There will be many videos taken during CPAC 2010. However, I needed to start it out with a BANG! That bang involves people who have a heavy hand in our nations capitol.

The Bush administration had failures and successes. Its failures include overspending and massive increases in the size and scope of the Federal Government, all of these which, by the way, Obama has dwarfed within just his first year in the office. One of Bush's successes, for example, was eventual victory in the Iraq war.

Well if you are unaware, Biden recently made this statement on Larry King Live, "I am very optimistic about Iraq," he said. "I mean, this could be one of the great achievements of this administration." The comment you just read is absurd and idiotic. The victory in Iraq was a great achievement accomplished by Bush and his administration, and, unless they are successful in rewriting history, every future American will hold that fact as common knowledge.

Obama on the record:

• Voted to fund war until 2006; now wants no blank check. (Nov 2007)
• Late to vote against war is not late to oppose war. (Jun 2007)
• Spending on the Cold War relics should be for the veterans. (Jun 2007) 
• Would have voted no to authorize the President to go to war. (Jul 2004) 
• Voted YES on redeploying US troops out of Iraq by March 2008. (Mar 2007) 
• Voted NO on redeploying troops out of Iraq by July 2007. (Jun 2006) 
• Voted YES on investigating contract awards in Iraq & Afghanistan. (Nov 2005)

 Joe Biden on the record:

• We will end Iraq War; McCain has no end in sight. (Oct 2008) 
• Al-Qaeda & the Taliban have regrouped due to Bush's neglect. (Aug 2008) 
• Iraq war is sucking up a $150B a year. (Dec 2007) 
• Post-colonial countries like Iraq need federal system. (Nov 2007) 
• Third way: federalize Iraq; troops home; no chaos behind. (Nov 2007) 
• Troops out by 2013 if no political reconciliation. (Sep 2007) 
• Patraeus report is wrong strategy; draw down troops now. (Sep 2007) 
• Worth losing election to protect our troops. (Sep 2007) 
• Bush has lied for 7 years; tell truth on Iraq. (Aug 2007) 
• Voted for Iraq War resolution to avoid war in Iraq. (Jul 2007) 
• Bush invaded Iraq as the weakest of the Axis of Evil. (Jul 2007) 
• End neocon fantasy of remaking Iraq in our image. (Jul 2007)

Throughout the 2008 election cycle we saw men and women praise Obama to the extreme. They touted that their "gas tanks would be filled" and their "mortgages paid." This weird belief of fairytale gas gods and magic mortgage mages was idiotic at best. However, on some level Obama began to believe the hyperbole the American people were throwing his way. The press didn't touch him, his followers loved him, and it's safe to assume that B. Hussein Obama hasn't suffered from lack of confidence. 

His beliefs in himself have carried over to the presidency. If you want proof of his arrogance, look no further than his actions and tone. It might be the fact that he has chosen to give himself "a good, solid B-plus" on his presidential performance. This leaves me to wonder what the allah a good, solid F might look like. It might be the fact that he disrespects the Oval Office by tossing a football to and fro or putting his feet upon the resolute desk. It might be the fact that on the heels of the Massachusetts (Martha, take note on my spelling, please) election he said, "Well, the big difference here and in ’94 was you’ve got me." His arrogance, you would agree, is astounding. Obama believes he personally can save the liberals in the house and the senate even in the face of his plummeting popularity numbers.

You would think Obama would get the message the American people are sending. However, the message against BIG GOVERNMENT will never be received when you have people as hard headed as Howard Dean who said, "This is not, contrary to what a lot of American pundits are talking about, this is not a revolt of the Right. This is Barack Obama's core base not thinking that we've done what he was asked to do." I can define that kind of reaction, together with Chris Matthews, only in this way: "That's crazy!" Scott Brown promised, time and again, to be the "41st vote" against socialized healthcare, the same policy that the left-wing loons have tried to jam down the American peoples' throat for more than half a century. The left's talking heads would have you believe that the election of Scott Brown was not a referendum, but rather an encouragement package from Barack's loving base.

There is often a comparison drawn between Barack Obama and Robin Hood. This comparison, I believe, is not only foolish, but just down right idiotic. Robin Hood is a hero from old English folklore. Obama is a modern day statist. Robin Hood is known for "robbing from the rich and giving to the poor." Obama is known for robbing from the American people, transferring wealth from the private to the government sector, and consolidating power for himself and his Washington cronies. The folklore that follows Robin Hood is of valor and honor whereas Obama is known for being a destructive force against freedom and liberty.

 With the limited knowledge I have about Robin Hood (most based on a few poems, Wikipedia, and a BBC series called "Robin Hood"), I have come to the conclusion that his beliefs would aline much more with that of a conservative than that of a lowly statist. Robin Hood had become fed up with the actions of his Sheriff. The Sheriff had levied so many taxes upon Nottingham and the surrounding areas that the people couldn't afford to even feed themselves. The taxes were suffocating the people. It resembles even our fight for independence. Our founders fought against an overbearing destabilizing state much like what Robin Hood was said to have fought. Robin Hood took from those who took too much. He didn't take because they had. He took because they were forcing so much taxation upon the surfs that the men and women were dying of starvation. Conservatives, not statists are the ones who fight excessive taxation. 

Now, on to the man of the hour. The man whom conservatives for some dumb reason choose to compare to Robin Hood. Barack Obama hates this country and hates what we believe and the things we stand for. Obama seeks to tax freedom to death. Obama seeks to enslave us under the strong arm of the government. He's not Robin Hood. He is but the lowly sheriff who seeks to destroy us by choking our freedom.

After contemplating over the game of chess and the insights it may provide us about big government, I now know precisely how important Barack is to liberalism and the big government movement. He is the rook. In a chess game the rook is the third most valuable player, right behind the queen and king. The king is big government. Once the king is defeated the game is over. The queen is liberalism. It is the very thing that propels big government forward and protects the big government from attack. However, there is yet another crucial player in this game. It is the rook, or in the case of big government, the president who helps liberalism advance wherever and whenever he can--by using the bully pulpit. Unfortunately for the rook, and the president, they are not above sacrifice. 

In our current socialized healthcare debate many liberal pawns will be sacrificed in 2010 for the "greater good." These pawns are the blue dogs. Think of it this way: the pawns are in the front lines, they can be attacked from any direction. They are the first to be sacrificed in any attempt at a move forward. That push is healthcare. If socialized healthcare is passed, then big government wins. There is nothing that the other player can do, no matter how many pawns are removed from play. If socialized healthcare passes, that spells death for the other player.

The way I see it, the rook has now become just another pawn for the king and queen. The rook is now a means to an end. If the rook is removed from battle by the other team, but during his time socialized healthcare passed, he has done his duty and served his purpose. 

 The big government movement has grown impatient. They have waited and waited for the day when liberty bows in the face of tyranny. And since that has yet to happen, they have become willing to make one final play--to give up the rook, that  is Barack, in order to establish tyranny.