GOP Sex Scandals and the Charge of Hypocrisy

They say all is fair in love and war. Is it fair game for liberals to make hay about the GOP sex scandals? Of course. Democrats can certainly overlook the many, many sex scandals past and present and claim that because of recent GOP sex scandals that it is better to vote for Democrats. Since they are fully aware of the long history of Democrat sex scandals, they have come up with the claim that the GOP are hypocrits for espousing moral values and then some of their rank become embroiled in some of the most salacious sexual affairs. Is this hyocrisy? It is certainly hypocrisy on the part of those elected officials that partake in these activities - whether they are caught or not.

The actions of others will determine if they are being hypocritical. For instance, if I am vocal in claiming that the GOP is better at espousing moral values and I defend or turn a blind eye to immoral scandals of members of the GOP; then yes, I would rightfully be considered hypocritical. I personally believe that political leaders should hold a high moral standard. This is especially true when somebody has made a lifetime commitment of marriage to another and then they break that trust. I don't really discuss moral issues on this blog but I hold the position that every political leader that breaks a marriage vow while in office should resign. Period. Those who espouse moral positions but then make excuses just because they are GOP are hypocrites.

The fact is that many in the GOP (like me) are not vocal at all on issues of morality. Sure there are enough to be heard, but many others are really more interested in fiscal responsibility, limited government, economic and military strength, rugged individualism, lower taxes. So basically hypocrisy can only come if those who trumpet moral values are engaged in immoral behavior or support the retention in office of those who are. There are approximately 55 million registered voters affiliated with the GOP. How many of those meet my proposed definition of hypocrisy? Only by painting with a broad brush and stereotyping the entire GOP can the charge of hypocrisy be made. Of course who are the ones that are always denouncing stereotypes? The Democrats. Now that looks like hypocrisy to me.

Quick Note: Liberal Reaction to Passing Climate Change Bill

NOW: Yay! Sock it to those big bad energy companies and save the earth from catastrophe!

SIX MONTHS AFTER IT TAKES EFFECT: Hey! Why is gasoline skyrocketing. Why is my heating and electricity bill so d*mn high! Those evil corporations!

1 YEAR AFTER IT TAKES EFFECT: We need to pass a tax hike so we can help the poor pay for all these high energy bills.

Ok, it might not take a full year for that last one. Let's hope the Senate stops this "pile" as Boehner calls it.

Hey eight GOP Reps. that voted for the pile. Did you wake up this morning, look in the mirror and see a bullseye on your forehead? Believe me, it is there. Here are their names:

Mary Bono Mack (CA)
Mike Castle (DE)
Mark Steven Kirk (IL)
Leonard Lance (NJ)
Frank A. LoBiondo (NJ)
John M. McHugh (NY)
Dave Reichert (WA)
Chris Smith (NJ)

Overspending at the Economic Peak

We are seeing many references in the news about the severe budget shortfalls in states with most focus on California and New York. Without getting into a discussion about Federal deficit spending, I would point to city and state level as a clear government level that requires strict budgetary discipline. At this level, there should never be significant deficit spending. Yet what we see is that at the economic peak where revenues are highest, states are spending at lease as much as comes in and often more.

For decades we have seen economies rise and fall in a constant cycle. Economies can never sustain unending growth, eventually succumbing to a recession where revenues crash back to earth. While we enjoy the spring, summer and fall of each cycle; there is always a winter. Each time we hear of state budget woes. Attempts are made to raise taxes to make up the difference. When wiser minds prevail, cost cuts are made instead; although too often the wrong areas are cut.

During the economic highs, nobody is ever wise enough to prepare for the fall. States should set aside at least 10% of their revenues during the good times to tap into during the bad times. States should retain a reserve from the fruitful seasons to fall back on during economic winter. Unfortunately, this does not happen. There is no serious pressure for budgetary restraint. Instead there is a hand out at every corner. Instead votes are purchased from public coffers.

We are always hearing about looking for solutions to societal problems. Unfortunately, the best time to find and enact a solution is before the problem occurs not after.

Sorry Liberals, but being more like you is not the GOP key to winning elections

Gallop has a poll out showing "Conservatives" as the single largest ideological block with 40% willing to label themselves as conservative or very conservative. 35 % claim to be moderates and only 21% own up to being liberal or very liberal.

