Do you need any further evidence that journalism is dead in 2008 - totally in the tank for Obama and not doing their jobs - than the coverage today of the Obama Transition Team's meager 5 page report on Obama's dealings with Rod Blagojevich?
Have we fallen into a strange parallel universe? On what planet do politicians get to investigate and clear themselves?
When Obama has his own lawyer Greg Craig - famously known as a Clinton scandal-defense lawyer - to "investigate" their own team and report, the correct response should be derisive laughter. Instead we get fawning compliance from the press. "Gee, I guess we don't have to go to Crook County and check it out ourselves. He must obviously be clean."
Note to the news media: "Obama investigation releases their findings" is not correct. Obama's team released their VERSION. There's a difference.
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Tuesday, December 09, 2008
It's Not Too Late - Electors - to Elect McCain!
Those of you not from Illinois are not prepared for the fallout of today's bombshell news of the FBI arrest of the Govenor of Illinois - Rod Blagojevich.
But I am from Illinois, and I know how deep this is going to go. Today is just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of people are going down, including - I predict (and you heard it here first) the highest profile product of Crook County Illinois - Senator Barack Hussein Obama.
First, let me just say "it's about damn time" that our boy-criminal Governor was arrested. He's been corrupt and flagrant about it since day one in office. Good riddance. He should resign tomorrow.
Second, I call on U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to disclose immediately, certainly before the inauguration, whether his years long investigation into Tony Rezko - corrupt political financier who is now in jail - and Blago revealed any evidence of illegal or unethical behavior by their crony Barack Hussein Obama. Certainly evidence has been alleged. Is it true? If so, we deserve to know before Obama takes office.
Lastly, you'll note that I did not call him President-Elect Obama. No matter what his podium sign says. That's because he has not been elected yet. He does not get elected until December 15th when the Electoral College members meet to officially cast their votes.
Connect the dots, people!
dot - Tony Rezko was a corrupt fundraiser in Chicago, who raised signficant money for prominent Illinois campaigns. In other words, paid to put them in his pocket.
dot - Tony Rezko raised a lot of money for Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich
dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald has spent several years building his case on Rezko and his payments
dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald indicted and convicted Tony Rezko, who is now behind bars - probably signing like a canary
dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald has now pulled the trigger on an arrest of Blago, based on evidence and wiretaps.
dot - Blago, whose phone has been wiretapped, has talked with Obama a lot in the last year
Connected dots - an indictment of Obama is not out of the realm of possibility (to put it nicely) and in fact is probable.
I call on the members of the Electoral College to not put this country through a constitutional crisis by electing a man who may be arrested and indicted in the next year to serve alongside his cronies in the Chicago political machine! Show courage and do not vote for Obama.
McCain - Palin 2008 lives again!
You heard it here first.
But I am from Illinois, and I know how deep this is going to go. Today is just the tip of the iceberg. Lots of people are going down, including - I predict (and you heard it here first) the highest profile product of Crook County Illinois - Senator Barack Hussein Obama.
First, let me just say "it's about damn time" that our boy-criminal Governor was arrested. He's been corrupt and flagrant about it since day one in office. Good riddance. He should resign tomorrow.
Second, I call on U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald to disclose immediately, certainly before the inauguration, whether his years long investigation into Tony Rezko - corrupt political financier who is now in jail - and Blago revealed any evidence of illegal or unethical behavior by their crony Barack Hussein Obama. Certainly evidence has been alleged. Is it true? If so, we deserve to know before Obama takes office.
Lastly, you'll note that I did not call him President-Elect Obama. No matter what his podium sign says. That's because he has not been elected yet. He does not get elected until December 15th when the Electoral College members meet to officially cast their votes.
Connect the dots, people!
dot - Tony Rezko was a corrupt fundraiser in Chicago, who raised signficant money for prominent Illinois campaigns. In other words, paid to put them in his pocket.
dot - Tony Rezko raised a lot of money for Barack Obama and Rod Blagojevich
dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald has spent several years building his case on Rezko and his payments
dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald indicted and convicted Tony Rezko, who is now behind bars - probably signing like a canary
dot - U.S. Attorney Fitzgerald has now pulled the trigger on an arrest of Blago, based on evidence and wiretaps.
dot - Blago, whose phone has been wiretapped, has talked with Obama a lot in the last year
Connected dots - an indictment of Obama is not out of the realm of possibility (to put it nicely) and in fact is probable.
I call on the members of the Electoral College to not put this country through a constitutional crisis by electing a man who may be arrested and indicted in the next year to serve alongside his cronies in the Chicago political machine! Show courage and do not vote for Obama.
McCain - Palin 2008 lives again!
You heard it here first.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Scaling Back
As I've said, I've seen this movie before. And I don't want to sit through it again, so I'm tuning out as best I can.
The eight years of the Clinton Administration were tough on me, mentally. (As, apparently, the eight years of the Bush Administration were on lefties). I got myself twisted in knots learning all about their misdeeds and trying to convince other people that they were doing bad things. Which they were.
It's not healthy for me.
So, I'm going to tune out of politics as best as I can for the next four or eight years.
I'm going to try to put my head down and just take care of my family and focus on other hobbies that are good for my mental health. Photography, for example.
Whatever happens in the next 8 years, don't even tell me. I'm not listening.
At least, I'm going to try. We'll see how long that I last.
The eight years of the Clinton Administration were tough on me, mentally. (As, apparently, the eight years of the Bush Administration were on lefties). I got myself twisted in knots learning all about their misdeeds and trying to convince other people that they were doing bad things. Which they were.
It's not healthy for me.
So, I'm going to tune out of politics as best as I can for the next four or eight years.
I'm going to try to put my head down and just take care of my family and focus on other hobbies that are good for my mental health. Photography, for example.
Whatever happens in the next 8 years, don't even tell me. I'm not listening.
At least, I'm going to try. We'll see how long that I last.
Back in the Fight
I read today that President-Elect is bent on closing Gitmo when he takes office. Hmmmm. Is that wise?
Let me digress a moment.
Have you ever watched an old favorite movie and caught something that you had missed before?
I had that experience this week. "Saving Private Ryan" - one of my favorites. If you can watch that movie and not get choked up when Tom Hanks - the hero Capt. Miller - is dying on the bridge at the end and he pulls Pvt. Ryan down and whispers "Earn this". Wow.
Here's what I caught that I missed.
There's a scene midway through the movie when Hanks and his squad has to decide what to do with a prisoner. The captain had stopped his squad's mission to find Ryan to engage an artillery battery at a radar site.
"Not smart, captain, considering our objective".
"Our objective is to win the war", says Hanks.
Of course, one of Hank's men gets killed and the squad wants revenge on their one captive. His mousy squad member gets in his face and challenges him. You can't let them kill him, he argues - he surrendered. Hanks sends the captive walking away.
"You just going to let him go, captain?"
"He'll be intercepted by one of our units and processed."
"Unless he finds his Wermacht unit first, and rejoins the fight."
Cut to later in the movie in the climatic battle scene to save the bridge. Captain Miller gets shot as he's trying to blow up the bridge to prevent the German advance, fatally.
What I missed was who shoots our hero. It is, of course, the German captive that he lets go.
Does he get away? No. The mousy soldier who argued for his release steps up and executes him.
Justice, but too late.
It's just fiction, I know.
But consider this: of the 250 high-level threats that were detained at Gitmo and then released under pressure by liberals, 50 or so have been subsequently killed in battle by our troops. How many did they kill of our guys after their release before we got them again.
Would you want to be the one sent to the family of a U.S. soldier KIA to explain that we had the bad guy in custody, but let them go so they could get back in the fight?
Think about it.
Let me digress a moment.
Have you ever watched an old favorite movie and caught something that you had missed before?
I had that experience this week. "Saving Private Ryan" - one of my favorites. If you can watch that movie and not get choked up when Tom Hanks - the hero Capt. Miller - is dying on the bridge at the end and he pulls Pvt. Ryan down and whispers "Earn this". Wow.
Here's what I caught that I missed.
There's a scene midway through the movie when Hanks and his squad has to decide what to do with a prisoner. The captain had stopped his squad's mission to find Ryan to engage an artillery battery at a radar site.
"Not smart, captain, considering our objective".
"Our objective is to win the war", says Hanks.
Of course, one of Hank's men gets killed and the squad wants revenge on their one captive. His mousy squad member gets in his face and challenges him. You can't let them kill him, he argues - he surrendered. Hanks sends the captive walking away.
"You just going to let him go, captain?"
"He'll be intercepted by one of our units and processed."
"Unless he finds his Wermacht unit first, and rejoins the fight."
Cut to later in the movie in the climatic battle scene to save the bridge. Captain Miller gets shot as he's trying to blow up the bridge to prevent the German advance, fatally.
What I missed was who shoots our hero. It is, of course, the German captive that he lets go.
Does he get away? No. The mousy soldier who argued for his release steps up and executes him.
Justice, but too late.
It's just fiction, I know.
But consider this: of the 250 high-level threats that were detained at Gitmo and then released under pressure by liberals, 50 or so have been subsequently killed in battle by our troops. How many did they kill of our guys after their release before we got them again.
Would you want to be the one sent to the family of a U.S. soldier KIA to explain that we had the bad guy in custody, but let them go so they could get back in the fight?
Think about it.
My Wildest Obama Prediction
It's fairly easy, if you've been watching his campaign for the last two years, to predict President Obama's action once he takes office.
Those pundits who are all offering up their insights that Obama will have to "govern from the center" are fooling themselves. He will pay back the Democrat interests groups right away with a flood of Executive Orders, as all presidents do. The point this time is that the Democrat interest groups have become very left wing.
It will be a left-wing extravaganza. Abortion-a-palooza. Labor unions free to run over workers who don't wish to join. Shutting down talk radio. More sub-prime "affordable housing". etc.
Predictable.
So, let me throw out my wildest prediction for President Obama's first year:
President Obama will be put in the position of having to consider pardoning George W. Bush.
Oh, yeah.
It's not a far-fetched notion at all. Here's my evidence:
- The Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. There are some Committee Chairmen/Chairwomen who are just itching to hold war crimes hearings on George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and other nefarious warmongers. Itching. One of them will pull the trigger.
- The left-wing organizations and websites - I'm thinking MoveOn.org, Code Pink, etc. - have been calling for war crimes trials for two years. Believe me. I read their websites even if you don't.
- Vincent Bugliosi, professional crank and agitator (Motto: I'm brilliant and the rest of you morons are extemely incompetent!) not only wrote a book encouraging this ("The case against George W. Bush", I think), but has been working the country trying to find a U.S. Attorney who will prosecute the case once Bush leaves office. Some nutbag U.S. Attorney will file an indictment.
And when they do - what will President Obama do?
I think he will be forced to realize, as all president's do, that if we go down the road of criminalizing policy decisions, especially war time decisions, that he could be next. He will issue a pardon.
How popular will "the One" be when he pardons George W. Bush.
Remember, you heard it here first...
Those pundits who are all offering up their insights that Obama will have to "govern from the center" are fooling themselves. He will pay back the Democrat interests groups right away with a flood of Executive Orders, as all presidents do. The point this time is that the Democrat interest groups have become very left wing.
It will be a left-wing extravaganza. Abortion-a-palooza. Labor unions free to run over workers who don't wish to join. Shutting down talk radio. More sub-prime "affordable housing". etc.
Predictable.
So, let me throw out my wildest prediction for President Obama's first year:
President Obama will be put in the position of having to consider pardoning George W. Bush.
Oh, yeah.
It's not a far-fetched notion at all. Here's my evidence:
- The Democrats control both houses of Congress and the Presidency. There are some Committee Chairmen/Chairwomen who are just itching to hold war crimes hearings on George Bush, Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and other nefarious warmongers. Itching. One of them will pull the trigger.
- The left-wing organizations and websites - I'm thinking MoveOn.org, Code Pink, etc. - have been calling for war crimes trials for two years. Believe me. I read their websites even if you don't.
- Vincent Bugliosi, professional crank and agitator (Motto: I'm brilliant and the rest of you morons are extemely incompetent!) not only wrote a book encouraging this ("The case against George W. Bush", I think), but has been working the country trying to find a U.S. Attorney who will prosecute the case once Bush leaves office. Some nutbag U.S. Attorney will file an indictment.
And when they do - what will President Obama do?
I think he will be forced to realize, as all president's do, that if we go down the road of criminalizing policy decisions, especially war time decisions, that he could be next. He will issue a pardon.
How popular will "the One" be when he pardons George W. Bush.
Remember, you heard it here first...
Can I Have My Vote Back?
Where's John McCain?
It's been more than a week since Govenor Sarah Palin, his chosen running mate, came under withering and remorseless fire - from his very own campaign staffers. Anonymous cowardly fire.
My expectation would have been that he would publicly defend her, and insist that his former staffers stop it instantly.
Isn't he the guy with self-proclaimed righteousness? The guy who would name names of wrongdoers and make them famous?
Here's your chance, Senator McCain. Identify your staffers who trashed Sarah Palin. Name them publicly. Since you can no longer make them resign, insist that the RNC see too it that they are never hired to work in a Republican campaign again.
Crickets........
Lying low-class S.O.B.
Can I go back to despising John McCain now?
It's been more than a week since Govenor Sarah Palin, his chosen running mate, came under withering and remorseless fire - from his very own campaign staffers. Anonymous cowardly fire.
My expectation would have been that he would publicly defend her, and insist that his former staffers stop it instantly.
Isn't he the guy with self-proclaimed righteousness? The guy who would name names of wrongdoers and make them famous?
Here's your chance, Senator McCain. Identify your staffers who trashed Sarah Palin. Name them publicly. Since you can no longer make them resign, insist that the RNC see too it that they are never hired to work in a Republican campaign again.
Crickets........
Lying low-class S.O.B.
Can I go back to despising John McCain now?
Friday, November 07, 2008
Post-Election Thanks and Congratulations
First, the thank yous:
1. Thank you, President Bush. You made the hard choices and kept us safe for 7 years after the biggest terrorist attack on our country. You brought us out of the economic and psychological hit that our nation took on that day. You changed our stance from defense to offense in this war that was thrust on us, and took down many of our enemy and reduced the threat to our very existence.
Yes, President Bush made mistakes - as all President's do. We probably disagree on what those mistakes were. But the level to which he was demonized by the press and by the Democrats over the last two years is shameful, and will in the long term hurt our country.
2. Thank you, Governor Sarah Palin. You are an authentic and accomplished person. You showed us the huge gap between the professional Washington crowd (politicians and press corps) and the regular folks. You were a breath of fresh air, and you completely energized the Republican base.
Now, Congratulations:
Congratulations, President-elect Obama. You ran a long, disciplined, effective campaign and won. Disappointed as I am, I acknowledge the victory.
It was a historic victory, and our country can be proud of it. Our first African-American President. It's a victory that literally could not have happened anywhere else in the world, outside of Africa. It could not have happened in Europe, for example. Only in America.
I will not be a bitter Republican and oppose you from the outset. I will not say that you are illegitimate and that you are "not my President". No, I will not do to you what many Democrats did to President Bush for 8 years. I saw how damaging that has been to our country overall.
You will be the President of the United States. My President. Do the duty that you will swear to do (support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic). Serve well. I will wish you success.
Moving on.
1. Thank you, President Bush. You made the hard choices and kept us safe for 7 years after the biggest terrorist attack on our country. You brought us out of the economic and psychological hit that our nation took on that day. You changed our stance from defense to offense in this war that was thrust on us, and took down many of our enemy and reduced the threat to our very existence.
Yes, President Bush made mistakes - as all President's do. We probably disagree on what those mistakes were. But the level to which he was demonized by the press and by the Democrats over the last two years is shameful, and will in the long term hurt our country.
2. Thank you, Governor Sarah Palin. You are an authentic and accomplished person. You showed us the huge gap between the professional Washington crowd (politicians and press corps) and the regular folks. You were a breath of fresh air, and you completely energized the Republican base.
Now, Congratulations:
Congratulations, President-elect Obama. You ran a long, disciplined, effective campaign and won. Disappointed as I am, I acknowledge the victory.
It was a historic victory, and our country can be proud of it. Our first African-American President. It's a victory that literally could not have happened anywhere else in the world, outside of Africa. It could not have happened in Europe, for example. Only in America.
I will not be a bitter Republican and oppose you from the outset. I will not say that you are illegitimate and that you are "not my President". No, I will not do to you what many Democrats did to President Bush for 8 years. I saw how damaging that has been to our country overall.
You will be the President of the United States. My President. Do the duty that you will swear to do (support and defend the Constitution from all enemies foreign or domestic). Serve well. I will wish you success.
Moving on.
Deconstructing the Losing McCain Campaign
It's clear to me: John McCain lost because of John McCain.
He had a chance to win, amazingly. Many pundits of pointed out the strong Democrat headwind this year. He should have been 20 points down. Yet Obama had so many weaknesses that McCain was competitive. He could have won, but didn't. Here's why:
1. "Me too"-ism.
I like Ann Coulter's theory that any time you give voters a choice between a Democrate-Lite and a Democrat, the Democrat wins. McCain is often the Democrat-Lite.
It's that Maverick b.s. Let me translate "maverick" for you - it means "I can't stand Republican policies either". As in:
- you hate tax cuts? Hey, me too!
- you want open borders and amnesty for illegals? Hey, me too!
- you hate the Bush administration? Hey, me too!
I had to gag this whole campaign listening to McCain. Constantly sticking his thumb in my eye. It should be a requirement for the nominee of a political party that you actually like the party. NO MORE MAVERICKS!
2. Senatorial "Niceness".
John McCain prizes bipartisanship above everything else. That means great hesitance in criticizing Democrats to the point of appeasing them.
Excuse me, Senator. Running for President is necessarily a partisan activity. Be a partisan.
That means, first of all, lifting up the virtues of your own party. McCain never did that, never made the case for Republican ideals. He only made the case for John McCain.
That means taking on your opponent, early in the race. McCain should have been taking on Obama's radical associations early on, when he secured the nomination back in March. Doing it so late in the race looked desperate.
McCain unilaterally disarmed. Disarmed is defeated.
