

I feel their pain.  I know that area.  My parents were raised in Glendale.  I was born in Behrens Memorial Hospital in Glendale.  I know the people in this video like they are my own relatives.

As you can see, they are largely white.  They are extremely well-informed.  They also have a vivid sense of justice and fairness.  (They are not racists as the mainstream media would like you to believe.)  They are people who think everyone should be treated fairly.  In their view, the idea that the U.S. Justice Department would not protect them against New Black Panther racists - like King Samir Shabazz – is just repugnant and completely unacceptable.

Rep. Brad Sherman won his seat back in November 1996.  At the time, it was one of the most expensive House races in U.S. history.  His comments in this video demonstrate he has lost touch with the people in his district and that he deserves to be retired – immediately.  It was silly of a Harvard Law School graduate like Rep.

Sherman to pretend that he didn’t know what was up regarding the lack of punishment dished out to the New Black Panther party by the Obama administration.  See the video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UymN7t1kX3Q

As one of the people who knew the young Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College, I can truthfully relate that I so no signs of hatred towards white people when I met him.  This observation, of course, is out of line with Obama’s own description of his early years in his first book, Dreams from My Father.

My take is that Obama embraced the racial hatred of Rev. Wright and others only after he graduated from Columbia University.  All in all, I think it is deeply disturbing that Obama’s administration did not take more action to punish the New Black Panther party for its voter intimidation practices in 2008.  Obama’s links to this organization deserve greater media attention…

The United Nations now is working on an international gun control law (Arms Trade Treaty) that would make it illegal for any law abiding citizen; including in the United States to possess a firearm.  Oh yes, you are reading correctly.   Instead of addressing this issue as an international gun control it is being packaged in many different ways by the many different  research organizations/civil society organizations: “Practical disarmament” , “grave threat to human rights”, “disarmament of combatants”, “promoting public security”(http://www.smallarmssurvey.org/files/portal/spotlight/disarmament/disarm.html), “stop the proliferation and misuse of small arms and light weapons-SALW”, “represents the voices of civil society…”, “protect human security”, “promoting the voices of survivors…” (http://www.iansa.org/about.htm),  “nefarious illicit arms trade”, “armed violence killed more than 2,000 people every day” (http://www.un.org/News/Press/doc/2010/dc3248.doc.htm), and “…strengthening peace and security through disarmament”, “…the excessive accumulation of small arms has been instrumental in shaping the onset, severity and duration of armed violence, and its negative consequences”,  “high incidence of gender base violence”, “Up to 60% of violent deaths worldwide can be attributed to firearms…”, “More that 540,000 men, women, and children die from violence each year..”, “productivity losses due to premature death, can be as much as $160 billion a year”, “humanitarian situation”(http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/Html/SALW-POA-intro.shtml).

What a bunch of garbage!  The United Nations and the rest of the anti-gun nut jobs across the world do not give a crap about those suffering from dictators, radical nuts, ethic cleansing or drug czars-the only thing they really care about is POWER!  That is right!  If you look at places like Iran, Cuba, China, North Korea, Columbia, Mexico, Darfur, and Venezuela; what do they have in common?

They all have disarmed their citizens so they can oppress, abuse, torture, destroy if anybody gets in the governments’ way-not including drug czars can force anybody to do anything they want because nobody can defend themselves or their family.  This is happening right on our southern border with Mexico!  The Mexican government has taken the God given right to defend oneself, family, and land and the drug cartels are having a field day by kidnapping, torturing, sending parts of a loved one back to the family one by one, shooting those who get in there way, and decapitation-is this what we want for future generations of Americans?

What about Iran?  Nobody there can possess a firearm unless they are part of the military-gee how did that go in 2009 after the joke of elections?  Iranians went to the streets to protest and some were killed while others were tortured-is this what we want for future generations of Americans?  How about Cuba?  Total dictatorship!  Nobody can own a firearm because the fear that the people will up rise against oppression, torture, and poverty-is this what we want for the future generations of Americans?   How about Venezuela?  Chavez has made sure none of the citizens there can possess a firearm; heck he has even shut down most of the media there due to an outcry of his policies-gee how is that working for the people? Chavez is afraid of what the people might do to him if they had firearms-probably kill his insane butt!  What about Darfur?  There has been nothing but a blood bath, because many citizens have been denied the simple right to defend themselves-how has that been working out?  How about North Korea?  There is a joke!  The people there live in poverty and have no rights whatsoever!