I have been sickened since the election by disingenuous members of the media and liberal bloggers claiming that GOP's only hope of survival is to become more liberal. I have difficulty telling whether they really believe this tripe or if they are merely making it up as a talking point to convince people to believe it. I lean toward the latter.

This poll shows that this is still a very conservative country. I also believe the number to actually be higher. Many people might espouse an ideology, but do not want to be labeled with either brand. Each brand has been successfully stigmatized to some degree. I talk to people all the time that claim to lean left and vote Democrat. Yet when you discuss things issue by issue almost always you walk away thinking the person is not only a conservative, but a strong one. Usually there is one issue they lean left on but the rest they are strongly to the right. I've said to more than one person "Dude, you don't realize it but you are a conservative." Their initial response is horror and often the conversation is over.

The biggest shortcoming of the Bush Administration is that they did not take the opportunity in political battles to educate the people. They could be very slick and cunning at times and somehow get their agenda through, but they did not use the process to draw the distinction between conservative and liberal principals. The key to winning elections in the future is not becoming more liberal. The key to winning elections in the future is educating the people and getting them to realize that they are actually conservatives. I think that the biggest voting block that is very, very conservative but votes Democrat are Hispanics. Karl Rove and the Bush Administration courted Hispanics, but they did it in a way where they acted like Democrats instead of making the conservative case.

Of course the education strategy is dependent on one key factor: Republicans as a whole must, must begin to act like conservatives. The "big tent" strategy has destroyed this party. That does not mean we exclude people. We make it clear that in certain groups many agree with 80% of conservative principals. They should be welcome in the GOP but don't expect the GOP to cater to your 20% liberal views.

The Obama Administration has handed us a case study where we can clearly draw the distinction between conservatism and liberalism. We must take this opportunity to educate. We cannot wobble. We cannot muddy the waters with "bipartisanship" and "reaching across the aisle". I have always maintained that when there is an opportunity to clearly debate the two sides without spin and without heavy handed tactics that conservatism wins the debate every time. We must win the debate.

Quick Note: The Murder of Dr. Tiller

It was clearly wrong for Dr. Tiller to be murdered by an abortion foe. I certainly do not condone such actions. That said, I will point out that the media is going overboard with their coverage. There are people murdered every day for one reason or another: a robbery gone bad, a cheating spouse, wealth envy, or mere inconvenience. The tone of the media that this murder is somehow worst or a graver injustice than others is nauseating. To put things in perspective, I have only found one source regarding the murder of an Army Recruiter in Arkansas and the wounding of another. I doubt we will see the sensational coverage they are using in the Tiller murder. Even when a police officer is killed in the line of duty we do not see such outrage.

Update: Surprise! Army recruiting assistant killed my new Muslim convert who disagrees with our presence in Iran and Afghanistan. This story will not only lack the sensational coverage of the Dr. Tiller murder; it will get buried.

Update II: Liberals blaming Bill O' Reilly rhetoric for death of Dr. Tiller. So who's rhetoric do they blame for the Army Recruiter deaths? Oops, they are silent on that so far.

Update III: Michelle Malkin points out the difference in the statements by Obama about each murder.

Obama's strong statement on the Dr. Tiller murder:
I am shocked and outraged by the murder of Dr. George Tiller as he attended church services this morning. However profound our differences as Americans over difficult issues such as abortion, they cannot be resolved by heinous acts of violence.

Obama's weak statement on the William Long murder:
“I am deeply saddened by this senseless act of violence against two brave young soldiers who were doing their part to strengthen our armed forces and keep our country safe. I would like to wish Quinton Ezeagwula a speedy recovery, and to offer my condolences and prayers to William Long’s family as they mourn the loss of their son.”

Quick Note: White Roofs

I have yet to hear anybody speculate on my theory that suggesting that people paint their roofs white has anything to do with Google Earth. At worst, it would allow the government to mark those fanatically convinced of the GW Hoax that they would take such a silly measure. At best, I see Obama's folks on a slow day going on Google Earth and snickering at all the suckers they were able to dupe into doing it.