3. The Economic Bailout exposed McCain as a liar.
McCain's self-proclaimed strength was opposing spending and making big spenders famous. "You will know their names". Yeah, right.
Nice theory, but he failed when his big test came. Let's recap what happened. When Wall St. melted down, and the Adminstration proclaimed the need for a bailout, McCain was faced with his big moment.
What he could have done was this:
1. Oppose the bailout as a socialist intervention in the markets. The public was massively opposed to the Paulson plan, with phone calls to Congress running 200:1 against. There were other ways to solve the crisis - conservative ways. Go to Washington and champion a conservative fix.
2. Oppose the pork. The Paulson plan grew from a 3 page memo to a 450-page pork laden bill that the President signed. Oppose the pork - and make the authors of the pork famous - as promised.
3. Demand accountability.
-Demand Paulson's resignation. If a cabinet officer comes to the President and says that his department has failed so badly that he needs $700,000,000,000 to fix it or the whole U.S. economy will fail - he should be fired.
- Same with the SEC chairman.
- Identify the Congressmen who pushed banks to issue bad sub-prime loans that caused the meltdown. Pledge to "get" the people who caused the mess (as O'Reilly urged him to do).
What did he do instead?
1. Support the bailout by tinkering around the edges and then urging Americans to support it.
2. Overlook the pork.
3. Blame everyone and no one. We all share blame in this - Yada Yada Yada.
His performance in on the bailout both made him look erratic and exposed the lie that he will oppose pork and make spenders famous.
McCain lost because he is the same McCain that I have loathed in public office for years. Period.
He had a chance to win, amazingly. Many pundits of pointed out the strong Democrat headwind this year. He should have been 20 points down. Yet Obama had so many weaknesses that McCain was competitive. He could have won, but didn't. Here's why:
1. "Me too"-ism.
I like Ann Coulter's theory that any time you give voters a choice between a Democrate-Lite and a Democrat, the Democrat wins. McCain is often the Democrat-Lite.
It's that Maverick b.s. Let me translate "maverick" for you - it means "I can't stand Republican policies either". As in:
- you hate tax cuts? Hey, me too!
- you want open borders and amnesty for illegals? Hey, me too!
- you hate the Bush administration? Hey, me too!
I had to gag this whole campaign listening to McCain. Constantly sticking his thumb in my eye. It should be a requirement for the nominee of a political party that you actually like the party. NO MORE MAVERICKS!
2. Senatorial "Niceness".
John McCain prizes bipartisanship above everything else. That means great hesitance in criticizing Democrats to the point of appeasing them.
Excuse me, Senator. Running for President is necessarily a partisan activity. Be a partisan.
That means, first of all, lifting up the virtues of your own party. McCain never did that, never made the case for Republican ideals. He only made the case for John McCain.
That means taking on your opponent, early in the race. McCain should have been taking on Obama's radical associations early on, when he secured the nomination back in March. Doing it so late in the race looked desperate.
McCain unilaterally disarmed. Disarmed is defeated.
3. The Economic Bailout exposed McCain as a liar.
McCain's self-proclaimed strength was opposing spending and making big spenders famous. "You will know their names". Yeah, right.
Nice theory, but he failed when his big test came. Let's recap what happened. When Wall St. melted down, and the Adminstration proclaimed the need for a bailout, McCain was faced with his big moment.
What he could have done was this:
1. Oppose the bailout as a socialist intervention in the markets. The public was massively opposed to the Paulson plan, with phone calls to Congress running 200:1 against. There were other ways to solve the crisis - conservative ways. Go to Washington and champion a conservative fix.
2. Oppose the pork. The Paulson plan grew from a 3 page memo to a 450-page pork laden bill that the President signed. Oppose the pork - and make the authors of the pork famous - as promised.
3. Demand accountability.
-Demand Paulson's resignation. If a cabinet officer comes to the President and says that his department has failed so badly that he needs $700,000,000,000 to fix it or the whole U.S. economy will fail - he should be fired.
- Same with the SEC chairman.
- Identify the Congressmen who pushed banks to issue bad sub-prime loans that caused the meltdown. Pledge to "get" the people who caused the mess (as O'Reilly urged him to do).
What did he do instead?
1. Support the bailout by tinkering around the edges and then urging Americans to support it.
2. Overlook the pork.
3. Blame everyone and no one. We all share blame in this - Yada Yada Yada.
His performance in on the bailout both made him look erratic and exposed the lie that he will oppose pork and make spenders famous.
McCain lost because he is the same McCain that I have loathed in public office for years. Period.
Trashing Sarah
First, let me just say that the trashing of Govenor Sarah Palin in the aftermath of the election by insiders of the McCain campaign is absolutely disgraceful. She was a net lift to the ticket, without doubt. McCain would have lost by a much bigger margin without her. She energized millions like me.
Second, let me ask - where is John McCain defending her? It's Friday already and not a peep out of him to shush his staff. Where is his honor?
Third, let me say unequivocally that the RNC should not let this stand. Whoever is speaking to reporters anonymously on background should be identified and banned from any future campaign staffs or Congressional staffs. Period.
Disgraceful. But then again, I never particularly thought that John McCain behaved with honor. That's just me.
Second, let me ask - where is John McCain defending her? It's Friday already and not a peep out of him to shush his staff. Where is his honor?
Third, let me say unequivocally that the RNC should not let this stand. Whoever is speaking to reporters anonymously on background should be identified and banned from any future campaign staffs or Congressional staffs. Period.
Disgraceful. But then again, I never particularly thought that John McCain behaved with honor. That's just me.
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
The Pendulum Swings Back
I guess it's becoming our national habit to trade nightmares every eight years.
The Clinton years were a nightmare for me. Eight years of saying "Are you kidding me?" and "Can you not see how bad this guy is?". Apparently eight years of George W. Bush was a similar nightmare for some of you.Now we're switching again, and I'm headed for a long eight years of deep depression.
Let me just say that it's shameful that we, as a country, just chose an unqualified socialist racist over a war hero with long years of service to our country. It's Bob Dole and Bill Clinton all over again. I am legitimately ashamed of my country this morning. I'll get over it. What else am I going to do?
My bleak assessment for our immediate future?
- The Supreme Court is lost for a couple of decades. Obama will get to name at least two justices in his first term and the court will lurch back left. The 2nd Amendment gone. Abortion on demand all day long for any reason. Coddling terrorists and handcuffing our security agencies. Gone.
- It's katy-bar-the-door in Congress. Not only tax and spend. But liberal facism and intolerance writ large. Look for the "Fairness Doctrine" right away to kill talk radio as payback.
- The military will be disparaged again, as it was in the Clinton Administration, and drawn down drastically. We will be vunerable again.
- And here's one that no one is talking about yet - but will happen: Look immediately for a Congressional persecution of the Bush Administration. I'm talking war crimes trials or the like. It's going to get ugly.
I'm inclined to just shut up for the next eight years for my sanity. It's not going to make any difference to point out the obvious to a country that would elect a travesty like Barack Obama.
The Clinton years were a nightmare for me. Eight years of saying "Are you kidding me?" and "Can you not see how bad this guy is?". Apparently eight years of George W. Bush was a similar nightmare for some of you.Now we're switching again, and I'm headed for a long eight years of deep depression.
Let me just say that it's shameful that we, as a country, just chose an unqualified socialist racist over a war hero with long years of service to our country. It's Bob Dole and Bill Clinton all over again. I am legitimately ashamed of my country this morning. I'll get over it. What else am I going to do?
My bleak assessment for our immediate future?
- The Supreme Court is lost for a couple of decades. Obama will get to name at least two justices in his first term and the court will lurch back left. The 2nd Amendment gone. Abortion on demand all day long for any reason. Coddling terrorists and handcuffing our security agencies. Gone.
- It's katy-bar-the-door in Congress. Not only tax and spend. But liberal facism and intolerance writ large. Look for the "Fairness Doctrine" right away to kill talk radio as payback.
- The military will be disparaged again, as it was in the Clinton Administration, and drawn down drastically. We will be vunerable again.
- And here's one that no one is talking about yet - but will happen: Look immediately for a Congressional persecution of the Bush Administration. I'm talking war crimes trials or the like. It's going to get ugly.
I'm inclined to just shut up for the next eight years for my sanity. It's not going to make any difference to point out the obvious to a country that would elect a travesty like Barack Obama.
Monday, November 03, 2008
My Prediction for Election Day
I'm predicting a narrow McCain victory for tomorrow.
I don't think McCain has run a good campaign. I think he completely wasted Sarah Palin's skills by keeping her off of the Sunday shows. McCain doesn't particularly deserve to win.
The bottom line though: I just can't believe that America would elect a socialist radical like Obama for President. I just can't believe that it can happen.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
He is without doubt the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for President - even voting not to protect babies after they are mistakenly "born" in a botched abortion. How could you even think about voting for a man who would take this position? Really?
He wants to confiscate wealth. He wants to radically draw down the military and try for a nuclear freeze.
The list goes on and on. How is this guy even still in the running?
As I've said before, I'm walking into the voting booth and voting proudly for Sarah Palin. McCain's just lucky that he's on the same line as her.
WAKE UP AMERICA! Before it's too late.
I don't think McCain has run a good campaign. I think he completely wasted Sarah Palin's skills by keeping her off of the Sunday shows. McCain doesn't particularly deserve to win.
The bottom line though: I just can't believe that America would elect a socialist radical like Obama for President. I just can't believe that it can happen.
WAKE UP AMERICA!
He is without doubt the most pro-abortion candidate ever to run for President - even voting not to protect babies after they are mistakenly "born" in a botched abortion. How could you even think about voting for a man who would take this position? Really?
He wants to confiscate wealth. He wants to radically draw down the military and try for a nuclear freeze.
The list goes on and on. How is this guy even still in the running?
As I've said before, I'm walking into the voting booth and voting proudly for Sarah Palin. McCain's just lucky that he's on the same line as her.
WAKE UP AMERICA! Before it's too late.
Roll 'em Up!
I was listening to WLS radio out of Chicago tonight on my drive home from work.
They were commenting on the sheerly incredible logistics of the giant Obama election party in Grant Park in downtown Chicago. At least one million people headed downtown for a party. 200 port-a-potties. Their advice?:
"If you live in Chicago, begin panicing now!"
If McCain pulls out an upset tomorrow, it's going to get really ugly at that particular gathering. If Obama wins, it's going to look like a World Series riot.
Just stay inside everybody.
They were commenting on the sheerly incredible logistics of the giant Obama election party in Grant Park in downtown Chicago. At least one million people headed downtown for a party. 200 port-a-potties. Their advice?:
"If you live in Chicago, begin panicing now!"
If McCain pulls out an upset tomorrow, it's going to get really ugly at that particular gathering. If Obama wins, it's going to look like a World Series riot.
Just stay inside everybody.
An Apology, Rare on Partisan, to Sen. Obama
I hereby apologize to Sen. Obama.
I was saying a lot last week that I didn't believe that Senator Obama's trip to Hawaii was for the stated purpose of visiting a sick and dying grandmother. I believed that it was to talk with Hawii officials to have them lock up his fraudulent birth certificate until after the election at least.
His grandmother died today.
I was wrong.
He went for both reasons.
My condolences to the Obamas.
I was saying a lot last week that I didn't believe that Senator Obama's trip to Hawaii was for the stated purpose of visiting a sick and dying grandmother. I believed that it was to talk with Hawii officials to have them lock up his fraudulent birth certificate until after the election at least.
His grandmother died today.
I was wrong.
He went for both reasons.
My condolences to the Obamas.
Saturday, November 01, 2008
Brisk Business at the Death-Mart
I was doing some browsing at the local gun and military surplus store this week.
This place is an impressively masculine place, if you haven't been to one. Wall to wall machismo.
They have guns - hundreds of them. Pick your projectile dispenser: handguns, rifles of every imaginable caliber, shotguns for hunting or home defense, assault rifles of various national origin.
They have knives - cases of them. Pick your serrated edge.
They have camo - racks of them. All kinds of clothes to disappear in.
What they have most of this week are customers. No recession in there! They were doing a brisk business at the gun counter, let me tell you.
There were only two topics of conversation in the gun store:
1. The election. The general consensus of the Firearms Owner Identification Card-carrying crowd was that either
a. Obama was going to win and then ban guns (so you better get them now while you could) or
b. McCain was going to win and there would be riots in the streets from those angered by denying Obama the presidency - a 2nd American Revolution. Something that I have read a lot of lately on the far left websites that I frequent.
2. Firepower. What weapon or combination of weapons would intimidate an angry mob on your lawn. Okay, I'm exaggerating there - but not much.
By the way, my answer to the question would be some combination of a Chinese or Romanian assault weapon with a 30 round clip, a 9mm with multiple clips, a scoped rifle, and a shotgun. No particular reason I would choose that set.
Just browsing.
Go vote next week. And, please, let's all have a peaceful Nov. 5th whatever the outcome.
This place is an impressively masculine place, if you haven't been to one. Wall to wall machismo.
They have guns - hundreds of them. Pick your projectile dispenser: handguns, rifles of every imaginable caliber, shotguns for hunting or home defense, assault rifles of various national origin.
They have knives - cases of them. Pick your serrated edge.
They have camo - racks of them. All kinds of clothes to disappear in.
What they have most of this week are customers. No recession in there! They were doing a brisk business at the gun counter, let me tell you.
There were only two topics of conversation in the gun store:
1. The election. The general consensus of the Firearms Owner Identification Card-carrying crowd was that either
a. Obama was going to win and then ban guns (so you better get them now while you could) or
b. McCain was going to win and there would be riots in the streets from those angered by denying Obama the presidency - a 2nd American Revolution. Something that I have read a lot of lately on the far left websites that I frequent.
2. Firepower. What weapon or combination of weapons would intimidate an angry mob on your lawn. Okay, I'm exaggerating there - but not much.
By the way, my answer to the question would be some combination of a Chinese or Romanian assault weapon with a 30 round clip, a 9mm with multiple clips, a scoped rifle, and a shotgun. No particular reason I would choose that set.
Just browsing.
Go vote next week. And, please, let's all have a peaceful Nov. 5th whatever the outcome.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
The Year of Media Bias
Is there a liberal bias in the media?
If you have to ask that question in 2008, you are really not paying attention. Really. Because if you are paying attention, the degree that the media is either completely in the tank for one candidate (Yes, "the one"), or incompetent, or both is nauseatingly blatant.
If you only read the mainstream sources of media, then you probably have a hard time picking up on liberal bias when it's staring right at you. It's like the fish that doesn't know he's wet.
So, let me give you a little one-day-survey of just a few of the clear examples of media bias that I encountered in just one hour today:
1.Slanting the story:
Most often, it starts with the headline of a story - which sets your expectation of the article to come. An editor has a choice of words to describe a story and can set the tone. Let's look at this headline in my local newspaper tonight, picked up off of the AP wire by AP writer Glen Johnson:
"McCain returns to NH trying to stave off loss"
Really? That's what he's doing? Maybe, just maybe, he's trying to win!
It set a different tone if you are trying to "stave off loss" as opposed to trying to win. And if you just glance at the headline in passing, you get a negative vibe on McCain's chances. If you plunge into the article you will find out that McCain won New Hampshire in the primaries. Maybe he can win it in the general election. Maybe not. But I can assure you that he's there to win again.
To put it simply, the inherent liberal bias of the headline writer affects the reader's intake of that story.
2. Slanting the coverage:
The most common form of liberal bias is choosing what to cover, and - as Bernie Goldberg always says - more importantly in what they choose to not cover. In this election season, the massive liberal bias means that they are heavily covering any perceived mistakes by McCain/Palin, and ignoring the many mistakes of Obama/Biden.
Let's take this headline on Yahoo News on the internet today:
"Is Palin dragging down the ticket?"
Yeah, no bias in that headline.
The writer breathlessly covers the two reasons the Palin is a giant mistake:
1. Her supposed gaffes - like the Couric interview.
Are you kidding me? Are you following the major gaffes of Obama and Biden this week. (Of course you are not, because the MSM is not covering them!) Obama telling Joe the Plumber that he thinks we should "share the wealth around". Biden telling donors behind closed doors that he gaurantees that if we elect Obama that the world will test him in a major international crisis, a generated crisis, and that it might not be evident that Obama's response will be the right one. Yikes! Those two trump anything that Sarah Palin has ever said.
2. The major "scoop" that broke this week that the RNC spent $150,000 so far in hair and clothing expenses for Palin. This story was all over the MSM today. The radio reporter solemly intoned that "careful scrutiny of the Obama campaign's records reveal no similar expenditures.
Are you kidding me? This is a story?
No Obama isn't spending $150K on clothing. But he has spent $800,000 on voter fraud with the group Acorn - a group now under investigation for fraudulent registrations in 13 states. A group Obama used to work for and with.
$150k on clothing from Palin. $800k on voter fraud with Obama.
Which is the more important story? Which story got covered today?
3. The bias of partisan ignorance:
This, from nationally syndicated liberal columnist Cynthia Tucker - again in my local newspaper tonight:
Headline: "Acorn hubbub latest in GOP fearmongering"
"If Mikey Mouse shows up at the polls in a couple of weeks, John McCain might have cause for the alarm he showed over alleged boter fraud during Wednesday's debate"...
"But it's quite unlikely that Mickey or Minne or Goofy will be among the voters lined up on Nov. 4, so McCain's hysterical outburst over a group of activists....needs to be understood for what it is: a distraction. The Republican nominee is once again using fear as a tactic to try to win votes."
Passionately partisan. But dead wrong.
Here's what Ms. Tucker is missing in her liberally biased rant against the hysterical John McCain - the voters that ACORN helped to fraudently register do not have to show up at the polls on Nov 4 with ID for "Mickey Mouse". They have already voted!
What she neglects to mention is that the whole controversy in Ohio, for instance, is that Ohio allows same day registration and voting. What that means is that ACORN bused people around to different counties and registered them and had them vote numerous times, not matter what name they used. Those votes are separated from the registered voter when they are dumped in the box. They have voted, fraudently, and the votes are not retrievable! And they've done it on a massive scale on the order of 200,000 suspect votes in that state alone.