Communism is total control by the government of all things, including the God given right to defend family, home, and yourself-I can see that has been working real well for the citizens of North Korea!  China, well same attitude as North Korea…Communism is total government control of all things-you have no rights at all!  Here is some more to think about: What about the Holocaust and Rwanda?  The extermination of the Jews was quite easy because the Nazi’s made sure they took their firearms away before throwing millions on a one way trip to the gas chambers!  Rwanda was a blood bath! Thousands of Tutsis and Hutus were brutally killed-so many that rivers ran red with blood!  Many did not have anything to defend themselves with other than maybe a machete-gee that really worked.

The only way to keep the government in check, invaders at bay, drug czars dead, terrorism under control, dictators never in power, communism never allowed, and protect your home, family and yourself is to have the “right to keep and bear arms”-Why do you think America has been free for 234 years?

Obama and the rest of the White House, including our Secretary of State Hillary Clinton are on board with the United Nations(plus anti-gun nut jobs) and their plan to take every Americans right to “keep and bear arms”.   I thought our president, the administration, and Congress was supposed to “uphold” the U.S. Constitution?  Now the White House and Hillary Clinton will tell you that the Arms Trade Treaty will not take away the rights of Americans to “keep and bear arms” but will only regulate the trade of firearms to different countries and help keep them out of the hands of terrorists-NOT!

There are already rules and regulations in place so terrorists cannot get a firearm (placed on a watch list)-do not talk about the Fort Hood shooter because he fell through the system because the federal government chose to ignore the emails that proved he was communicating with a Muslim extremist.  On top of this, “all military articles of U.S. origin are subject to extremely rigorous procedures under the U.S. Arms Export Control Act and International Traffic in Arms Regulations.  All U.S. exports of defense articles and services, including small arms and light weapons, must be approved by the Department of the State.”  (http://www.thefreelibrary.com/United+Nations+Conference+on+the+Illicit+Trade+in+Small+Arms)  This does not include the fact the United States has offered technological and financial assistance along with working with countries to develop national legislation to regulate exports and imports of arms.

If this does not bother you enough, read the following: “The State (the country’s government) has a monopoly on the legitimate use of force and armed violence in order to protect and safeguard its people and institutions, consistent with international legal obligations, humanitarian and human rights principles.  The State (country’s government) is also responsible for determining the circumstances in which individuals can lawfully use force and armed violence and for ensuring full respect for and observance of the international and domestic legal standards on the use of force and armed violence”.  (http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/SALW/Html/SALW-POA-ISS-intro.shtml).  Excuse me, really?

That was not how this country came to be and that is not how we have kept our freedom for so long.  The federal government cannot run the post office, railroad, healthcare, social security and they certainly cannot keep our borders safe-this is another “power grab” by the White House so the government will have total control of all things in this great country.  I do not want this kind of future for my children or for that matter my grandchildren- it must be stopped NOW!

I have studied up on addiction and done plenty of work for charities that seek to combat alcohol, tobacco and other drugs (ATODs). One of my first jobs, for example, was with a government program called L.A. Link that was focused on reducing illegal nicotine use among adolescents in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. I remember interviewing a heroin addict who told me she thought it was easier to beat heroin than nicotine.

I’m not completely surprised that Obama’s addiction to nicotine makes him feel that chewing nicotine gum in public is a small price to pay for stopping the withdrawal effects of nicotine. They can be overwhelming. I knew the young Obama while he was a sophomore at Occidental College in Los Angeles. We were both smokers then. I remember that I could not go a day without two packs of Marlboro Lights. Quitting cigarettes is still one of the great achievement of my life.

I was startled, however, when I learned from Jerome Corsi’s book, Obama Nation, that candidate Obama was still smoking cigarettes. In fact, Corsi went out of his way to show that the manner in which Obama easily lied and hid his addiction to cigarettes was similar to his willingness to lie and misrepresent other key elements in his life story.

These video clips, however, demonstrate that Obama has gone off the deep end and – even worse – the media is not all that interested in covering up for him anymore. The liberal media hid FDR’s affairs and polio, it hid John Kennedy’s affairs and dependence on pain killers, it hid John Edwards infidelity – but not his affection for his hair. I think it is healthy for America that the media is no longer shy about exposing Obama’s nicotine addiction.

Checking out the comments, by the way, the creator of the YouTube video indicates he got at least two of these clips from a White House website: “I had the first clip and thought it looked like he was chewing gum but I wasn’t sure. The White House posted the White House Week video today where I found the other two clips.”

John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.