Also, while I follow the theory that reflecting the heat will reduce running AC, I have not heard about the effect of heating in the winter. Would this not require more fossil fuel usage to heat homes in Winter further driving up the cost of energy and throwing more CO2 in the atmosphere?

PT Barnum would be proud.

American Idol Finale - 2009

Tuesday night we will more than certainly see great performances by the the finalists Adam Lambert and Kris Allen. Most know by now that Adam Lambert is gay. I for one could care less. Issues of morality do not interest me when it comes to entertainment. We have had a number of gay contestants on American Idol and none of them have had the talent it takes to win. Adam does. If Adam does win it, he will be deserving of the recognition of his singing and performance talents.

I will say that in the past few weeks, I have not been as impressed by Adam as in weeks before. His high, piercing notes (as his tongue flies out) was pretty impressive the first few times but has been overused. Adam had such strong performances in the first half of the season I think it was hard to top. Kris on the other hand has been growing each week in his performances. I for one was quite irritated with some of his early output. I was even more irritated that the judges and my wife did not share my opinion. About two weeks ago, though, I began to see strong promise and actually began pulling for him. I really did not care who would be the top two as the top three were fantastic.

In summary, I am neutral on the gay issue. I will not share the world's shock, however, if Kris pulls off an upset. Adam has been static or sinking for several weeks, while Kris' star has been rising. I just hope we don't have to hear a bunch of claims of homophobia if Kris does win.

Quick Note: Jon Huntsman a Setup?

I have not had time for long drawn out write-ups, so I am introducing the Quick Note to point out some quick observations.

I am noticing that Obama has tapped GOP Jon Huntsman to be Ambassador to China. When I read this, it jumped out immediately that this is a setup to make a Republican the fall guy for when relations with China go south. With China being the biggest underwriter of our debt and being on record they are wary of absorbing more; the huge Porkulus Stimulus package and insane budget deficit will be a recipe for disaster when it comes to China. I expect a resignation before 2012.

The Economy is Barack Obama's Katrina

Note: During my illness the last few weeks I have been slowly writing this post. In that time, I lost the opportunity to be the first to name the economic tide of devastation Obama's Katrina. In the last week it has cropped up all over. For the record, I thought of it long before. Ahh well.

In 2005 Hurrican Katrina brought devastation to New Orleans and the surrounding area. George W. Bush did not cause Katrina to happen, yet Katrina is judged as one of his administrations greatest failures. Why? He is judged on his administrations response to the disaster. While we can argue over the exact causes of our current economic crisis and which side of the aisle is to blame, one thing is certain: the Obama Administration did not cause it. Like Katrina, as far as the Obama Administration is concerned, it is something beyond their control that happened. A disaster.

The question now is: how is the Obama Administration going to handle this disaster? What are they going to do to reduce it or make it go away? The components of the economic disaster are:

- The failing financial institutions (risk of massive failure; reduced confidence; difficulty to obtain loans)
- The ailing housing market (prices sinking, massive mortgage defaults)
- Rising Unemployment
- OPEC continuing to cut oil production threatening another rise in fuel prices (either now, or if the economy begins to improve)

Financial Institutions - Obama's actions during his terms as Senator, during the campaign and as president have only led to a policy of throwing billions of dollars at the financial institutions without very little oversight or accountability.

Obama insisted on nominating a tax cheat as Treasury Secretary. Now through blunders in the vetting process and focusing on 'not wasting a good crisis' Obama has not filled the positions that will support Geithner to address the greatest financial threat of our time since the Great Depression. In spite of Geithner's troubles, Obama seems to think he is doing a 'heckuva job'.

Housing Market - The only thing I can say is that without fully recognizing the root causes of the housing market crash, there is little hope of achieving a sustainable solution. Since Obama and his pals at ACORN are at the heart of the housing crisis, there is zero chance of owning up to the root cause. The New York Times recognized the problem in 1999 and predicted the crash during an economic downturn. Of course they had amnesia during the actual crisis. Read about it here.

Rising Unemployment - Obama has done nothing to address the unemployment issue. In fact his actions have been interpreted as hostile to the greatest job creator - the small business sector. We have seen no signals from the Obama camp since taking office other than hostility: higher taxes, higher regulation. If you are a business owner, what are you going to do? Hire and hope things get better? Lay off or hold to save on cash flow until it is safe again?