But, for pointing that out John McCain is hysterically fearmongering. No chance that the opposite is true in partisan Tucker's world, that Obama's team is rigging the election. Not a hint of that in her column.
My question: if I know about the same day voting problem, how is it that a nationally syndicated columnist doesn't know it's a problem? Biased incompetence would be the right answer.
Liberal bias in the media. It exists every year, every day.
But much, much, much more in this crazy election year of 2008.
The Year of Media Bias.
If you have to ask that question in 2008, you are really not paying attention. Really. Because if you are paying attention, the degree that the media is either completely in the tank for one candidate (Yes, "the one"), or incompetent, or both is nauseatingly blatant.
If you only read the mainstream sources of media, then you probably have a hard time picking up on liberal bias when it's staring right at you. It's like the fish that doesn't know he's wet.
So, let me give you a little one-day-survey of just a few of the clear examples of media bias that I encountered in just one hour today:
1.Slanting the story:
Most often, it starts with the headline of a story - which sets your expectation of the article to come. An editor has a choice of words to describe a story and can set the tone. Let's look at this headline in my local newspaper tonight, picked up off of the AP wire by AP writer Glen Johnson:
"McCain returns to NH trying to stave off loss"
Really? That's what he's doing? Maybe, just maybe, he's trying to win!
It set a different tone if you are trying to "stave off loss" as opposed to trying to win. And if you just glance at the headline in passing, you get a negative vibe on McCain's chances. If you plunge into the article you will find out that McCain won New Hampshire in the primaries. Maybe he can win it in the general election. Maybe not. But I can assure you that he's there to win again.
To put it simply, the inherent liberal bias of the headline writer affects the reader's intake of that story.
2. Slanting the coverage:
The most common form of liberal bias is choosing what to cover, and - as Bernie Goldberg always says - more importantly in what they choose to not cover. In this election season, the massive liberal bias means that they are heavily covering any perceived mistakes by McCain/Palin, and ignoring the many mistakes of Obama/Biden.
Let's take this headline on Yahoo News on the internet today:
"Is Palin dragging down the ticket?"
Yeah, no bias in that headline.
The writer breathlessly covers the two reasons the Palin is a giant mistake:
1. Her supposed gaffes - like the Couric interview.
Are you kidding me? Are you following the major gaffes of Obama and Biden this week. (Of course you are not, because the MSM is not covering them!) Obama telling Joe the Plumber that he thinks we should "share the wealth around". Biden telling donors behind closed doors that he gaurantees that if we elect Obama that the world will test him in a major international crisis, a generated crisis, and that it might not be evident that Obama's response will be the right one. Yikes! Those two trump anything that Sarah Palin has ever said.
2. The major "scoop" that broke this week that the RNC spent $150,000 so far in hair and clothing expenses for Palin. This story was all over the MSM today. The radio reporter solemly intoned that "careful scrutiny of the Obama campaign's records reveal no similar expenditures.
Are you kidding me? This is a story?
No Obama isn't spending $150K on clothing. But he has spent $800,000 on voter fraud with the group Acorn - a group now under investigation for fraudulent registrations in 13 states. A group Obama used to work for and with.
$150k on clothing from Palin. $800k on voter fraud with Obama.
Which is the more important story? Which story got covered today?
3. The bias of partisan ignorance:
This, from nationally syndicated liberal columnist Cynthia Tucker - again in my local newspaper tonight:
Headline: "Acorn hubbub latest in GOP fearmongering"
"If Mikey Mouse shows up at the polls in a couple of weeks, John McCain might have cause for the alarm he showed over alleged boter fraud during Wednesday's debate"...
"But it's quite unlikely that Mickey or Minne or Goofy will be among the voters lined up on Nov. 4, so McCain's hysterical outburst over a group of activists....needs to be understood for what it is: a distraction. The Republican nominee is once again using fear as a tactic to try to win votes."
Passionately partisan. But dead wrong.
Here's what Ms. Tucker is missing in her liberally biased rant against the hysterical John McCain - the voters that ACORN helped to fraudently register do not have to show up at the polls on Nov 4 with ID for "Mickey Mouse". They have already voted!
What she neglects to mention is that the whole controversy in Ohio, for instance, is that Ohio allows same day registration and voting. What that means is that ACORN bused people around to different counties and registered them and had them vote numerous times, not matter what name they used. Those votes are separated from the registered voter when they are dumped in the box. They have voted, fraudently, and the votes are not retrievable! And they've done it on a massive scale on the order of 200,000 suspect votes in that state alone.
But, for pointing that out John McCain is hysterically fearmongering. No chance that the opposite is true in partisan Tucker's world, that Obama's team is rigging the election. Not a hint of that in her column.
My question: if I know about the same day voting problem, how is it that a nationally syndicated columnist doesn't know it's a problem? Biased incompetence would be the right answer.
Liberal bias in the media. It exists every year, every day.
But much, much, much more in this crazy election year of 2008.
The Year of Media Bias.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Low Expectations for Debate III
Honestly, I couldn't have lower expectations for tonight's 3rd Presidential debate.
Moderator Bob Schiefer is not going to ask any interesting questions.
Barack Obama is sitting on a lead and will play it extremely safe.
The wildcard is McCain. Will he merely disappoint me, or will he - as is his habit - wildly infuriate me? Oh, the tension.....
McCain could take Obama to task on a multitude of fronts, as he should have been for months now.
He won't. It's not in him. He's too fond of Senatorial niceness.
McCain, my friends, will more likely celebrate his coziness with Democrats to celebrate his main sacrament - bipartisanship. Phooey!
He ran to be the nominee of a party. The Republican Party. A party is by it's nature partisan. BE A PARTISAN! Act like you want to be a Republican, for gosh sakes.
This is going to be depressing.
Moderator Bob Schiefer is not going to ask any interesting questions.
Barack Obama is sitting on a lead and will play it extremely safe.
The wildcard is McCain. Will he merely disappoint me, or will he - as is his habit - wildly infuriate me? Oh, the tension.....
McCain could take Obama to task on a multitude of fronts, as he should have been for months now.
He won't. It's not in him. He's too fond of Senatorial niceness.
McCain, my friends, will more likely celebrate his coziness with Democrats to celebrate his main sacrament - bipartisanship. Phooey!
He ran to be the nominee of a party. The Republican Party. A party is by it's nature partisan. BE A PARTISAN! Act like you want to be a Republican, for gosh sakes.
This is going to be depressing.
I'm ready for the October surprise
As wild as this whole presidential election ride has been for the past 20 months, I think there are plenty of surprises possible in the last 3 weeks.
October surprises that could help Obama:
- stock market completely tanks, public blames Bush
- Nancy Pelosi leads impeachment of Bush
- Dick Cheney has a heart attack
- Colin Powell endorses Obama
October surprises that help McCain
- terrorist attack anywhere in the U.S.
- Sarah Palin is allowed to be Sarah Palin
October surprises that hurt Obama:
- Obama is indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Rezko fraud case
- Rev. Wright's new book gets released (scheduled for October)
- Obama's birth certificate issue gets heard in court, and he is required to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate
- ACORN scandal blows wide with full scale investigation of nationwide massive voter fraud on behalf of Obama, with ties to obama
- papers get released wide on Obama's work with William Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - spending $100 million of "education reform" grants to fund radical groups like ACORN
- the famously rumored Michelle Obama video - that Hillary has been sitting on - get's released.
I'll take any and all of those last ones.
October surprises that could help Obama:
- stock market completely tanks, public blames Bush
- Nancy Pelosi leads impeachment of Bush
- Dick Cheney has a heart attack
- Colin Powell endorses Obama
October surprises that help McCain
- terrorist attack anywhere in the U.S.
- Sarah Palin is allowed to be Sarah Palin
October surprises that hurt Obama:
- Obama is indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Rezko fraud case
- Rev. Wright's new book gets released (scheduled for October)
- Obama's birth certificate issue gets heard in court, and he is required to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate
- ACORN scandal blows wide with full scale investigation of nationwide massive voter fraud on behalf of Obama, with ties to obama
- papers get released wide on Obama's work with William Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - spending $100 million of "education reform" grants to fund radical groups like ACORN
- the famously rumored Michelle Obama video - that Hillary has been sitting on - get's released.
I'll take any and all of those last ones.
I'm ready for the October surprise
As wild as this whole presidential election ride has been for the past 20 months, I think there are plenty of surprises possible in the last 3 weeks.
October surprises that could help Obama:
- stock market completely tanks, public blames Bush
- Nancy Pelosi leads impeachment of Bush
- Dick Cheney has a heart attack
- Colin Powell endorses Obama
October surprises that help McCain
- terrorist attack anywhere in the U.S.
- Sarah Palin is allowed to be Sarah Palin
October surprises that hurt Obama:
- Obama is indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Rezko fraud case
- Rev. Wright's new book gets released (scheduled for October)
- Obama's birth certificate issue gets heard in court, and he is required to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate
- ACORN scandal blows wide with full scale investigation of nationwide massive voter fraud on behalf of Obama, with ties to obama
- papers get released wide on Obama's work with William Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - spending $100 million of "education reform" grants to fund radical groups like ACORN
- the famously rumored Michelle Obama video - that Hillary has been sitting on - get's released.
I'll take any and all of those last ones.
October surprises that could help Obama:
- stock market completely tanks, public blames Bush
- Nancy Pelosi leads impeachment of Bush
- Dick Cheney has a heart attack
- Colin Powell endorses Obama
October surprises that help McCain
- terrorist attack anywhere in the U.S.
- Sarah Palin is allowed to be Sarah Palin
October surprises that hurt Obama:
- Obama is indicted by Patrick Fitzgerald in the Rezko fraud case
- Rev. Wright's new book gets released (scheduled for October)
- Obama's birth certificate issue gets heard in court, and he is required to produce a valid U.S. birth certificate
- ACORN scandal blows wide with full scale investigation of nationwide massive voter fraud on behalf of Obama, with ties to obama
- papers get released wide on Obama's work with William Ayers on the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - spending $100 million of "education reform" grants to fund radical groups like ACORN
- the famously rumored Michelle Obama video - that Hillary has been sitting on - get's released.
I'll take any and all of those last ones.
Sometimes it's just the "socialism"...
I'm always amazed at the ability of people to twist and distort an obvious fact in the political arena.
Rep. John Lewis gave us an excellent example this week, by comparing the McCain campaign with George Wallace (in other words, calling them racists) of Alabama for calling Barack Obama a socialist.
Now, I happen to be old enough to remember George Wallace. He was truly a racist. What does that have to do with McCain or with calling Obama a socialist. Well, Lewis - and the leftist journalists who pounced on the story - claimed that it's an old habit in the South call blacks socialists when they really mean race.
Really.
The problem is this, that when we call Obama a socialist - and I have - what we really mean is that he is a socialist. Specifically, that his main goal for public service has long been redistribution of income - the classic main tenet of socialism. He associates himself with people and groups that have as their goal the overthrow of American capitalism. That's what we mean by socialist.
You don't have to take my word for it. Take Obama's. When confronted by a serious challenger at a campaign stop this week who was taking Obama to task for his tax plans, Obama said that he just feels that "when you spread the wealth around" everyone is better off.
Where again does it say in the U.S. Constitution that one of the President's jobs is to "spread the wealth around"?
Oh, sort of like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Barack Hussein Marx.
Sometimes a "socialist" is just a socialist.
Rep. John Lewis gave us an excellent example this week, by comparing the McCain campaign with George Wallace (in other words, calling them racists) of Alabama for calling Barack Obama a socialist.
Now, I happen to be old enough to remember George Wallace. He was truly a racist. What does that have to do with McCain or with calling Obama a socialist. Well, Lewis - and the leftist journalists who pounced on the story - claimed that it's an old habit in the South call blacks socialists when they really mean race.
Really.
The problem is this, that when we call Obama a socialist - and I have - what we really mean is that he is a socialist. Specifically, that his main goal for public service has long been redistribution of income - the classic main tenet of socialism. He associates himself with people and groups that have as their goal the overthrow of American capitalism. That's what we mean by socialist.
You don't have to take my word for it. Take Obama's. When confronted by a serious challenger at a campaign stop this week who was taking Obama to task for his tax plans, Obama said that he just feels that "when you spread the wealth around" everyone is better off.
Where again does it say in the U.S. Constitution that one of the President's jobs is to "spread the wealth around"?
Oh, sort of like "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Barack Hussein Marx.
Sometimes a "socialist" is just a socialist.
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Obama & Ayers: Why it Matters
So where does the truth lie in the re-emergence of the story of Barack Obama and his relationship with William Ayers?
Is it, as Obama and his enablers in the media say, that it's irrelevant guilt by association?
- That what Ayers did in bombing federal targets in the 60's in the Weatherman when Obama was 8 has nothing to do with Obama.
- That Obama barely knows Ayers, "just a guy that lives in his neighborhood"
- that serving on two charitable boards together means nothing as far as Obama's judgement
Or is it, as conservatives like me and Sarah Palin argue, entirely relevant to Obama's qualification to be President?
- that Obama and Ayers have deep connections, going back to time together at Columbia
- that they share a socialist agenda for overthrowing capitalism, which they actively worked together to bring about.
Clearly, it's the second one.
Here are the only two things you need to know about William Ayers' relationship to Barack Obama:
1. William Ayers never stopped attacking America!
- not only as the cofounder of the radical anti-war bomber during the 60's, bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol and killing federal officials.
- since then. Not only as an unrepentant bomber, who regrets that they hadn't "done more". As a devotee of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which taught Democratic radicals to pursue their agenda of revolution and socialism from inside the system. To get elected or in power and use the mainstream infrastructures to bring down the American system of capitalism and usher in marxist socialism in America. (No, I am not making this up. If you don't know who Saul Alinsky is, you don't know enough to vote for Barack Obama. Simple as that.)
- William Ayers pursues his attack on America now as an "education reformer". Simply put, he's not interested in teaching your kids math or english. He's teaching them radical revolutionary socialism. Teaching a whole generation of kids to loath capitalism and to foment revolution.
2. William Ayers chose Barack Obama to help him undermine American education!
- Ayers created the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He sought and won $50 million in funds from the Annenberg charitable trust, and matched it with $50 million in local funding.
- Ayers chose Obama as the first chairman of the board that distributed that money. In fact, Obama was so proud of this position that he claimed it as his best executive experience qualification when he ran for Illinois Senate.
- Obama, under Ayers's close guidance, distributed the $100 million not to schools, but to external left-wing radical organizations. Groups like ACORN that commit voter fraud. Groups that teach revolutionary socialism. Groups that I would certainly not grant money to if my goal was to improve education.
Two Questions that Settle this issue:
1. If you created an organization to hand out $100 million dollars on behalf of a cause that you cared deeply about, would you select someone you barely knew as the first chairman of the board? Or would you choose a fellow traveler, who you knew very well and were certain that he shared your radical views?
2. Is education in Chicago improved after Ayers and Obama collaborated to spend $100 million "reforming" education in Chicago? Would you enroll your child in the Chicago School District?
Bottom line:
- Ayers and Obama know each other very very well, despite Obama's persistence to deny that he knows Ayers. And despite the media covering for him.
- Ayers and Obama are fellow travelers with a radical revolutionary vision of bringing down capitalism in America and replacing it with a marxist socialist system.
It matters, very much.
Is it, as Obama and his enablers in the media say, that it's irrelevant guilt by association?
- That what Ayers did in bombing federal targets in the 60's in the Weatherman when Obama was 8 has nothing to do with Obama.
- That Obama barely knows Ayers, "just a guy that lives in his neighborhood"
- that serving on two charitable boards together means nothing as far as Obama's judgement
Or is it, as conservatives like me and Sarah Palin argue, entirely relevant to Obama's qualification to be President?
- that Obama and Ayers have deep connections, going back to time together at Columbia
- that they share a socialist agenda for overthrowing capitalism, which they actively worked together to bring about.
Clearly, it's the second one.
Here are the only two things you need to know about William Ayers' relationship to Barack Obama:
1. William Ayers never stopped attacking America!
- not only as the cofounder of the radical anti-war bomber during the 60's, bombing the Pentagon and the Capitol and killing federal officials.
- since then. Not only as an unrepentant bomber, who regrets that they hadn't "done more". As a devotee of Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" which taught Democratic radicals to pursue their agenda of revolution and socialism from inside the system. To get elected or in power and use the mainstream infrastructures to bring down the American system of capitalism and usher in marxist socialism in America. (No, I am not making this up. If you don't know who Saul Alinsky is, you don't know enough to vote for Barack Obama. Simple as that.)
- William Ayers pursues his attack on America now as an "education reformer". Simply put, he's not interested in teaching your kids math or english. He's teaching them radical revolutionary socialism. Teaching a whole generation of kids to loath capitalism and to foment revolution.
2. William Ayers chose Barack Obama to help him undermine American education!
- Ayers created the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. He sought and won $50 million in funds from the Annenberg charitable trust, and matched it with $50 million in local funding.
- Ayers chose Obama as the first chairman of the board that distributed that money. In fact, Obama was so proud of this position that he claimed it as his best executive experience qualification when he ran for Illinois Senate.
- Obama, under Ayers's close guidance, distributed the $100 million not to schools, but to external left-wing radical organizations. Groups like ACORN that commit voter fraud. Groups that teach revolutionary socialism. Groups that I would certainly not grant money to if my goal was to improve education.
Two Questions that Settle this issue:
1. If you created an organization to hand out $100 million dollars on behalf of a cause that you cared deeply about, would you select someone you barely knew as the first chairman of the board? Or would you choose a fellow traveler, who you knew very well and were certain that he shared your radical views?
2. Is education in Chicago improved after Ayers and Obama collaborated to spend $100 million "reforming" education in Chicago? Would you enroll your child in the Chicago School District?
Bottom line:
- Ayers and Obama know each other very very well, despite Obama's persistence to deny that he knows Ayers. And despite the media covering for him.
- Ayers and Obama are fellow travelers with a radical revolutionary vision of bringing down capitalism in America and replacing it with a marxist socialist system.
It matters, very much.
Wednesday, October 08, 2008
Can I Vote Palin and not McCain?
I watched the snore-fest called a debate last night between John McCain and Barack Obama. Some thoughts:
1. Two words: President Obama.
2. I've seen this debate before: Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton in 1996, and we all know how that turned out. I was waiting for McCain to say, as Dole did, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!"
3. Does John McCain want to win this thing? Or is he in the tank for Obama. If he wants to win, he needs to drop the courteous Senator thing and get angry and passionate. This "it's everybody's fault" and "I'm so bipartisan that I work work well with every liberal Senator in the book" stick is sickening.
I know officially consider it hopeless, barring some jarring national event. Like, for example, the press suddenly paying attention to Barack Obama's overwhelming negatives. Unfotunately, I think that Obama would actually have to get caught in a polling place in an ACORN t-shirt registering dead people to vote for that to happen.
Oh well. We had a brief shining moment with Sarah.
1. Two words: President Obama.
2. I've seen this debate before: Bob Dole vs. Bill Clinton in 1996, and we all know how that turned out. I was waiting for McCain to say, as Dole did, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy!"
3. Does John McCain want to win this thing? Or is he in the tank for Obama. If he wants to win, he needs to drop the courteous Senator thing and get angry and passionate. This "it's everybody's fault" and "I'm so bipartisan that I work work well with every liberal Senator in the book" stick is sickening.
I know officially consider it hopeless, barring some jarring national event. Like, for example, the press suddenly paying attention to Barack Obama's overwhelming negatives. Unfotunately, I think that Obama would actually have to get caught in a polling place in an ACORN t-shirt registering dead people to vote for that to happen.
Oh well. We had a brief shining moment with Sarah.
Thursday, October 02, 2008
Sarah's Big Night
I have no doubt that Sarah Palin is going to do just fine tonight in the Vice Presidential debate.
Especially is she is just herself and does not toe the wimpy McCain line.
Let Sarah be Sarah!
Her main message tonight has to be: Washington caused this economic mess with meddling in the markets. I'm not part of Washington.
Nail that and she wins.
I'm popping a big bowl of popcorn early for this one.
I'm ready to heckle Gwen "in the tank for Obama" Ifill. Bring it on.
Especially is she is just herself and does not toe the wimpy McCain line.
Let Sarah be Sarah!
Her main message tonight has to be: Washington caused this economic mess with meddling in the markets. I'm not part of Washington.
Nail that and she wins.
I'm popping a big bowl of popcorn early for this one.
I'm ready to heckle Gwen "in the tank for Obama" Ifill. Bring it on.
the Weasels vote Aye!
So, the U.S. Senate passed the Lurching-into-Socialism emergency bailout bill last night. Yipee.
Here's why many Americans hate Congress: instead of passing this toxic bill straight-up, because it's an emergency and we need to save the country, they had to first add 300 PAGES of tax giveaways. Why? Because they know this bill had to pass and so they sneaked in all of the goodies and earmarks. Nice.
Weasels.
So, where was President-wannabe John "I'll veto any earmarks and make the authors famous" McCain? Quitely voting Aye with the rest of the weasels.
Quick, someone remind me: What good is John McCain as the Republican standard-bearer again?
I despise U.S. Senators. How did we end up with 3 of them on the tickets?
We're screwed.
Here's why many Americans hate Congress: instead of passing this toxic bill straight-up, because it's an emergency and we need to save the country, they had to first add 300 PAGES of tax giveaways. Why? Because they know this bill had to pass and so they sneaked in all of the goodies and earmarks. Nice.
Weasels.
So, where was President-wannabe John "I'll veto any earmarks and make the authors famous" McCain? Quitely voting Aye with the rest of the weasels.
Quick, someone remind me: What good is John McCain as the Republican standard-bearer again?
I despise U.S. Senators. How did we end up with 3 of them on the tickets?
We're screwed.
Monday, September 29, 2008
Palin should distance herself - from McCain
John McCain's team will ruin Sarah Palin. I have no doubt.
I also have no doubt that Palin would not be supporting this massive socialism-tinged bailout bill if she was not having to parrot John McCain.
McCain is not a conservative. Said it many times. What he cares most about is bi-partisanship, which generally means Republicans selling out to appease Democrats. So, he's supporting this atrocious bailout to be bi-partisan, and dragging Sarah Palin down with him.
McCain could seize the moment of the bailout's historic failure in Congress today. He could champion real reform.
- repeal the Community Reinvestment Act as part of the bailout. It caused the subprime mortgage market, and the resulting implosion of the housing market.
- fix the flawed accounting rules and repeal Sarbanes-Oxley
- demand resignations of those who caused the crisis. Paulson, Dodd, Barney Frank. Pelosi, while you're at it.
But, he won't. He'll get in front of a microphone and blame House Republicans, because that's what he does. He wants the media to love him and that's how they'll love him. Guaranteed that's what he'll do - by tonight. Count on it.
And, he'll drag Sarah Palin down with him.
Sarah should rock everyone during the debate this week and oppose the bailout. Support a work-out. Demand reforms. That would shake things up.
Sarah Palin for President. Heck with McCain.
I also have no doubt that Palin would not be supporting this massive socialism-tinged bailout bill if she was not having to parrot John McCain.
McCain is not a conservative. Said it many times. What he cares most about is bi-partisanship, which generally means Republicans selling out to appease Democrats. So, he's supporting this atrocious bailout to be bi-partisan, and dragging Sarah Palin down with him.
McCain could seize the moment of the bailout's historic failure in Congress today. He could champion real reform.
- repeal the Community Reinvestment Act as part of the bailout. It caused the subprime mortgage market, and the resulting implosion of the housing market.
- fix the flawed accounting rules and repeal Sarbanes-Oxley
- demand resignations of those who caused the crisis. Paulson, Dodd, Barney Frank. Pelosi, while you're at it.
But, he won't. He'll get in front of a microphone and blame House Republicans, because that's what he does. He wants the media to love him and that's how they'll love him. Guaranteed that's what he'll do - by tonight. Count on it.
And, he'll drag Sarah Palin down with him.
Sarah should rock everyone during the debate this week and oppose the bailout. Support a work-out. Demand reforms. That would shake things up.
Sarah Palin for President. Heck with McCain.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
My Take on the Bailout, A.K.A. Our Impending Socialism
1. I couldn't disagree more with the "bipartisan" congressmen and pundits who keep saying that we shouldn't be talking about who is at fault for this economic meltdown, but should just proceed with the $700 Billion Dollar Bailout. If you don't correctly identify the cause, how can you be sure that you are not feeding $700 Billion Dollars right into the same mechanism?
2. Make no mistake about it, the Democrats own the failure of Wall Street. If you pay any attention to this beyond what the media elites are feeding you, this is abundantly clear. Four specific reasons:
a. The "Community Reinvestment Act", brought into law by the Clinton administration. Forced banks to make more loans to low-income people, principally by abandoning credit analysis. This created the "sub-prime" mortgage industry which eventually imploded and caused this mess.
**Note: I saw a Vice President of Fox Business Channel on the premier of "Huckabee" this weekend. She just the day before "googled" the CRA and found out, "Oh my God", how directly involved this act was in the mess. Question: how did she get to be VP of a business channel and she's just finding out what I - a regular joe blogging in my pajamas - have known for weeks? Really. The ignorance of the people you are seeing in the media is staggering.
b. Wall Street and the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are run by Democrats. The CEO's and prinicpal players - all multi millionaires - are all Democrats. They vote donkey. They contribute heavily to Obama. They are former Clinton administration officials (like Jamie Gorelick, who was also the villian in 9/11 by authoring the intelligence "wall" while at Justice.)
c. Democrat officeholders, like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, have not only pushed the whole sub-prime market on America but have also benefitted greatly from the political payback contributions of the Wall Street greedheads who were making millions before the implosions.
d. Democrats opposed all Republican efforts to reform the system and clamp down on the subprime market. The Bush administration tried in 2003 to reign in the market, and were stopped by Democrats. John McCain sponsored legislation in 2005 to regulate this out-of-control market, and was stopped in a party-line vote by Democrats. Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and could have gone after this before the implosion. They own the responsibility.
3. The price of a vote for a bailout by Congress should be a series of public resignations:
a. Treasury Secretary Paulson first of all. This meltdown happened on his watch. He should not be the architect of the rescue. He should be the first resignation.
b. Chairmen of Congressional banking committees. That would be Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and probably others. Resign now.
c. The Republican chairmen of those same committees before 2006. If they are still in Congress, they should resign now.
d. Every Congressman who voted in committee in 2005 to stop the McCain sponsored regulation of the banking industry. Resign tomorrow.
That's what would really restore the confidence and support of a very angry America. Resignations on a mass scale.
4. Stop ACORN! One of the upsides of capturing voter's attention during this crisis should be the exposure of the corrosive effect on our politics brought by the group called ACORN. The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. Yes, community organizers, like Barack Obama who was a member and activist. This is a thoroughly disreputable leftist group that has been regualarly involved in voter fraud. They are a reliable source of campaign workers for leftist Democrats. (sorry, I'm being redundant there.) ACORN follow the tenets of the founder of the community organizer movement, Saul Alinsky - who wrote "Rules for Radicals". Those tenets include achieving "change" - by which he means massive income redistribution and the replacement of capitalism by socialism. Yes, that "change" which is currently being promulgated as the theme of one of Alinsky's disciples - Barack Obama.
Here's an excellent recap on Michelle Malkin's website on ACORN.
Why should this crisis bring focus on the scurrilous group ACORN? Because the Democrats in Congress were trying to insert a provision in the bailout that 20% of any recovered funds coming back to the government would go to leftist voter fraud groups including ACORN. We have to scrutinize the final bill to ensure that the provision was stripped out.
Finally, if you haven't watched it yet, you owe it to yourself to spend 10 minutes on YouTube and watch the video called "Burning Down the House, What Caused Our Economic Crisis". If you haven't watched it yet, then you don't know enough about the crisis to have an opinion. Seriously.
2. Make no mistake about it, the Democrats own the failure of Wall Street. If you pay any attention to this beyond what the media elites are feeding you, this is abundantly clear. Four specific reasons:
a. The "Community Reinvestment Act", brought into law by the Clinton administration. Forced banks to make more loans to low-income people, principally by abandoning credit analysis. This created the "sub-prime" mortgage industry which eventually imploded and caused this mess.
**Note: I saw a Vice President of Fox Business Channel on the premier of "Huckabee" this weekend. She just the day before "googled" the CRA and found out, "Oh my God", how directly involved this act was in the mess. Question: how did she get to be VP of a business channel and she's just finding out what I - a regular joe blogging in my pajamas - have known for weeks? Really. The ignorance of the people you are seeing in the media is staggering.
b. Wall Street and the GSE's (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) are run by Democrats. The CEO's and prinicpal players - all multi millionaires - are all Democrats. They vote donkey. They contribute heavily to Obama. They are former Clinton administration officials (like Jamie Gorelick, who was also the villian in 9/11 by authoring the intelligence "wall" while at Justice.)
c. Democrat officeholders, like Chris Dodd and Barney Frank, have not only pushed the whole sub-prime market on America but have also benefitted greatly from the political payback contributions of the Wall Street greedheads who were making millions before the implosions.
d. Democrats opposed all Republican efforts to reform the system and clamp down on the subprime market. The Bush administration tried in 2003 to reign in the market, and were stopped by Democrats. John McCain sponsored legislation in 2005 to regulate this out-of-control market, and was stopped in a party-line vote by Democrats. Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006 and could have gone after this before the implosion. They own the responsibility.
3. The price of a vote for a bailout by Congress should be a series of public resignations:
a. Treasury Secretary Paulson first of all. This meltdown happened on his watch. He should not be the architect of the rescue. He should be the first resignation.
b. Chairmen of Congressional banking committees. That would be Barney Frank and Chris Dodd, and probably others. Resign now.
c. The Republican chairmen of those same committees before 2006. If they are still in Congress, they should resign now.
d. Every Congressman who voted in committee in 2005 to stop the McCain sponsored regulation of the banking industry. Resign tomorrow.
That's what would really restore the confidence and support of a very angry America. Resignations on a mass scale.
4. Stop ACORN! One of the upsides of capturing voter's attention during this crisis should be the exposure of the corrosive effect on our politics brought by the group called ACORN. The Association of Community Organizers for Reform Now. Yes, community organizers, like Barack Obama who was a member and activist. This is a thoroughly disreputable leftist group that has been regualarly involved in voter fraud. They are a reliable source of campaign workers for leftist Democrats. (sorry, I'm being redundant there.) ACORN follow the tenets of the founder of the community organizer movement, Saul Alinsky - who wrote "Rules for Radicals". Those tenets include achieving "change" - by which he means massive income redistribution and the replacement of capitalism by socialism. Yes, that "change" which is currently being promulgated as the theme of one of Alinsky's disciples - Barack Obama.
Here's an excellent recap on Michelle Malkin's website on ACORN.
Why should this crisis bring focus on the scurrilous group ACORN? Because the Democrats in Congress were trying to insert a provision in the bailout that 20% of any recovered funds coming back to the government would go to leftist voter fraud groups including ACORN. We have to scrutinize the final bill to ensure that the provision was stripped out.
Finally, if you haven't watched it yet, you owe it to yourself to spend 10 minutes on YouTube and watch the video called "Burning Down the House, What Caused Our Economic Crisis". If you haven't watched it yet, then you don't know enough about the crisis to have an opinion. Seriously.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Let Sarah be Sarah
The euphoria of John McCain naming Sarah Palin as his Vice President nominee is wearing off, and reality is setting in for me.
Yes, it was the right choice. Brilliant, in fact. Yes, she's qualified. Yes, she's awesome.
But.........two things threaten to take her down:
1. The media hates her. Absolutely. She is a threat to them, not only because they were caught off guard having no idea who she was, but because they are mostly elitist liberals and she is a confident conservative woman. By having her Down's Syndrome son, instead of aborting him, she is a direct threat to the sacrament of abortion - which is the most sacred dogma of today's Democrat party. So, they must take her down.
You need evidence of that? After Charlie Gibson's sneering condescending look-down-my-glasses-at-the-white-trash interview? How about perky Katie Couric editing an interview with Palin intentionally to make her look bad? Nothing new at CBS, I can assure you. (Dan Rather, pick up the white phone - oh, wait, where is Dan Rather the forger now?)
The media is out to get her. That's a given.
But the bigger threat to Sarah is John McCain's campaign staff. They have no idea what principles animate Sarah Palin. She's a conservative, and they assuredly are not! They see her massive appeal to America, but have no idea why.
So, what McCain's staff is stupidly doing is squashing her. Keeping her away from reporters. Forcing her into McCain's anti-conservative principles - which are primarly kiss-butt liberal positions to get the media's adoration.
Let Sarah be Sarah!
McCain's team can't hold her down forever. She will shine. And the debate is the place to do it.
Sarah should kick out her debate prep team and be herself!
Yes, it was the right choice. Brilliant, in fact. Yes, she's qualified. Yes, she's awesome.
But.........two things threaten to take her down:
1. The media hates her. Absolutely. She is a threat to them, not only because they were caught off guard having no idea who she was, but because they are mostly elitist liberals and she is a confident conservative woman. By having her Down's Syndrome son, instead of aborting him, she is a direct threat to the sacrament of abortion - which is the most sacred dogma of today's Democrat party. So, they must take her down.
You need evidence of that? After Charlie Gibson's sneering condescending look-down-my-glasses-at-the-white-trash interview? How about perky Katie Couric editing an interview with Palin intentionally to make her look bad? Nothing new at CBS, I can assure you. (Dan Rather, pick up the white phone - oh, wait, where is Dan Rather the forger now?)
The media is out to get her. That's a given.
But the bigger threat to Sarah is John McCain's campaign staff. They have no idea what principles animate Sarah Palin. She's a conservative, and they assuredly are not! They see her massive appeal to America, but have no idea why.
So, what McCain's staff is stupidly doing is squashing her. Keeping her away from reporters. Forcing her into McCain's anti-conservative principles - which are primarly kiss-butt liberal positions to get the media's adoration.
Let Sarah be Sarah!
McCain's team can't hold her down forever. She will shine. And the debate is the place to do it.
Sarah should kick out her debate prep team and be herself!
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Socialism Rising
Did I suddenly wake up in a socialist country this morning? Did we vote on that while we were sleeping?
I've been worried for a while now about socialism lurking in the background, waiting to wreak itself on our country if the unimaginable happens and Barack Obama is elected. How could it not? Barack Obama has been steeped in Marxist associates and mentors since back in high school. Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, et al. Even his most influential mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who built his church on the foundation of the thoroughly Marxist Black Liberation Theology. Obama, the single most liberal Senator in office, is steeped in Marxism and Socialism.
I was going to give him until March or so before we went full tilt into Marxist legislation.
Don't I feel silly. I was way to optimistic to believe we had until March.
It turns out President Bush is in a race to beat him to it.
Way too few people understand that the Federal Government pumping untold billions into "bailouts" to private companies like the Wall Street banks - in exchange for equity positions in those companies - is socialism. What else would you call government ownership of business?
OPPOSE THE BAILOUT!!!
Newt Gingrich went on record today predicting that anyone who votes for the bailout this week will be defeated in November. If we had any sense, he would be right.
It shouldn't wait until November. There should be firings right now. Cabinet members who had responsibility to keep our economy from melting down, and have failed extravagantly to do so, should be fired immediately. Paulson. Bernake. And their important deputies. President Bush needs to do that tomorrow. To not do so is gross negligence.
Democratic Congressional leadership, who caused this crisis with government intrusion into the capital markets to require these banks to make loans "more acessible" and caused the sub-prime meltdown, should resign tomorrow. That would be Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and everyone who championed the Community Reinvestment Act. To not do so is gross negligence.
I'm not enthralled with government at the moment. Nor, do I want to hand them $700 billion dollars in the hope that they will fix the mess that they caused.
What a mess.