Fuel Prices - Obama moved very fast to reverse all the domestic drilling policy changes enacted before the election to help quell the raging rise in oil prices. The oil bubble burst last fall under the pressure of the policy changes and the economic downturn, but since that time Obama has only enacted policy to send oil prices back in an upward direction. In addition to the policy reversals (putting all domestic hope off limits), Obama sits idly by while OPEC continues to cut production. The final spike in the coffin of affordable oil, is the weakening of the dollar by Obama's massive spending and printing more money to pay for it.


The actions Obama has taken in response to this financial disaster can be classified in one of two categories:

1) Bumbling baffoonery that will not solve the problem
2) Enact targeted actions that have nothing to do with the economy, but will bring a complete paradigm shift in the political landscape.

Initially, it looked like Obama and team were doing #1 and simply throwing money at the problem hoping it would help. As time goes on, however, it is becoming clear that the actions taken are tarketed at very specific social change. Instead of fixing the problem, the Obama Administration is choosing to take the opportunity to ram a liberal/socialist agenda down our throats. In the end, we will have a weaker economy, a weaker military, a weaker dollar and be no stronger economically than before.

Obama has taken careful steps to drum it into the record that he inherited this recession. Granted. An acorn has been left in his lap. Obama cannot take steps that will turn that acorn into a tall oak, then blame his predecessor. He can try, but even if the MSM holds the line there are not enough wagons to circle Obama on something this big. Unfortunately for Obama, the MSM is beginning to go wobbly on him.

Obama Two Week Report Card

Two weeks into the Obama Presidency, I still do not fully know the direction Obama is taking us. Sure I have a better idea than before, but I need a little more time to fully resolve. There are three things that are shaping his decisions:

1) Who Obama is at the core
2) The people he owes for getting him in office
3) What he wants his legacy to be

I wanted to add a fourth factor - his desire for the good of the country, but I don't know him well enough yet - nor seen any evidence that he takes that into consideration.

I have been disturbed by what Obama has chosen to focus on in the first days in office. One of the first things he does upon waking up after the Inauguration festivities is to call Palastinian President Abbas making it a point to ensure he was the first foreign leader that was called. Later Obama would grant his first Presidential TV interview to the foreign Arab News al-Arabiya. This is a telling sign that Obama believes that if we kiss enough terrorist behind, that it will make us safer. This is the kind of liberal thinking that will get Americans killed. The Saudis have stated they like Obama's new tone. What we did not hear was the laughter behind closed doors.

Speaking of more Americans getting killed, next Obama signs the Executive Order to close Guantanimo Bay within a year. This is a bone to the nutroots who got him elected. There are no details of where the detainees will go. Read some stories here of released detainees that have been caught later in terrorist activities. One day in the future we will be seeing loved ones of victims decrying the closing of Guantanimo because one of the released terrorists pulled off an attack.

Speaking of mass murder, another item at the top of Obama's agenda was to restore funding to foreign groups that perform and support abortions.

Obama signed another executive order banning aggressive treatment of detainees such as waterboarding. Of course, there was some legal hocus pocus that actually leaves the door open to allow it if it really is necessary.

Finally, Obama has spent a lot of effort and energy to promote the trillion dollar stimulus package. This package mostly consists of wealth redistribution (for rebate checks to those who don't pay taxes) and a boatload of pork. Some of that pork includes $4-5 billion for top voter fraud organization ACORN (quite an expensive thank-you note), $50 million for "the arts", $25 million to repair damaged ATV trails (cool, but I don't want to pay for it), $650 million to help people switch to digital TV, $335 million for STD prevention, $70 million to help people stop smoking (will Obama take advantage of that?).

It is thoroughly disgusting that every time the GOP wants to cut taxes, the media comes out with all the hand wringing about how we cannot afford it, asking how we are going to pay for it. So far I have seen next to nothing like that from the media over the addition of a trillion dollars to the debt load for our children and grandchildren.

That is my summary of Obama's first two weeks in office. I truly tried to find something positive to say about him, but could not find anything. Sure, there are a few things he has not (yet) done wrong but there is still plenty of time. So far, Obama gets a D- from the Logic Lifeline.

Gran Torino Review

Yes, I know it has been out a few weeks. My wife and I finally went out last night and saw Gran Torino starring Clint Eastwood. Sometimes when seeing previews of a movie you just feel it in your bones that it will be good. Such was the case with Gran Torino, and I was eager to see it. Our schedule just would not allow it until last night. I must say the movie by far exceeded my expectations. While there are many movies that are good, but have moments that are so-so as the next climax is built; every moment of Gran Torino was enjoyable. Clint Eastwood was absolutely fantastic! There was a small bonus during the roll of the credits at the end, too that I won't give away. If you have not seen it yet, I highly recommend it. It was the best movie I have seen in months. Ok, the recent dry spell in quality doesn't make that statement stand out like I would wish. The bottom line is that this is a must see.

AICS will remain on hiatus until PEBO becomes POTUS

I hope everybody had a great Christmas and New Years holiday. I enjoyed my trip to Japan to see my son. Unfortunately, my wife and I became sick during the trip. I was sick but functional while my wife was bedridden all but one day. We got to visit our son, but other than going to a few local establishments including "American Village", we did not really get to sink our teeth into the place like we normally do when we travel. Maybe next time.

I am going to continue on hiatus until after the Inauguration. The current events are leaving me disgusted instead of inspiring me to write. I also have a few other things to focus on at work and home and do not have the time to write at the moment. All for now.

Merry Christmas to All

To those who keep coming here only to find that I have not added anything new, I apologize. Sometimes in life, we have little time because we work hard. While I have had some of that, most of my time shortage lately has been due to playing hard. My wife and I departed Thanksgiving weekend, on a Caribbean cruise. This is our second cruise where both have been on Norwegian Cruise Line. I highly recommend them. We saw some beautiful sights in the ports of call: Samana, Dominican Republic; St. Thomas, US Virgin Islands; Tortola, British Virgin Islands; Great Stirrup Cay, Bahamas. We had a closeup view of some deep poverty in Samana. I wish my son "Chip" were with us to see how much opportunity we have in the US. In St. Thomas we went on a "helmet dive" where they put a 70 lb. helmet on your head for oxygen and you do a walk on the bottom about 30 feet down. Very cool. We had a great Catamaran ride and snorkeling in Tortola and spent a relaxing day on the beach in Great Stirrup Cay. The food and entertainment was very good. We had a great time. We got to relax a lot. It took me 1.5 days to get my mind settled down to relaxing, but I did it. Now I can't get my mind back to working mode :)

Last weekend my wife and I celebrated our 24th Anniversary. I used a weekend deal with my timeshare to spend the weekend in Phoenix. We had a very, very good time.

With the last remaining vestiges of vacation time, we have decided we want our family together for Christmas. The difficulty is that my oldest son is stationed in Japan. So...Olive Oyl, Chip and I will be spending Christmas with him in Japan. We leave in the next few days and get 3 solid days with him. I wish I had more time, but it is what it is.

So, now you all know some of what I have been up to. I have almost written a post or two on the political developments. Here are a few brief political comments:

It is fun that the liberals seem to be more upset with Obama than conservatives. Not sure how long that will last, but it is fun for now. Looks like the Dems are going to steal a Senate seat in MN and I have yet to find a Lib that is upset about it. Our Illinois governor has really stepped in it. My prediction at this time is that he will get away with it. The only reason he may not is the concern over embarrassing Obama. The question is - what does Blago have on Obama? The Global Warming skeptics seem to be growing in strength. There is a sense of desperation to act on Global Warming now. The question is - can the auto industry take a costly hit right now in the name of junk science? Can the economy take a carbon penalizing tax? How soon before Obama burns capital harming the Coal industry, or angering the Left more by supporting more nuclear power? There is not a lot of wiggle room to do anything about Global Warming (except talk). By this time next year we will have another year of cooling under our belt due to the lack of solar activity. We will have more scientists flip to the skeptic side. We will have more talk of a little ice age. Even now in their panic, the global warming crowd is blaming warming on the cooling trend. If that is so obvious why didn't they predict a cooling trend due to the warming? They are beginning to sound like Gene Wilder as Willy Wonka.