I've been worried for a while now about socialism lurking in the background, waiting to wreak itself on our country if the unimaginable happens and Barack Obama is elected. How could it not? Barack Obama has been steeped in Marxist associates and mentors since back in high school. Frank Marshall Davis, Saul Alinsky, William Ayers, et al. Even his most influential mentor, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who built his church on the foundation of the thoroughly Marxist Black Liberation Theology. Obama, the single most liberal Senator in office, is steeped in Marxism and Socialism.
I was going to give him until March or so before we went full tilt into Marxist legislation.
Don't I feel silly. I was way to optimistic to believe we had until March.
It turns out President Bush is in a race to beat him to it.
Way too few people understand that the Federal Government pumping untold billions into "bailouts" to private companies like the Wall Street banks - in exchange for equity positions in those companies - is socialism. What else would you call government ownership of business?
OPPOSE THE BAILOUT!!!
Newt Gingrich went on record today predicting that anyone who votes for the bailout this week will be defeated in November. If we had any sense, he would be right.
It shouldn't wait until November. There should be firings right now. Cabinet members who had responsibility to keep our economy from melting down, and have failed extravagantly to do so, should be fired immediately. Paulson. Bernake. And their important deputies. President Bush needs to do that tomorrow. To not do so is gross negligence.
Democratic Congressional leadership, who caused this crisis with government intrusion into the capital markets to require these banks to make loans "more acessible" and caused the sub-prime meltdown, should resign tomorrow. That would be Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and everyone who championed the Community Reinvestment Act. To not do so is gross negligence.
I'm not enthralled with government at the moment. Nor, do I want to hand them $700 billion dollars in the hope that they will fix the mess that they caused.
What a mess.
Monday, September 01, 2008
Media Clueless about the Awesome Sarah Palin
I have to admit, I am laughing myself silly at the incredible cluelessness of the mainstream media journalists (so called) and pundits on the topic of Sarah Palin. Really, how did these people get their jobs?
Here are the two most glaring areas in which they are demonstrating less-than-competence:
1. Who is Sarah Palin?
Almost the entire media herd completely missed Sarah as a possible running mate selection for John McCain. All of them, completely caught off guard and dumbfounded.
I called it. Little old me, a private citizen at home blogging in my pajamas. Astute readers will scroll down to my July 4th post this year and read where I urged John McCain to fly to Alaska to research the question of drilling for oil, and while he's at it to name Sarah Palin as his VP. Me, two months ago. I knew who she was and how powerful her nomination would be. Why didn't the network news divisions know this? Really.
2. McCain did it to woo Hillary voters:
All of the commentary that I watched and read this weekend focused on that reason for Palin's selection - blatant pandering to win the mad Hillary voters.
Wrong. Really, how do these people get on television.
The main reason for McCain to choose Sarah Palin was to fix McCain's main problem: securing his base and getting them out to vote for him.
You can't win without your base, and McCain's base was in trouble. Just ask me, I'm the base and I don't like John McCain. Do you know how many conservative Republicans were telling themselves "okay, Ill vote for him but I have to get drunk to do it"? Lots, that's how many.
McCain needs his base. Not only did he not have the base secured, but he was in danger of further aggravating his base with his VP pick. Lieberman, who he wanted to pick, would have caused an outright revolt at the convention. All of the other picks would have divided the base to some degree - Romney, Ridge, etc. Pawlenty was safe, but would excite no one.
There was one candidate, admittedly out on the margin of public awareness, who the base was chattering about - Sarah Palin.
Here's the bottom line: the announcement of Sarah Palin ELECTRIFIED the base, and NO ONE thought that John McCain could even hold the base this year let alone thrill the base. He did it with this pick and now he has the base solidly locked in and eager to work for his election. That's what the choice of Sarah Palin was all about.
Wooing mad Hillary voters is just a bonus.
Okay, all of you mainstream media slackers: you are welcome for the lesson. Now, don't let this happen again.
Here are the two most glaring areas in which they are demonstrating less-than-competence:
1. Who is Sarah Palin?
Almost the entire media herd completely missed Sarah as a possible running mate selection for John McCain. All of them, completely caught off guard and dumbfounded.
I called it. Little old me, a private citizen at home blogging in my pajamas. Astute readers will scroll down to my July 4th post this year and read where I urged John McCain to fly to Alaska to research the question of drilling for oil, and while he's at it to name Sarah Palin as his VP. Me, two months ago. I knew who she was and how powerful her nomination would be. Why didn't the network news divisions know this? Really.
2. McCain did it to woo Hillary voters:
All of the commentary that I watched and read this weekend focused on that reason for Palin's selection - blatant pandering to win the mad Hillary voters.
Wrong. Really, how do these people get on television.
The main reason for McCain to choose Sarah Palin was to fix McCain's main problem: securing his base and getting them out to vote for him.
You can't win without your base, and McCain's base was in trouble. Just ask me, I'm the base and I don't like John McCain. Do you know how many conservative Republicans were telling themselves "okay, Ill vote for him but I have to get drunk to do it"? Lots, that's how many.
McCain needs his base. Not only did he not have the base secured, but he was in danger of further aggravating his base with his VP pick. Lieberman, who he wanted to pick, would have caused an outright revolt at the convention. All of the other picks would have divided the base to some degree - Romney, Ridge, etc. Pawlenty was safe, but would excite no one.
There was one candidate, admittedly out on the margin of public awareness, who the base was chattering about - Sarah Palin.
Here's the bottom line: the announcement of Sarah Palin ELECTRIFIED the base, and NO ONE thought that John McCain could even hold the base this year let alone thrill the base. He did it with this pick and now he has the base solidly locked in and eager to work for his election. That's what the choice of Sarah Palin was all about.
Wooing mad Hillary voters is just a bonus.
Okay, all of you mainstream media slackers: you are welcome for the lesson. Now, don't let this happen again.
Friday, August 29, 2008
Sarah Palin for VP! Checkmate!
My apologies to John McCain for my last post. He got it right!
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was my first choice of all of the short and long lists. It's an inspired pick and I give John McCain enormous credit for making it.
Barack Obama last night: great speech - Check.
John McCain today: inspired choice - Checkmate!
Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska was my first choice of all of the short and long lists. It's an inspired pick and I give John McCain enormous credit for making it.
Barack Obama last night: great speech - Check.
John McCain today: inspired choice - Checkmate!
Thursday, August 28, 2008
Will McCain make a stupid VP pick?
I never underestimate the ability of John McCain to do something stupid. In fact, he revels in being the "maverick" and going against the Republican base.
He needs the base in this election to beat Barack Obama.
That does not mean that he will make a smart selection tomorrow as he announces his pick. I'm steeling myself for him to make a stupid pick.
Picking a pro-choice politician would, for example, be a stupid pick. The abortion question is one that many people in our party care about, and it's an issue where he has Democrats on the ropes.
Obama stuck his foot in his mouth at Saddleback where he declared the issue of when life begins to be "above my pay grade". Really? The most serious social issue of our generation is above your pay grade? Who's pay grade is higher than the office you seek?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi added fuel to the fire when she said on Meet the Press that it's not a settled question in her Catholic faith. Really? Several bishops are stepping up to do a smack-down on madam Pelosi, and it's getting a lot of press play.
So, John McCain has an important issue where he has an advantage and a clear difference with all of the highly-visible Democrats. There is only one way to screw that up and take it off of the table - name a pro-choice running mate.
Which means, of course, that is exactly what he will do.
I'm already steeling myself to say to myself tomorrow "Oh no, he didn't....."
Please let me be wrong.
Friday morning update: Please let it be Sarah Palin! Fingers crossed.....
He needs the base in this election to beat Barack Obama.
That does not mean that he will make a smart selection tomorrow as he announces his pick. I'm steeling myself for him to make a stupid pick.
Picking a pro-choice politician would, for example, be a stupid pick. The abortion question is one that many people in our party care about, and it's an issue where he has Democrats on the ropes.
Obama stuck his foot in his mouth at Saddleback where he declared the issue of when life begins to be "above my pay grade". Really? The most serious social issue of our generation is above your pay grade? Who's pay grade is higher than the office you seek?
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi added fuel to the fire when she said on Meet the Press that it's not a settled question in her Catholic faith. Really? Several bishops are stepping up to do a smack-down on madam Pelosi, and it's getting a lot of press play.
So, John McCain has an important issue where he has an advantage and a clear difference with all of the highly-visible Democrats. There is only one way to screw that up and take it off of the table - name a pro-choice running mate.
Which means, of course, that is exactly what he will do.
I'm already steeling myself to say to myself tomorrow "Oh no, he didn't....."
Please let me be wrong.
Friday morning update: Please let it be Sarah Palin! Fingers crossed.....
Democrats Intsitutionalize the Big Lie
Really, Democrats have been propagating many big lies over the last few years in their desperation to win back power. I could give so many examples: "Bush lied, kids died". Bush was responsible for Katrina. The U.S. military has murdered millions in an illegal war in Iraq. It goes on and on.
Now they've gone for broke in the Democratic National Convention. The new big lie is this:
"The Bush-McCain administration"
Almost every speaker at the convention seems required to utter this phrase.
It's a lie. It's a palpable lie. The last 8 years were the Bush-Cheney adminstration. Bush was President. Cheney was Vice-President. McCain was outside the administration as a Senator, and one who was a frequent critic of Bush-Cheney. That's a simple fact.
I understand that it's a political strategy to tie McCain, their opponent, to Bush, an unpopular war-President. I understand completely. It's a smart tactic. I don't begrudge them using it.
There are even acceptable ways to do it. I like Hillary Clinton's take on it in her speech at the convention, when she joked that she understands why the Republicans are meeting in the "Twin Cities, because it's so hard to tell them apart. Very funny. An acceptable partisan take on their opponents. Point scored.
On the other hand, it took Joe Biden exactly one speech, in Springfield Illinois when he was named as the VP pick, to begin using the "Bush-McCain administration" line.
I don't object to the tactic. I object to the lie. It's a big lie. In public. Stop it.
Now they've gone for broke in the Democratic National Convention. The new big lie is this:
"The Bush-McCain administration"
Almost every speaker at the convention seems required to utter this phrase.
It's a lie. It's a palpable lie. The last 8 years were the Bush-Cheney adminstration. Bush was President. Cheney was Vice-President. McCain was outside the administration as a Senator, and one who was a frequent critic of Bush-Cheney. That's a simple fact.
I understand that it's a political strategy to tie McCain, their opponent, to Bush, an unpopular war-President. I understand completely. It's a smart tactic. I don't begrudge them using it.
There are even acceptable ways to do it. I like Hillary Clinton's take on it in her speech at the convention, when she joked that she understands why the Republicans are meeting in the "Twin Cities, because it's so hard to tell them apart. Very funny. An acceptable partisan take on their opponents. Point scored.
On the other hand, it took Joe Biden exactly one speech, in Springfield Illinois when he was named as the VP pick, to begin using the "Bush-McCain administration" line.
I don't object to the tactic. I object to the lie. It's a big lie. In public. Stop it.
A Flawed Historic Candidate
History was made in America last night. It was the first time in our history that a black man was nominated to be the candidate for President by a major party. An African-American, no less - truly for once: the son of a Kenyan father of an American mother.
I want to share the excitement of this historic moment. It does say something about America that this is possible. It's not possible in most of the nations in the world, including in Europe, which harbors a superior attitude about America.
I want to be excited about this historic candidacy, but I'm not. I'm appalled instead.
It's not because Obama is a black man. I would be happy to share in the history of electing a black man, just not this particular black man.
It's because Obama's a socialist. A marxist. Adopting the views of his first mentor "Frank" ( according to his own autobiography), who turns out to be Frank Marshall Davis - a communist party member calling for revolution.
It's because Obama's a radical leftist. Adopting the views of his mentor Saul Alinsky, who authored the radical leftist treatise "Rules for Radicals". Alinsky taught his disciples, and influenced Obama, to achieve "change" from the inside by getting elected to office and then ushering in communist revolution.
It's because Obama is comfortable with terrorists. Including Bill Ayers, a 60's anti-war protester who bombed federal buildings back then and is unrepentant now. Despite Obama's protestations that he's "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood", they in fact served for years together on boards of foundations doling out millions to leftist groups. And, have you heard Obama say anything at all about the threat we face from radical Islam?
It's because Obama was groomed by a corrupt political machine in Chicago. Particulary, by Tony Rezko - a corrupt real estate "developer" who took millions in Illinois grants to rehab buildings for public housing and never fixed any of them up. Grants that were sought on his behalf by a Chicago law firm - and a lawyer on their staff named Barack Obama. Grants that became political contributions for the Senate campaigns of a lawyer namend Barack Obama. Grants that eventually became entwined in a corrupt deal to get Barack Obama his mansion in Chicago.
It's because Obama marinated for 20 years in the hate America/hate white people rantings of Jeremiah Wright at Trinity church, and the Black Liberation Theology on which it was founded. An "afrocentric" church that regularly denigrates America in the harshest terms in keeping with it's perceived prophetic mission. A preacher who regularly denigrates whites from the pulpit. And a congregant who saw nothing wrong with that for 20 years until he started taking heat on the campaign trail.
Barack Obama is a seriously flawed man, and a flawed candidate. Unfortunately he's a candidate in whom so many have invested historic hopes. He will let them down.
I want to share the excitement of this historic moment. It does say something about America that this is possible. It's not possible in most of the nations in the world, including in Europe, which harbors a superior attitude about America.
I want to be excited about this historic candidacy, but I'm not. I'm appalled instead.
It's not because Obama is a black man. I would be happy to share in the history of electing a black man, just not this particular black man.
It's because Obama's a socialist. A marxist. Adopting the views of his first mentor "Frank" ( according to his own autobiography), who turns out to be Frank Marshall Davis - a communist party member calling for revolution.
It's because Obama's a radical leftist. Adopting the views of his mentor Saul Alinsky, who authored the radical leftist treatise "Rules for Radicals". Alinsky taught his disciples, and influenced Obama, to achieve "change" from the inside by getting elected to office and then ushering in communist revolution.
It's because Obama is comfortable with terrorists. Including Bill Ayers, a 60's anti-war protester who bombed federal buildings back then and is unrepentant now. Despite Obama's protestations that he's "just a guy who lives in my neighborhood", they in fact served for years together on boards of foundations doling out millions to leftist groups. And, have you heard Obama say anything at all about the threat we face from radical Islam?
It's because Obama was groomed by a corrupt political machine in Chicago. Particulary, by Tony Rezko - a corrupt real estate "developer" who took millions in Illinois grants to rehab buildings for public housing and never fixed any of them up. Grants that were sought on his behalf by a Chicago law firm - and a lawyer on their staff named Barack Obama. Grants that became political contributions for the Senate campaigns of a lawyer namend Barack Obama. Grants that eventually became entwined in a corrupt deal to get Barack Obama his mansion in Chicago.
It's because Obama marinated for 20 years in the hate America/hate white people rantings of Jeremiah Wright at Trinity church, and the Black Liberation Theology on which it was founded. An "afrocentric" church that regularly denigrates America in the harshest terms in keeping with it's perceived prophetic mission. A preacher who regularly denigrates whites from the pulpit. And a congregant who saw nothing wrong with that for 20 years until he started taking heat on the campaign trail.
Barack Obama is a seriously flawed man, and a flawed candidate. Unfortunately he's a candidate in whom so many have invested historic hopes. He will let them down.
Monday, August 04, 2008
Famous for being Famous
It's the ad that has made the presumptive presidential coronation of Barack Obama into a horse race again.
I'm talking about John McCain's new ad featuring Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and the media's annointed one himself Senator Barack Obama?
What do these three have in common?
The answer to that question is kind of a Rohrshach test for journalists, and they are failing it badly. It's been amusing to listen to the pundits trip over themselves trying to interpret it.
They call it silly. What do they have in common? For the life of them, they cannot figure it out.
They call it negative.
They call it racist. After all, it features two blondes and a black man so it must be outrageously racist! Say what? I can't follow that logic, but a lot of pundits on MSNBC and the nightly news shows apparently are enthralled with the brilliance of that argument.
I was listening to a morning drive time radio host this morning who has apparently been getting the Democrat talking points memos. She referred to it as the "blonde ad". "I don't get it", she said. What do the blondes have to do with Barack Obama.
It's simple really. The ad means what it says. It's about "celebrity". The first line of the ad says - as it is showing our three celebrities - that "Barack Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world".
Why is the ad pointing that out? Why is that bad? What do these three have in common?
What they have in common is celebrity at it's worst: being famous only for being famous. Having no real accomplishments that justify you being famous. It's that simple.
What is Paris Hilton famous for? What has she accomplished to justify her relentless celebrity?
What has Britney Spears accomplished in the last few years to justify weekly covers on magazines?
What has Barack Obama accomplished to justify being the presumptive nominee and media annointed one to be President. He had one term in the Illinois Senate, where he sponsored no bills and voted "present" more than 130 times. He served one year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for President. He passed no major legislation. He didn't even chair any hearings on the committee he headed.
Paris - famous, no accomplishments. Britney - famous, no accomplishments. Barack - famous, no accomplishements. It's the perfect visual analogy.
Not only is it a dead-on accurate visual campaign ad, but people outside of the elite punditry get it. It's effective. McCain has erased Obama's lead since the ad came out.
It's an effective ad from McCain, and it's about time!
I'm talking about John McCain's new ad featuring Britney Spears, Paris Hilton, and the media's annointed one himself Senator Barack Obama?
What do these three have in common?
The answer to that question is kind of a Rohrshach test for journalists, and they are failing it badly. It's been amusing to listen to the pundits trip over themselves trying to interpret it.
They call it silly. What do they have in common? For the life of them, they cannot figure it out.
They call it negative.
They call it racist. After all, it features two blondes and a black man so it must be outrageously racist! Say what? I can't follow that logic, but a lot of pundits on MSNBC and the nightly news shows apparently are enthralled with the brilliance of that argument.
I was listening to a morning drive time radio host this morning who has apparently been getting the Democrat talking points memos. She referred to it as the "blonde ad". "I don't get it", she said. What do the blondes have to do with Barack Obama.
It's simple really. The ad means what it says. It's about "celebrity". The first line of the ad says - as it is showing our three celebrities - that "Barack Obama is the biggest celebrity in the world".
Why is the ad pointing that out? Why is that bad? What do these three have in common?
What they have in common is celebrity at it's worst: being famous only for being famous. Having no real accomplishments that justify you being famous. It's that simple.
What is Paris Hilton famous for? What has she accomplished to justify her relentless celebrity?
What has Britney Spears accomplished in the last few years to justify weekly covers on magazines?
What has Barack Obama accomplished to justify being the presumptive nominee and media annointed one to be President. He had one term in the Illinois Senate, where he sponsored no bills and voted "present" more than 130 times. He served one year in the U.S. Senate before he started running for President. He passed no major legislation. He didn't even chair any hearings on the committee he headed.
Paris - famous, no accomplishments. Britney - famous, no accomplishments. Barack - famous, no accomplishements. It's the perfect visual analogy.
Not only is it a dead-on accurate visual campaign ad, but people outside of the elite punditry get it. It's effective. McCain has erased Obama's lead since the ad came out.
It's an effective ad from McCain, and it's about time!
Friday, July 04, 2008
McCain - Go North to Alaska!
What is John McCain doing campaigning in Mexico City today?
Or Columbia yesterday?
Is he trying to shore up the Bogata and Mexico City vote? Here's a hint to his campaign managers - they don't get to vote in our elections. (At least, not yet until McCain gets his way with comprehensive immigration reform and throws open our citizenship to everyone who can scramble over our borders.)
Is he harboring secret esoteric knowledge that Global Free Trade or the War on Drugs are going to suddenly emerge as winning issues against Barack Hussein Obama? Does he not understand the anger in middle-America about outsourced jobs?
The tradgedy of John McCain wasting time on a tour of South and Central America is this: John McCain could leep to the front and take and unassailable lead on Obama if he would jump on the critical issue of this election:
$5 gas!
That will be the burning issue (pardon the pun) of the election. $5 a gallon gas. McCain should jump on this immediately.
Go North to Alaska!
McCain should get on a flight right now to Alaska. Meet up with the Governor - Sara Palin. Travel together to the ANWR Coastal Plain, where we could be drilling for oil and aren't. Let her convince you to open the area up for drilling and CHAMPION IT!
I heard Gov. Palin on a radio program the other day. She's very sharp and capable. She strongly made the point that Alaska has an abundance of natural resources (oil, natural gas, etc.), and stands ready to contribute to the whole U.S. with those resources. She argued that drilling can and should be done.
She's right. McCain is wrong. I've been there. I lived in Alaska for four years. I've walked, physically, on the boggy tundra of the North Slope of Alaska. It is not the pristine wilderness that John McCain contains to state that it is, or that the video footage that network news shows as it. It is a barren wasteland. A mosquito swamp. We can and should drill there right now!
Newt Gingrich is right on target with his Drill Here, Drill Now campaign. He's absolutely right that this is the issue that will turn the election.
Sen. John McCain has been too wrong for too long on this issue. But, he has the chance to change that and seize the winning issue in this election.
Fly to Alaska!
Go to ANWR!
Champion drilling in ANWR as part of a comprehensive change in energy policy!
And, while you're at it, name Govenor Palin of Alaska as your VP.
McCain could seize the winning ground here and take this thing away from Obama. But, he won't. So hey, since you're going to waste the election, just keep traipsing around down in Mexico City.
Or Columbia yesterday?
Is he trying to shore up the Bogata and Mexico City vote? Here's a hint to his campaign managers - they don't get to vote in our elections. (At least, not yet until McCain gets his way with comprehensive immigration reform and throws open our citizenship to everyone who can scramble over our borders.)
Is he harboring secret esoteric knowledge that Global Free Trade or the War on Drugs are going to suddenly emerge as winning issues against Barack Hussein Obama? Does he not understand the anger in middle-America about outsourced jobs?
The tradgedy of John McCain wasting time on a tour of South and Central America is this: John McCain could leep to the front and take and unassailable lead on Obama if he would jump on the critical issue of this election:
$5 gas!
That will be the burning issue (pardon the pun) of the election. $5 a gallon gas. McCain should jump on this immediately.
Go North to Alaska!
McCain should get on a flight right now to Alaska. Meet up with the Governor - Sara Palin. Travel together to the ANWR Coastal Plain, where we could be drilling for oil and aren't. Let her convince you to open the area up for drilling and CHAMPION IT!
I heard Gov. Palin on a radio program the other day. She's very sharp and capable. She strongly made the point that Alaska has an abundance of natural resources (oil, natural gas, etc.), and stands ready to contribute to the whole U.S. with those resources. She argued that drilling can and should be done.
She's right. McCain is wrong. I've been there. I lived in Alaska for four years. I've walked, physically, on the boggy tundra of the North Slope of Alaska. It is not the pristine wilderness that John McCain contains to state that it is, or that the video footage that network news shows as it. It is a barren wasteland. A mosquito swamp. We can and should drill there right now!
Newt Gingrich is right on target with his Drill Here, Drill Now campaign. He's absolutely right that this is the issue that will turn the election.
Sen. John McCain has been too wrong for too long on this issue. But, he has the chance to change that and seize the winning issue in this election.
Fly to Alaska!
Go to ANWR!
Champion drilling in ANWR as part of a comprehensive change in energy policy!
And, while you're at it, name Govenor Palin of Alaska as your VP.
McCain could seize the winning ground here and take this thing away from Obama. But, he won't. So hey, since you're going to waste the election, just keep traipsing around down in Mexico City.
Hey, ABC News - She's Not a Man!
As if you need further proof of the sad state of American journalism, this is the story over which journalists have most embarrased themselves in the last 9 months:
'Pregnant Man' Gives Birth to Girl
No, using the quote marks around 'pregnant man' does not get them off of the hook.
ABC News, in this case, and others continue to report this fake story as if they want you to believe that this is a man. I quote:
Does being a journalist mean that you report any ridiculous thing anyone says without any discernment as to its truth?
Let me state the obvious:
- surgically removing your breasts does not make you a man
- taking hormones does not make you a man
- if you can get pregnant, you are not a man
- if you can deliver a baby, you are not a man
Did any of the actions that this person took change the fact that she has XX chromosomes?
The simple fact is that she is not a man. Period.
So why does the media keep reporting the 'Pregnant Man' story? Because some of you keep believing it and it sells 'news'. Stop it, already. Call it what it is - a fake news story.
Shame on ABC News.
And shame on the 'judge' who allowed her to legally change "his" gender.
'Pregnant Man' Gives Birth to Girl
No, using the quote marks around 'pregnant man' does not get them off of the hook.
ABC News, in this case, and others continue to report this fake story as if they want you to believe that this is a man. I quote:
"Born a woman, Beatie, 34, who had had his breasts surgically removed and
legally changed his gender from female to male, leaped to prominence around the
world in April when the wispy bearded man revealed he was pregnant.
Despite years of taking hormones and living outwardly as a man, Beatie
maintained that he retained his female sex organs because he intended one day to
get pregnant."
Does being a journalist mean that you report any ridiculous thing anyone says without any discernment as to its truth?
Let me state the obvious:
- surgically removing your breasts does not make you a man
- taking hormones does not make you a man
- if you can get pregnant, you are not a man
- if you can deliver a baby, you are not a man
Did any of the actions that this person took change the fact that she has XX chromosomes?
The simple fact is that she is not a man. Period.
So why does the media keep reporting the 'Pregnant Man' story? Because some of you keep believing it and it sells 'news'. Stop it, already. Call it what it is - a fake news story.
Shame on ABC News.
And shame on the 'judge' who allowed her to legally change "his" gender.
Wednesday, June 04, 2008
Hillary Must Have Seen the Video
So, tell me:
- if Barack Hussein Obama is the winner of the Democrat primary, why can't he win? Why did Hillary beat him in 2 of the last 3 primaries?
- if Hillary is beaten, why didn't she concede and congratulate Obama last night in her speech after the primaries closed?
The most explanative answer, I firmly believe, is that she must have seen the video.
If you're politcally and internet savvy, you know which video I mean. The internet is aflame with rumors about a video from Trinity United Church. This time not with Jeremiah Wright. Oh, no. This time featuring Michelle Obama herself, railing against "Whitey". Using that word, apparently many times.
If that video exists, and if it gets wide play in the media, it will take down Barry the annointed one.
Hillary has seen it. She knows it's out there. She knows it's knock-out power.
She will wait.
She will get the video out there.
She will step into the void when Obama crashes under the weight of the video.
That's the best explanation for her statement last night that she's "not making any decisions tonight". No decisions until the video comes out.
Hillary has seen the light, the light of an explosion, an explosion on video.
It's going to get much more interesting than it's already been. Strap in.
- if Barack Hussein Obama is the winner of the Democrat primary, why can't he win? Why did Hillary beat him in 2 of the last 3 primaries?
- if Hillary is beaten, why didn't she concede and congratulate Obama last night in her speech after the primaries closed?
The most explanative answer, I firmly believe, is that she must have seen the video.
If you're politcally and internet savvy, you know which video I mean. The internet is aflame with rumors about a video from Trinity United Church. This time not with Jeremiah Wright. Oh, no. This time featuring Michelle Obama herself, railing against "Whitey". Using that word, apparently many times.
If that video exists, and if it gets wide play in the media, it will take down Barry the annointed one.
Hillary has seen it. She knows it's out there. She knows it's knock-out power.
She will wait.
She will get the video out there.
She will step into the void when Obama crashes under the weight of the video.
That's the best explanation for her statement last night that she's "not making any decisions tonight". No decisions until the video comes out.
Hillary has seen the light, the light of an explosion, an explosion on video.
It's going to get much more interesting than it's already been. Strap in.
Sunday, March 23, 2008
The Left's Unhinged Vocabulary
Surfing through political blogs today, on Easter Sunday, I was struck by how deeply unhinged the political left in this country has become - as evidenced by their hyperbolic vocabulary.
Two articles on DemocraticUnderground.com in particular caught my eye:
1. First an article about the sermon preached at Obama's church today about how to survive a "lynching". About how Rev. Wright has been "lynched" in the press for the last two weeks. (Silly me, I went to church on Easter Sunday to hear a message about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I guess I just don't get it.)
People, can we stop using the word "lynching" unless someone is actually killed with a rope? Rev. Wright was not lynched. He was criticized. He was ridiculed even. But he was not lynched.
How big of a chip do you have to have on your shoulder to equate being criticized with being lynched?
2. an article about how former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer was "asassainated".
People, can we stop using the word "asassainated" unless someone is actually killed?
Eliot Spitzer was not assasainated. He was identified - as someone who had potentially committed an illegal offense. He then admitted guilt and resigned. He was most certainly not asassainated.
How big of a persecution complex do you have to have to equate someone being mentioned in the press to them being asassainated? Isn't that a major disservice to the memories of political leaders who were actually killed in the line of duty?
Get a grip, lefties. Ratchet back the hyperbole.
Two articles on DemocraticUnderground.com in particular caught my eye:
1. First an article about the sermon preached at Obama's church today about how to survive a "lynching". About how Rev. Wright has been "lynched" in the press for the last two weeks. (Silly me, I went to church on Easter Sunday to hear a message about the Resurrection of Jesus Christ. I guess I just don't get it.)
People, can we stop using the word "lynching" unless someone is actually killed with a rope? Rev. Wright was not lynched. He was criticized. He was ridiculed even. But he was not lynched.
How big of a chip do you have to have on your shoulder to equate being criticized with being lynched?
2. an article about how former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer was "asassainated".
People, can we stop using the word "asassainated" unless someone is actually killed?
Eliot Spitzer was not assasainated. He was identified - as someone who had potentially committed an illegal offense. He then admitted guilt and resigned. He was most certainly not asassainated.
How big of a persecution complex do you have to have to equate someone being mentioned in the press to them being asassainated? Isn't that a major disservice to the memories of political leaders who were actually killed in the line of duty?
Get a grip, lefties. Ratchet back the hyperbole.
Friday, March 21, 2008
Obama: the Double-Negative Racist
Weren't we all taught in elementary school not to use double-negatives?
Me, I don't never use them if I don't have to.
Given that, I'm bugged by one particular clause in Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on race. It's this clause, regarding his relationship with his race-baiting America-hating pastor:
" I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."
No dis-owning. A double negative. Intended to hide what, exactly?
According to webster, "disown" means to repudiate any connection or identification with.
So, the correct grammar translation - if you reduced the double-negative of "no dis-owning" would be to own. Would be to acknowledge a connection or identification with.
Which was obvious in the first place. Barack Obama has a 20 year relationship with the racist America-hating Rev. Wright.
He owns it. And he chooses not to disown it.
It's not illegal. Obama can associate with a racist all day long. It's still a free country, even if he doesn't particularly like it all that much.
He just can't have my vote for President of the United States of America.
And he shouldn't have yours.
Me, I don't never use them if I don't have to.
Given that, I'm bugged by one particular clause in Barack Obama's speech in Philadelphia on race. It's this clause, regarding his relationship with his race-baiting America-hating pastor:
" I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."
No dis-owning. A double negative. Intended to hide what, exactly?
According to webster, "disown" means to repudiate any connection or identification with.
So, the correct grammar translation - if you reduced the double-negative of "no dis-owning" would be to own. Would be to acknowledge a connection or identification with.
Which was obvious in the first place. Barack Obama has a 20 year relationship with the racist America-hating Rev. Wright.
He owns it. And he chooses not to disown it.
It's not illegal. Obama can associate with a racist all day long. It's still a free country, even if he doesn't particularly like it all that much.
He just can't have my vote for President of the United States of America.
And he shouldn't have yours.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
BDS and the Big little Lie
Have you ever had an acquaintance who was a pathological liar? How did you distinguish them from the run-of-the-mill fibber?
One sign, I'm sure you will agree, is when you catch them in a little lie that is so insignificant that there was no reason for them to have had to lie about it.
I detected one of those senseless little lies in the Democrat talking points in the last couple of weeks, that makes me seriously concerned about how deeply Bush Derangement Syndrome (and it's corresponding hatred of all things Republican) is entrenched in the Dem leadership.
Some context:
The Big Lies have abounded for years now in the Democrat talking points. They are legion:
- Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections
- Bush lied, kids died
- the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal and unjustified
- Bush and Cheney mislead everyone about the presence of WMD's in Iraq
- Bush said the use of nuclear weapons by Iraq was "imminent"
All not true, but all repeated so often in the echo chamber of liberal leaders and the Mainstream Media and the left-wing bloggers that they just take them as given facts. You know the old maxim, "If you repeat a lie often enough,..."
As for the Little Lie that belies a pathology on the left: It has to do with their talking points on the train wreck that the Michigan and Florida primaries are causing in the Democratic Primary.
I first heard it a couple of weeks ago, when a Democratic Congresswoman from Florida was on Fox News Sunday. She started off her discussion by arguing that it was not the fault of the Democratic Party in Florida, that the "Republican-lead Legislature" had forced the Party to move it's primary date forward and thus lose all of it's delegates.
"Wait a minute", host Chris Wallace said. "Wasn't it a Democrat who put forward the legislation?"
"Well yes, but...."
"And did any Democrat vote No on the legislation?"
"Well no, but..." And she went on to continue to blame the Republican majority for the calamity.
Heard it again on Fox when Great Van Sustern was interviewing ex-President Bill Clinton. He repeated the same talking points, saying that the "Democratic Party was 100% innocent in this problems" and that the "Republican-lead legislature" had put them in this jam.
Okay, this is a silly and stupid lie. But, apparently one that the Dems think is important enough to keep repeating as their talking points. Listen for it on the networks this week as they continue to try to sort out a solution for Florida and Michigan.
It's the little and unnecessary lie that provides the clue as to degree of pathological their lying has become.
One sign, I'm sure you will agree, is when you catch them in a little lie that is so insignificant that there was no reason for them to have had to lie about it.
I detected one of those senseless little lies in the Democrat talking points in the last couple of weeks, that makes me seriously concerned about how deeply Bush Derangement Syndrome (and it's corresponding hatred of all things Republican) is entrenched in the Dem leadership.
Some context:
The Big Lies have abounded for years now in the Democrat talking points. They are legion:
- Bush stole the 2000 and 2004 elections
- Bush lied, kids died
- the invasion of Iraq in 2003 was illegal and unjustified
- Bush and Cheney mislead everyone about the presence of WMD's in Iraq
- Bush said the use of nuclear weapons by Iraq was "imminent"
All not true, but all repeated so often in the echo chamber of liberal leaders and the Mainstream Media and the left-wing bloggers that they just take them as given facts. You know the old maxim, "If you repeat a lie often enough,..."
As for the Little Lie that belies a pathology on the left: It has to do with their talking points on the train wreck that the Michigan and Florida primaries are causing in the Democratic Primary.
I first heard it a couple of weeks ago, when a Democratic Congresswoman from Florida was on Fox News Sunday. She started off her discussion by arguing that it was not the fault of the Democratic Party in Florida, that the "Republican-lead Legislature" had forced the Party to move it's primary date forward and thus lose all of it's delegates.
"Wait a minute", host Chris Wallace said. "Wasn't it a Democrat who put forward the legislation?"
"Well yes, but...."
"And did any Democrat vote No on the legislation?"
"Well no, but..." And she went on to continue to blame the Republican majority for the calamity.
Heard it again on Fox when Great Van Sustern was interviewing ex-President Bill Clinton. He repeated the same talking points, saying that the "Democratic Party was 100% innocent in this problems" and that the "Republican-lead legislature" had put them in this jam.
Okay, this is a silly and stupid lie. But, apparently one that the Dems think is important enough to keep repeating as their talking points. Listen for it on the networks this week as they continue to try to sort out a solution for Florida and Michigan.
It's the little and unnecessary lie that provides the clue as to degree of pathological their lying has become.
Obama's "Speech": the Duality
So, by now I've read and listened to and re-read again Barack Obama's milestone speech on race relations in America - given in the context of needing to answer for his close association with his pastor, a racist America-hater. (It reads much better than it was delivered.)
So, did I think it was a brilliantly written and totally unique speech addressing such a serious topic as the perfecting of the American Union? A speech that addressed racial divisions in America in a serious and at times uplifting manner in a way that no public figure has in nearly 40 years?