All the political commentary until I get back from Japan. Everybody have a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Your Friend,
AICS

Obama Makes a Great Pick in Rahm Emanuel

The reaction of some conservatives against Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff is leaving me scratching my head. Sure, he is a Democrat and a fierce opponent. I also get the angle that this does not represent 'change' and they are preparing to underscore by each and every selection that Obama's administration will be a bunch of old guard hacks. I get it.

However, the Emanuel pick has its positives. The Chief of Staff according to Wikepedia is "the second highest-ranking member of the Executive Office of the President of the United States and a senior aide to the President." It says they are often dubbed "'The Second-Most Powerful Man in Washington' due to the nature of the job." So in theory Emanuel will have the most influence on the Obama Administration than anybody else.

Guess what? Rahm Emanuel is a very strong supporter of Israel. WorldNetDaily has a fascinating article on the selection called "Obama's chief a closet hawk?" Consider the following nuggets from the article:

- He has strong roots in Israel
"Both Emanuel's parents are citizens of Israel. His Jerusalem-born father, Benjamin Emanuel, fought for Israel's independence, even helping smuggle guns to the Israeli underground. He later served as a medic in the 1948 Israeli battle for independence."

"...served as a captain in the Israeli army"

- He is a strong supporter of Israel
"Emanuel also staunchly believes in Israel's right to exist and is not as conciliatory as Obama on the issue of Palestinian rights."

- He supported and continues to support the Iraq War, the War on Terror and the removal of Saddam Hussein

"Asked in 2005 by late NBC host Tim Russert whether he would have voted to authorize the war knowing that there were no weapons of mass destruction, Emanuel replied yes. (Emanuel was elected to Congress after the authorization vote.) 'I still believe that getting rid of Saddam Hussein was the right thing to do, OK?' he added."

"In his 2006 book, 'The Plan,' Emanuel devotes a whole chapter to 'the War on Terror,' in which he asserts that Democrats should not be afraid to 'take the fight to the enemy.' 'We need to use all the roots of American power to make our country safe,' he added."

"Among other things, he proposes creating a new domestic counter-terrorism force like Britain's MI5 to protect the homeland."

Rahm Emanuel was selected by Obama because of his positions, or in spite of them. Either way, his selection is a poke in the eye to groups like Code Pink. It is certainly a back hand at the radical Islamic groups like Hamas, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda that offered their endorsements prior to the election and their congratulations afterward. Like I have maintained, the Obama victory is an oppotunity for unlimited fun for the conservative blogger. This is only the beginning.

Political Spinach: Political Discourse

Post-election there are two camps of thought: one camp wants to focus on Unity and the other wants to focus on their agenda. The Unity camp looks at the divisiveness created during the terms of the last two presidents and wants that to go away. The picture here is the desire for all the country to get together, hold hands and sing Kumbaya. The Agenda camp looks at the 50% (or so) that disagree with them in this country and wants to keep shoving their agenda until it successfully goes down the throat of the opposition. The picture here is two people arguing, screaming and swearing at each other with neither listening. Both camps tend to disgust me.

For the Unity camp I would dispel the notion that there are many truths. Usually there is one truth for each and every issue in life. Sure there are areas that may not be worth fighting over, but there are some areas that are worth engaging in debate to determine the one truth. As a conservative, I too often find that those promoting Unity are merely pushing conservatives to be more like liberals. Randall Hoven recently stated:

"There's a joke where the husband wants a dog and his wife wants a cat, so they compromise and get a cat. With Democrats, every "compromise" is a cat."

So it is when it comes to unity in Washington, the conservatives / GOP are always considered the ones that need to compromise. There are two components to governance: ideology and application of ideology. The purpose of political discourse should be to determine ideology. Upon solidly determining ideology, the next step is the application of ideology.

It is in the application of ideology that as a last resort compromises may be made. The Unity camp wants to compromise right out of the starting gate. Instead of a last resort during application, they push for compromise during discourse. Only when one believes there are many truths can they compromise during the discourse stage. When the ideology is properly communicated, one can then say "This is the best course of action. We have been unable to convince everybody of that fact, so for now we have reached a compromise to step toward the final goal". Compromise must only be to implement a portion of the ideology, not a mixed and corrupt ideology.