Or, did I think it was a too-clever dodge. A way of changing the topic and excusing his way out of hot water to keep his hard won lead in a high-stakes presidential campaign?
Both, actually.
I read the speech first, and was moved- not completely to tears, but just short. It is brilliantly crafted. The man can write. Who doesn't want to believe in us making progress together, in the face of past strife, toward a more perfect Union? It was, in places, quite inspiring. I give the Senator considerable credit for that.
On the negative side, the speech did not adequately explain the Senator's 20 year relationship with the Reverend. In fact, it uses very trite liberal techniques for excusing bad behavior:
Moral Relativism: Rev. Wright's years of bad racial incitement from the pulpit is no different than Geraldine Ferraro's one comment in an interview last week. Just the same. So, no problem. The only problem is that this is ridiculous on it's face.
Everyone Does It: While Reverend Wright "contains within him the contradictions ? the good and the bad ? of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. " but:
"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother ? a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
In other words, sure he's a ranting racist but you should really hear my cracker granny.
Nice move, jackass, throwing your grandmother under the train to save your own guilty skin. Absolutely no class in that move.
One important disconnect to me was Senator Obama's continuous use of the phrases "black community" and "white community". Here's the problem: I don't live in one of those communities. Yes, I'm white - but I don't live in the "white community". I live in a city. I work at a job. I go to a church. None of those do I describe as "unashamedly white", as Obama's church describes itself as "unashamedly black". I don't ever use racial terms like that. No one I associate with does either. But clearly Senator Obama, and his wife, and his associates immerse themselves in those racial terms. They are the exclusionists, not me, and this speech just solidified that observation to me.
The speech was well written, important, and may well convince some that this issue is over. But, for me the bottom line is this:
1. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, built on his vision of "Black Liberation Theology", is a seething cauldron of racial hatred and animosity to America at large.
2. Barack Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years.
3. In all likelihood, Senator Obama chose to join this particular church for the exact same reason that all of us choose a church - because we are in general agreement with it's doctrine.
Obama has not adequately put this issue behind him, and his candidacy is in serious trouble. My prediction is that he will be soundly defeated in the next primary state, Pennsylvania. And then the Democrat party Superdelegates will have to decide whether to take him down or not. I wouldn't take bets at this point that he comes out of the process as the nominee.
So, did I think it was a brilliantly written and totally unique speech addressing such a serious topic as the perfecting of the American Union? A speech that addressed racial divisions in America in a serious and at times uplifting manner in a way that no public figure has in nearly 40 years?
Or, did I think it was a too-clever dodge. A way of changing the topic and excusing his way out of hot water to keep his hard won lead in a high-stakes presidential campaign?
Both, actually.
I read the speech first, and was moved- not completely to tears, but just short. It is brilliantly crafted. The man can write. Who doesn't want to believe in us making progress together, in the face of past strife, toward a more perfect Union? It was, in places, quite inspiring. I give the Senator considerable credit for that.
On the negative side, the speech did not adequately explain the Senator's 20 year relationship with the Reverend. In fact, it uses very trite liberal techniques for excusing bad behavior:
Moral Relativism: Rev. Wright's years of bad racial incitement from the pulpit is no different than Geraldine Ferraro's one comment in an interview last week. Just the same. So, no problem. The only problem is that this is ridiculous on it's face.
Everyone Does It: While Reverend Wright "contains within him the contradictions ? the good and the bad ? of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. " but:
"I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother ? a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe."
In other words, sure he's a ranting racist but you should really hear my cracker granny.
Nice move, jackass, throwing your grandmother under the train to save your own guilty skin. Absolutely no class in that move.
One important disconnect to me was Senator Obama's continuous use of the phrases "black community" and "white community". Here's the problem: I don't live in one of those communities. Yes, I'm white - but I don't live in the "white community". I live in a city. I work at a job. I go to a church. None of those do I describe as "unashamedly white", as Obama's church describes itself as "unashamedly black". I don't ever use racial terms like that. No one I associate with does either. But clearly Senator Obama, and his wife, and his associates immerse themselves in those racial terms. They are the exclusionists, not me, and this speech just solidified that observation to me.
The speech was well written, important, and may well convince some that this issue is over. But, for me the bottom line is this:
1. Rev. Jeremiah Wright's church, built on his vision of "Black Liberation Theology", is a seething cauldron of racial hatred and animosity to America at large.
2. Barack Obama has been a member of this church for 20 years.
3. In all likelihood, Senator Obama chose to join this particular church for the exact same reason that all of us choose a church - because we are in general agreement with it's doctrine.
Obama has not adequately put this issue behind him, and his candidacy is in serious trouble. My prediction is that he will be soundly defeated in the next primary state, Pennsylvania. And then the Democrat party Superdelegates will have to decide whether to take him down or not. I wouldn't take bets at this point that he comes out of the process as the nominee.
Monday, March 17, 2008
Let's just MoveOn.org
Thank you Democrats, for re-introducing the phrase "let's just move on" back into the political lexicon. (/sacrcsm off)
For those of you younguns out there who don't remember the juicy scandal-filled Clinton years, this was a common phrase back in the 90's. In fact, so many Clinton surrogates who were trotted out to defend Slick Willie tried to change the subject by saying "There is nothing to see here. Let's just move on" that an actual left-wing attack group (MoveOn.org) was the spin-off result. (Yes, that's the same wonderful lefty group that brought us the "General Betraeus" ad in the New York Times last year.)
I swear, I about fell out of my chair this weekend when - right on cue - Democratic strategist Bob Beckel - called out on Fox News to defend Barack whose-middle-name-can-never-be-spoken Obama's close association with racist America-hater Jeremiah Wright", said:
"Can we just move on here and get back to discussing Iraq and health care?"
Sorry, we're not moving on for a while here. Barry X has some explaining to do.
For those of you younguns out there who don't remember the juicy scandal-filled Clinton years, this was a common phrase back in the 90's. In fact, so many Clinton surrogates who were trotted out to defend Slick Willie tried to change the subject by saying "There is nothing to see here. Let's just move on" that an actual left-wing attack group (MoveOn.org) was the spin-off result. (Yes, that's the same wonderful lefty group that brought us the "General Betraeus" ad in the New York Times last year.)
I swear, I about fell out of my chair this weekend when - right on cue - Democratic strategist Bob Beckel - called out on Fox News to defend Barack whose-middle-name-can-never-be-spoken Obama's close association with racist America-hater Jeremiah Wright", said:
"Can we just move on here and get back to discussing Iraq and health care?"
Sorry, we're not moving on for a while here. Barry X has some explaining to do.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
It's the Membership, Stupid
Does Presidential candidate Barack Whose-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama, and his pride-deficient wife Michelle, like America?
It's a reasonable question. Color me jingoistic, but I actually consider it a core qualification for running for the office of President of the United States of America that you actually like America. It may not be worded that literally in the Constitution - right there with being a natural born citizen and at least 35 years old - but, still...
It's a fair question, when you match up the Obama's actions and words with the radicalized America-hating rantings of B.H. Obama's close friend, advisor, and "mentor" Rev. Wright. (go see the "God Damn America" video, if it's still up).
The Rev. Wright has established his 35 year ministry in Obama's church in Chicago on, among other things, African nationalism, black victimization, white oppression, and "black liberation theology". That last one being a marxist, leftist, and highly-separationist worldview. Many of us following Obama for the past year are well aware of the nature of Obama's church. But seeing the string of video excerpts from his controversial sermons is still chilling.
Obama responded this weekend to the damaging videos by condemning the statements "on those videos" and by removing Rev. Wright from his campaign team. Obama categorically stated that none of the statements were made in his presence, while he was physically "in the pew". Obama is, of course, lying blatantly. It is inconceivable that none of this incendiary rhetoric was used in the sermons that Obama sat through in 20 years of membership at Trinity. He is not being truthful.
The MSM is predictably either ignoring the story entirely, as 2 of the 3 networks are doing, or try to shift our attention question by dually raising the moral equivalence argument and the guilt by association argument:
Moral equivalence being: why sure this looks bad, but what about John McCain getting endorsements from controversial pastors John Hagee and Rob Parsley?
gba being: why sure the Rev. Wright's statements are radical and undefendable, but we don't believe in guilt-by-association so you can't tie Obama to Wright.
The glaring flaw in these two arguments is the qualitative distinctiveness - and they must not teach distinctions in J-school - of the Obama / Wright relationship by virtue of Obama's 20-year membership in Wright's church. IT'S THE MEMBERSHIP, STUPID!
If you have ever joined a church, as I have - particularly an evangelical Protestant church, as I have - then you understand the particular nature of this association and why it is so important in this story. When you join a church you act in a willful, volitional, affirmative way to associate yourself with the teachings of that church - which is often significantly embodied personally in the Pastor. When you sit under a pastor's preaching - whose job it is to influence you deeply in thought and deed - your worldview is affected.
So, if you sit under a pastor's leadership, teaching, and preaching for twenty years you are announcing a strong influential association. And if you sit under the leadership, teaching, and preaching of a virulently racist America-hating anti-semite for 20 years, then you have some explaining to do.
So, when you review Michelle Obama's puzzling proclamation recently - that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of America - in light of her placing herself and her children under the influence of a radicalized America-hating firebreather and it makes perfect sense.
And, when you review Barack Hussein Obama's pointed refusal to wear a flag pin on his lapel or place his hand over his heart during the national anthem in the light of his 20-year association with his vulgar America-hating mentor it makes perfect sense.
So, here's what we know. We know that the spiritual leader of Barack and Michelle Obama's church is a radical, marxist, racist, vulgar, America-hater. We know that while Barack disavows a few particular statements that Rev. Wright made on the shock videos, he doesn't consider his church to be "particularly controversial". And we know that both Obamas seem to have a puzzling lack of pride in the country.
Barack Obama, you are entitled to attend any church - and associate yourself with any radical - you prefer. No question. It's a free country.
You are just not entitled to my vote for President of the United States of America.
Saturday, March 08, 2008
Clinton's Consigliere Returns to the News
You know of course, that I was an avid conspiracy theorist in the Clinton years of the 90's. Loved 'em. Followed 'em. Ate 'em up.
One of my favorite players in the various Clinton scandals was an extemely shadowy character named Bruce Lindsey. A longtime Clinton friend and advisor. Always there with Bubba, but just out of sight of the cameras. His ever present card playing partner on Air Force One (Hearts, as I recall) and, I always believed, his "fixer" in the scandal department. Bill Clinton's consigliere - the role of adviser made popular in the Godfather movies.
I haven't thought of him since BC left office with his last day scandal of issuing a slew of pardons to unsavory characters. Many probably arranged by Lindsey for the appropriate payments. Just my opinion.
But, he's back. What possible Bill Clinton scandals are still to erupt? Well, two come to mind:
1. Mr. ex-President Clinton has been busy since he left office raking in donations from unsavory characters overseas. Certainly in an improper manner, I believe, for an ex-President. Very probably in an illegal manner, given that Hillary is using joint-checking-account money to fund her campaign. How much money from China and Dubai is Hillary allowed to spend in a presidential election cycle - that would be none. But is she? Hard to tell, because a lot of the money is funnelled through the Clinton Library Foundation - which refused to release it's donor list.
2. Recent requests for Presidential papers related to the pardon scandal have been rebuffed by - guess who - the Clinton Library Foundation, which has refused to releas 1000 of documents that have notes on them as to how the pardon decisions were made. Isn't that nice to have a gatekeeper to shield the ex-President from scrutiny.
Hmmm, the Clinton Library Foundation seems to have become the new scandal central for our intrepid and scandalous ex-President.
And who, if you even need to ask, is the current Director of the Clinton Library Foundation?
That would be the re-emergent fixer, Mr. Bruce Lindsey. Hmmm.
One of my favorite players in the various Clinton scandals was an extemely shadowy character named Bruce Lindsey. A longtime Clinton friend and advisor. Always there with Bubba, but just out of sight of the cameras. His ever present card playing partner on Air Force One (Hearts, as I recall) and, I always believed, his "fixer" in the scandal department. Bill Clinton's consigliere - the role of adviser made popular in the Godfather movies.
I haven't thought of him since BC left office with his last day scandal of issuing a slew of pardons to unsavory characters. Many probably arranged by Lindsey for the appropriate payments. Just my opinion.
But, he's back. What possible Bill Clinton scandals are still to erupt? Well, two come to mind:
1. Mr. ex-President Clinton has been busy since he left office raking in donations from unsavory characters overseas. Certainly in an improper manner, I believe, for an ex-President. Very probably in an illegal manner, given that Hillary is using joint-checking-account money to fund her campaign. How much money from China and Dubai is Hillary allowed to spend in a presidential election cycle - that would be none. But is she? Hard to tell, because a lot of the money is funnelled through the Clinton Library Foundation - which refused to release it's donor list.
2. Recent requests for Presidential papers related to the pardon scandal have been rebuffed by - guess who - the Clinton Library Foundation, which has refused to releas 1000 of documents that have notes on them as to how the pardon decisions were made. Isn't that nice to have a gatekeeper to shield the ex-President from scrutiny.
Hmmm, the Clinton Library Foundation seems to have become the new scandal central for our intrepid and scandalous ex-President.
And who, if you even need to ask, is the current Director of the Clinton Library Foundation?
That would be the re-emergent fixer, Mr. Bruce Lindsey. Hmmm.
Democrats Unhinged on Waterboarding
The press reported today that President George W. Bush has vetoed Congressional legislation outlawing, among other things, the use of waterboarding by the CIA as an interrogation technique.
Democrats in Congress have argued that the CIA should be limited to the interrogation techniques that the military is limited to in the Army Field Manual, that "torture is a black mark against the United States" (Nancy Pelosi), and that our ability to lead the world depends on morality, not military might (Pelosi again).
President Bush argued in response that the CIA should have a separate and lawful intelligence program, given their different operational needs than the military, and that the use of these programs has saved lives. An argument, in fact echoed by former CIA director George Tenet in his excellent book about the events and aftermath of 9/11.
I have two main thoughts here:
1. Thank God for President Bush who, even in the face of years of withering and unrelenting assaults on his efforts to defend this nation, still stands firm in the committment to fight this war aggressively. He stands firmly on the wall, battling Islamist Jihadists with all the tools at his disposal.
2. This argument over waterboarding in particular highlights why the Democrat leadership is unsuited for leadership in wartime. They are, in my opinion, over their painting our nation as torturers for using this technique against exactly three high-value Al-Qaida terrorists leaders in the timeframe where it was likely that we would be facing another attack on American soil.
Folks, you need to get a grip here. If you are of the opinion that it was eggregious for the CIA to waterboard Khalid Sheik Muhammed in 2003, to get information about other planned Al-Qaida operations against America, you are unhinged.
Do you understand who Khalid Sheik Muhammed is? Really. There is no one on the planet more responsible for the atrocity that was 9/11 than KSM. Not even Osama bin Laden. OBL gave approval and funding for the operation, true. But KSM conceived it, planned it, and was responsible for the execution of 9/11. He and Ramzi Yousef planned how to use airliners to attack targets and kill Americans. He oversaw the selection and training of the attackers. He was the operational commander. And I'm going to feel sorry for the CIA making him uncomfortable in his interrogation?
KSM was captured in Pakistan by the CIA in March of 2003, by daring CIA field officers in an operation in a foreign country carrying great risk. They subjected KSM to interrogation, believing rightly that there were other operations in the planning stage that would kill thousands of Americans if not uncovered and stopped. They needed that information to stop it. We, as Americans, needed for them to get that information. Did they torture and maim KSM, as we understand the term torture? Did they cripple him or dismember him or burn him with irons or hang him and beating him (all techniques found in the Al-Qaida torture manual)?
No, they did not. They "waterboarded" him for a total of two minutes and 30 seconds. No permanent harm, no disfigurement. And KSM spilled his guts. And operations were uncovered and stopped. And thousands of lives were saved. As testified to by CIA officials like George Tenet.
Now, if you want to believe that that 2 1/2 minutes of discomfort that KSM was subjected to by the CIA was unallowable by a civilized nation, even one at war with barbarians who would plan 9/11 and who routinely behead infidels, then I would categorically state that you are in fact unhinged.
Had President Bush, as leader of this nation, failed to, in the wake of 9/11, use all of the tools at his disposal to interrogate captured Al-Qaida leadership and uncover and stop other planned operations against America that would have injured and killed thousands - I would have argued for his impeachment. The fact that he did what he did and ordered what he ordered earns him my gratitude.
But then again, I'm not an unhinged Democrat in the mold of Nancy Pelosi. May she never have the primary responsibility for the defense of this nation.
Democrats in Congress have argued that the CIA should be limited to the interrogation techniques that the military is limited to in the Army Field Manual, that "torture is a black mark against the United States" (Nancy Pelosi), and that our ability to lead the world depends on morality, not military might (Pelosi again).
President Bush argued in response that the CIA should have a separate and lawful intelligence program, given their different operational needs than the military, and that the use of these programs has saved lives. An argument, in fact echoed by former CIA director George Tenet in his excellent book about the events and aftermath of 9/11.
I have two main thoughts here:
1. Thank God for President Bush who, even in the face of years of withering and unrelenting assaults on his efforts to defend this nation, still stands firm in the committment to fight this war aggressively. He stands firmly on the wall, battling Islamist Jihadists with all the tools at his disposal.
2. This argument over waterboarding in particular highlights why the Democrat leadership is unsuited for leadership in wartime. They are, in my opinion, over their painting our nation as torturers for using this technique against exactly three high-value Al-Qaida terrorists leaders in the timeframe where it was likely that we would be facing another attack on American soil.
Folks, you need to get a grip here. If you are of the opinion that it was eggregious for the CIA to waterboard Khalid Sheik Muhammed in 2003, to get information about other planned Al-Qaida operations against America, you are unhinged.
Do you understand who Khalid Sheik Muhammed is? Really. There is no one on the planet more responsible for the atrocity that was 9/11 than KSM. Not even Osama bin Laden. OBL gave approval and funding for the operation, true. But KSM conceived it, planned it, and was responsible for the execution of 9/11. He and Ramzi Yousef planned how to use airliners to attack targets and kill Americans. He oversaw the selection and training of the attackers. He was the operational commander. And I'm going to feel sorry for the CIA making him uncomfortable in his interrogation?
KSM was captured in Pakistan by the CIA in March of 2003, by daring CIA field officers in an operation in a foreign country carrying great risk. They subjected KSM to interrogation, believing rightly that there were other operations in the planning stage that would kill thousands of Americans if not uncovered and stopped. They needed that information to stop it. We, as Americans, needed for them to get that information. Did they torture and maim KSM, as we understand the term torture? Did they cripple him or dismember him or burn him with irons or hang him and beating him (all techniques found in the Al-Qaida torture manual)?
No, they did not. They "waterboarded" him for a total of two minutes and 30 seconds. No permanent harm, no disfigurement. And KSM spilled his guts. And operations were uncovered and stopped. And thousands of lives were saved. As testified to by CIA officials like George Tenet.
Now, if you want to believe that that 2 1/2 minutes of discomfort that KSM was subjected to by the CIA was unallowable by a civilized nation, even one at war with barbarians who would plan 9/11 and who routinely behead infidels, then I would categorically state that you are in fact unhinged.
Had President Bush, as leader of this nation, failed to, in the wake of 9/11, use all of the tools at his disposal to interrogate captured Al-Qaida leadership and uncover and stop other planned operations against America that would have injured and killed thousands - I would have argued for his impeachment. The fact that he did what he did and ordered what he ordered earns him my gratitude.
But then again, I'm not an unhinged Democrat in the mold of Nancy Pelosi. May she never have the primary responsibility for the defense of this nation.
Times Square Bombing Shoud Give Democrats Pause
In the wake of the eggregious bombing of the military recruitment center in Times Square in New York this week, Democrats should pause and consider their complicity.
The Democrat leadership and their allies in the media and blogosphere, in their blind hatred of all things George W. Bush and their quest to regain the power of the presidency, have been effectively trashing the military for going on at least three years now.
Pelosi, Reid, and company have been beating the drums of anti-war, and in doing so have repeatedly made the case that:
- our military are killers and occupiers. (Constantly trumpeting the worst case stories of Haditha, and inflating the number of war casualties)
- our military are torturers. (Abu Gahraib, Gitmo, waterboarding)
- our Commander-in-Chief is a rogue criminal who makes war unjustly
- the military recruiters are predators, preying on inner city youth who have no other financial options
In peddling these stories every day, they inspire people to hatred of the United States. Just read some of the leftwing forums. I do. They are chock full of vitriol and hate. Not just for President Bush (who they unaffectionately call "chimpy") and his administration, but for the military. They emphatically do not support the troops.
If you want a concrete example of the Left's complicity in anti-military activity, just look at the actions of the Berkley California city council last month. The council is one of the best examples of the left having control of the levers of power and using it to agitate against the military in the form of recruitment centers. The council voted to kick the U.S. military recruitment center out of town, sending a letter saying they were "uninvited and unwelcome". They also stripped them of parking spaces outside the center and designated them for use by anti-war loonies Code Pink - who they encouraged to do all they could to disrupt the activities of the military recruiters.
I have two things to say about that:
1. Democrat politicians are complicit in encouraging antipathy toward military recruiters, and are complicit in the bombing of the recruitment center in Times Square.
2. In my opinion, Berekely California should be stripped of all federal dollars, and left undefended by the military in the event of an attack. Screw them. Let Code Pink defend them.
The Democrat leadership and their allies in the media and blogosphere, in their blind hatred of all things George W. Bush and their quest to regain the power of the presidency, have been effectively trashing the military for going on at least three years now.
Pelosi, Reid, and company have been beating the drums of anti-war, and in doing so have repeatedly made the case that:
- our military are killers and occupiers. (Constantly trumpeting the worst case stories of Haditha, and inflating the number of war casualties)
- our military are torturers. (Abu Gahraib, Gitmo, waterboarding)
- our Commander-in-Chief is a rogue criminal who makes war unjustly
- the military recruiters are predators, preying on inner city youth who have no other financial options
In peddling these stories every day, they inspire people to hatred of the United States. Just read some of the leftwing forums. I do. They are chock full of vitriol and hate. Not just for President Bush (who they unaffectionately call "chimpy") and his administration, but for the military. They emphatically do not support the troops.
If you want a concrete example of the Left's complicity in anti-military activity, just look at the actions of the Berkley California city council last month. The council is one of the best examples of the left having control of the levers of power and using it to agitate against the military in the form of recruitment centers. The council voted to kick the U.S. military recruitment center out of town, sending a letter saying they were "uninvited and unwelcome". They also stripped them of parking spaces outside the center and designated them for use by anti-war loonies Code Pink - who they encouraged to do all they could to disrupt the activities of the military recruiters.
I have two things to say about that:
1. Democrat politicians are complicit in encouraging antipathy toward military recruiters, and are complicit in the bombing of the recruitment center in Times Square.
2. In my opinion, Berekely California should be stripped of all federal dollars, and left undefended by the military in the event of an attack. Screw them. Let Code Pink defend them.
How to Bungle a Nomination Process
This has, without doubt, been the most interesting presidential election cycle of my lifetime. Wow. Absolutely nothing is going as predicted by the pundits or pollsters. Bad for them. Good for us.
One of the most interesting aspects has been the seminar being put on by the Democratic Party on how to screw up a nomination process. It's a total mess on that side of the nominating aisle - not that I object to that.
Here are three Democrat peculiarities that have contributed to the train crash:
1. An emphasis on the Caucus.
Does anyone really understand the caucus process? Or know why it is used so much on the Democrat side? What I've observed so far is that the caucus system severely limits the number of people that can participate in the process. How many people are willing to show up for two hours at night and vote out in public in front of their neighbors? It's undemocratic for one, sacrificing the secret vote of the ballot booth.
Look at Wyoming, for example. The Republicans had their primary a long time ago and had a good simple vote. Now the Democrats are doing it with a caucus and, if Fox New's scroll is correct, have about 10,000 people total in the whole state participating. They're going to award 12 delegates to the convention based on the votes of 10,000 people in a whole state? That's screwed up.
Don't even get me started on Texas, where the Democrats had both a primary and a caucus and everyone could vote twice in one day. Do you think this gives anyone confidence in the process? No.
2. Proportional awarding of delegates:
The Dems do it. The Republicans don't - preferring a winner take all system. The result? The Republicans have a candidate, the Dems have a train wreck.
Proportional allocation of delegates sounds fair, but it doesn't aid the nominating process. First of all, I would want to have a process that's similar to the general election, where electoral college votes are awarded winner take all in most states. Also, winner-take-all makes for convincing wins by a large majority and give the winner an implied "mandate" that is more effective in uniting a group at the end of the process.
One of the most interesting aspects has been the seminar being put on by the Democratic Party on how to screw up a nomination process. It's a total mess on that side of the nominating aisle - not that I object to that.
Here are three Democrat peculiarities that have contributed to the train crash:
1. An emphasis on the Caucus.
Does anyone really understand the caucus process? Or know why it is used so much on the Democrat side? What I've observed so far is that the caucus system severely limits the number of people that can participate in the process. How many people are willing to show up for two hours at night and vote out in public in front of their neighbors? It's undemocratic for one, sacrificing the secret vote of the ballot booth.
Look at Wyoming, for example. The Republicans had their primary a long time ago and had a good simple vote. Now the Democrats are doing it with a caucus and, if Fox New's scroll is correct, have about 10,000 people total in the whole state participating. They're going to award 12 delegates to the convention based on the votes of 10,000 people in a whole state? That's screwed up.
Don't even get me started on Texas, where the Democrats had both a primary and a caucus and everyone could vote twice in one day. Do you think this gives anyone confidence in the process? No.
2. Proportional awarding of delegates:
The Dems do it. The Republicans don't - preferring a winner take all system. The result? The Republicans have a candidate, the Dems have a train wreck.
Proportional allocation of delegates sounds fair, but it doesn't aid the nominating process. First of all, I would want to have a process that's similar to the general election, where electoral college votes are awarded winner take all in most states. Also, winner-take-all makes for convincing wins by a large majority and give the winner an implied "mandate" that is more effective in uniting a group at the end of the process.
Un-Inevitable
A year ago most Democrats, by all accounts, thought that two things were inevitable:
1. Hillary Clinton will be the party nominee.
2. Any Democrat will win the White House because of how much the country hates George W. Bush.
It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary's inevitability has gone down the drain.
What is clear to me is that the inevitability of the second probability is gone as well.
Things are looking promising on the Republican side, making a win in November highly possible. What things? Well, here's two:
- the Repbulicans have settled on a candidate already, while the Democrats have months of fratricide ahead of them in their screwed up primary.
- the "surge" is indeed working. This both takes it off the front pages of the paper and shows leading Dems to have been wrong when they declared the war "lost".
I'm looking forward to the electoral battle in November. I think the Democrats are well on their way to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
1. Hillary Clinton will be the party nominee.
2. Any Democrat will win the White House because of how much the country hates George W. Bush.
It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary's inevitability has gone down the drain.
What is clear to me is that the inevitability of the second probability is gone as well.
Things are looking promising on the Republican side, making a win in November highly possible. What things? Well, here's two:
- the Repbulicans have settled on a candidate already, while the Democrats have months of fratricide ahead of them in their screwed up primary.
- the "surge" is indeed working. This both takes it off the front pages of the paper and shows leading Dems to have been wrong when they declared the war "lost".
I'm looking forward to the electoral battle in November. I think the Democrats are well on their way to snatching defeat from the jaws of victory!
Monday, March 03, 2008
Super Tuesday 2 - tidbits
You know, faithful readers, that I've wanted to post something every day during this totally fascinating election season of 2008. Alas, time does not permit. So, to catch up, here are some tidbits:
- I'm of a split mind what I want to have happen in tomorrow's Super Tuesday 2 elections in Texas and Ohio. Do I want Hillary to get the crushing defeat that she so soundly deserves, and for the Clintons to finally be driven off the public stage in humiliating defeat. Yes, I want that. Or, do I more want Hillary to make just enough of a showing to stay in the race so that the two of them can scratch each other's eye's out (politically metaphorically, of course) all the way through the convention? Do I wish for political chaos and damage in the Democratic primaries until August? The Rush Limbaugh strategy.
I want both. I think, though, that I have to come down on the side of wanting Hillary soundly defeated and out of our lives. The Clintons are so politically dangerous to America's future that I want the possibility of her being President off of the table. I'll sleep easier.
- Who is the most beatable in the general election for McCain? Hillary, with her decades of baggage? Or Barack who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama? I say both are beatable. Finsh off Hillary now. Take out Obama in the general. It can happen.
- Speaking of B. Hussein Obama's middle name: I think most if not all of the pundits are missing the point about why it should cause Americans pause in voting for him.
It's not that he is currently a muslim - he's not, he's a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.
It's not, as Karl "the Architect", said on Fox News tonight irrelevant because B. Hussein Obama did not choose his middle name.
It's relevant precisely because the people who did choose his middle name are the people who most influenced and shaped his life and his worldview, and they are all "practicing" muslims. So, did Obama oppose the Iraq war in 2002 - when EVERYONE else supported it - because he really thought it was bad strategy, or because of the worldview that his overwhelmingly muslim family shaped him with? You can't say you know.
I'll just say it straight out. We are at war with Islamic Jihadists who mean to do great harm to America. I do not want a commander-in-chief, who will be called on to pull the trigger to defend us, who has sympathetic family connections to the group we are fighting. I don't. That's my preference, and I'm entitled to it.
I'll refer you to this website for a look at Barack Hussein Obama's family history. Chock full of muslim heritage. That obviously doesn't disqualify him from anything - except the one thing that he's seeking: commander-in-chief of our armed forces. My opinion.
- By the way, the same disqualification applies to Hillary, who's closest personal aide and live-in companion Huma Abedin is a Saudi Arabian nationalist with muslim parents from India and Pakistan. Under what national security clearance program did she get to be the closest aide to a presidential candidate? Is she an intelligence agent for Saudi Arabia? It's a reasonable question.
- It's not just Obama's muslim past that is troubling.
His formative collaboration with leftist activists during his "community organizer" days is.
His corrupt alliance with Rezko in Chicago, who apparently fraudently funneled money to Obama to buy his mansion, is.
His membership in a church that preaches black nationalism, and corresponding antipathy to "white culture" and America in general is. Now personally, I'm not into racial politics. But Obama's church is, to the extreme, and that's the point. (Go read their "12 precepts and convenants" about the "Black Value System") It has undoubtedly shaped his worldview, and that should be questioned.
His 100% allegiance to the pro-abortion industry - to the point of even opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - is.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose Obama.
- So, Obama is beatable by a Republican candidate who will go after him. That candidate, unfortunately, is not John McCain. McCain will pull his punches just to be liked by the liberal media, and throw conservatives under the bus - as he did with Cunningham last week for mentioning he-who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken's middle name.
- During the early months of the primary, the political spin was that the Republican's were in disarray and didn't like any of their candidates while the Dems were in a lovefest with all three of their candidates. That most Democrats thought that "any of our three" would make fine candidates and easily beat any Republican in November.
Trust me, that lovefest with their candidates on the Dem side has taken a beating lately. I don't know if you read left-wing websites like democraticundergound.com, or listen to leftwing radio, but I do. And they are just as in disarray and not liking their candidates at the moment as the Republicans do. The palpable dislike of Hillary and Barack by the opposite supporters on DU is getting hardcore and vicious. Obamaniacs hate Hillary, and vice versa. The lovefest is over.
- I don't know about Ohio, but I think Mike Huckabee still has life left in him in Texas. My gut tells me he could post big numbers there. His strategy of denying McCain enough delegates to lock up a first-ballot win at the convention has life in it.
Tomorrow should be exciting. I'm tuning in...
- I'm of a split mind what I want to have happen in tomorrow's Super Tuesday 2 elections in Texas and Ohio. Do I want Hillary to get the crushing defeat that she so soundly deserves, and for the Clintons to finally be driven off the public stage in humiliating defeat. Yes, I want that. Or, do I more want Hillary to make just enough of a showing to stay in the race so that the two of them can scratch each other's eye's out (politically metaphorically, of course) all the way through the convention? Do I wish for political chaos and damage in the Democratic primaries until August? The Rush Limbaugh strategy.
I want both. I think, though, that I have to come down on the side of wanting Hillary soundly defeated and out of our lives. The Clintons are so politically dangerous to America's future that I want the possibility of her being President off of the table. I'll sleep easier.
- Who is the most beatable in the general election for McCain? Hillary, with her decades of baggage? Or Barack who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken Obama? I say both are beatable. Finsh off Hillary now. Take out Obama in the general. It can happen.
- Speaking of B. Hussein Obama's middle name: I think most if not all of the pundits are missing the point about why it should cause Americans pause in voting for him.
It's not that he is currently a muslim - he's not, he's a member of Trinity United Church of Christ.
It's not, as Karl "the Architect", said on Fox News tonight irrelevant because B. Hussein Obama did not choose his middle name.
It's relevant precisely because the people who did choose his middle name are the people who most influenced and shaped his life and his worldview, and they are all "practicing" muslims. So, did Obama oppose the Iraq war in 2002 - when EVERYONE else supported it - because he really thought it was bad strategy, or because of the worldview that his overwhelmingly muslim family shaped him with? You can't say you know.
I'll just say it straight out. We are at war with Islamic Jihadists who mean to do great harm to America. I do not want a commander-in-chief, who will be called on to pull the trigger to defend us, who has sympathetic family connections to the group we are fighting. I don't. That's my preference, and I'm entitled to it.
I'll refer you to this website for a look at Barack Hussein Obama's family history. Chock full of muslim heritage. That obviously doesn't disqualify him from anything - except the one thing that he's seeking: commander-in-chief of our armed forces. My opinion.
- By the way, the same disqualification applies to Hillary, who's closest personal aide and live-in companion Huma Abedin is a Saudi Arabian nationalist with muslim parents from India and Pakistan. Under what national security clearance program did she get to be the closest aide to a presidential candidate? Is she an intelligence agent for Saudi Arabia? It's a reasonable question.
- It's not just Obama's muslim past that is troubling.
His formative collaboration with leftist activists during his "community organizer" days is.
His corrupt alliance with Rezko in Chicago, who apparently fraudently funneled money to Obama to buy his mansion, is.
His membership in a church that preaches black nationalism, and corresponding antipathy to "white culture" and America in general is. Now personally, I'm not into racial politics. But Obama's church is, to the extreme, and that's the point. (Go read their "12 precepts and convenants" about the "Black Value System") It has undoubtedly shaped his worldview, and that should be questioned.
His 100% allegiance to the pro-abortion industry - to the point of even opposing the Born Alive Infant Protection Act - is.
There are a lot of reasons to oppose Obama.
- So, Obama is beatable by a Republican candidate who will go after him. That candidate, unfortunately, is not John McCain. McCain will pull his punches just to be liked by the liberal media, and throw conservatives under the bus - as he did with Cunningham last week for mentioning he-who's-middle-name-cannot-be-spoken's middle name.
- During the early months of the primary, the political spin was that the Republican's were in disarray and didn't like any of their candidates while the Dems were in a lovefest with all three of their candidates. That most Democrats thought that "any of our three" would make fine candidates and easily beat any Republican in November.
Trust me, that lovefest with their candidates on the Dem side has taken a beating lately. I don't know if you read left-wing websites like democraticundergound.com, or listen to leftwing radio, but I do. And they are just as in disarray and not liking their candidates at the moment as the Republicans do. The palpable dislike of Hillary and Barack by the opposite supporters on DU is getting hardcore and vicious. Obamaniacs hate Hillary, and vice versa. The lovefest is over.
- I don't know about Ohio, but I think Mike Huckabee still has life left in him in Texas. My gut tells me he could post big numbers there. His strategy of denying McCain enough delegates to lock up a first-ballot win at the convention has life in it.
Tomorrow should be exciting. I'm tuning in...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)