For the Agenda camp I would also point to the value of clear political discourse. There is no room for venomous division during the discourse stage. Both sides of the isle have been guilty of venom when debating ideology. This makes it very unlikely that any actual listening will occur. The most venom usually comes from the side of the isle out of power. So it has been over the last eight years. The Left literally became Unhinged when they were continually denied power. Sometimes the Right responded in kind. Other times they took the high road. Now that the Right is completely out of power, it may be seducing to follow the same path and substitute political discourse with venom and rage. Now is the time to continue to take the high road. With the Left in power, it is conceivable their rage and invective will subside a bit and if we retain civility, there is a good chance more listening will take place.

If somebody has a clear sense of their ideology and succeeds in applying it, there is no reason for venom, hatred or attack on that person. It is like many sports games. There may be players or teams that have cultivated their talents and enjoyed success in implementing those talents. There is no reason to hate those players or teams, but rather it is better to cultivate your own talents and compete to win.The last eight years, political discourse has greatly suffered. The Bush Administration had many political victories. However, usually they were not preceded by strong successful political discourse by the administration. The most successful example of the proper approach is Ronald Reagan. Reagan communicated ideology to the American people and then implemented it. "This what I want to do and why I want to do it and this is what I expect to happen when I do it." Only during the process of productive political discourse can we clearly educate the people what and why decisions need to be made. After they are made, we can look back to the discourse and see if the communicated result actually occurred or not. Only by political discourse can we make history and later see which history is worth repeating.

One good way of maintaining civility is to give credit when it is due, regardless of party. The Left chose the last eight years to deny George W. Bush any point of credit whatsoever for anything. We cannot repeat that low performance. If Barack Obama does well in any area, I hope to be there granting kudos. By remaining civil, we can raise the level of political discourse and educate the people on good and bad policy. That is more powerful than the electoral success of your party. As we have seen, a party can succeed in becoming elected but the people who supported them can lose.

Political Spinach: Introduction

I am introducing a new concept on this blog called "Political Spinach". In keeping with my Popeye theme I am using spinach as a symbol for something good that will make us stronger. I have entertained the thought for over a year now to create a website (not a blog) called Political Spinach that would contain more static types of information and theory instead of posts being driven by current events. Blogging is great, but it is always a moving picture and often that which is written is virtually lost soon after posting. Most posts will never be read by anybody after about a month or so.

For now instead of the website I will be adding posts. The Political Spinach Posts are designed to be referred to again and again. It is like putting up a tent. The stakes hold various portions of the tent in place. Without good stakes, the tent can come down in one or more areas. These posts are designed to be good stakes to solidly keep various positions I support nailed down so that the rest of the tent can be fully supported. Hopefully this will make more sense as I begin posting. I will still, of course continue with my current events driven posts, but I hope to have a good mix. Since I will be adding a 'Political Spinach' label to each of these posts, it will be easy to find them in the mix with the others by using blogger's label functionality.

Congratulations President-Elect Barack Obama

Today I offer a sincere congratulations to the new President-Elect Barack Obama. He was not my choice, but I offer my hope and support that he may somehow turn out to be a good President. The things I fear about an Obama Presidency have not yet occurred. Until they begin, I will not attack him personally. I am not fool enough like some to be willing to cut off my nose to spite my face. I do not wish bad on this country so that Obama looks bad. If good comes from Obama shown by clear cause and effect principles, I will give him credit.

I believe the margin of victory both in the electoral count and the popular vote give Obama a modest mandate to implement the things he clearly defined - not a blank check. For instance, he ran as a tax-cutting moderate and he has the mandate to be a tax cutting moderate as President. He ran as a friend of Israel, he has a mandate to be a friend of Israel. He ran as a supporter of Nuclear Power and Clean Coal as part of his energy plan, he has a mandate to expand Nuclear Power and Clean Coal. He ran on building a stronger military, he has a mandate to build a stronger military. He ran on reconciling faith and politics, he has a mandate to reconcile faith and politics. He ran on securing our borders, improve legal immigration, and require illegals to pay fines, learn English and go to the back of the citizenship line; he has a mandate for this approach. He ran on restoring fiscal discipline to Washington, he has a mandate to balance our budget (while keeping all his promises on national defense and national security). In short, he has a mandate to govern from the Center-Right as this is where he ran his campaign regardless of past record and in spite of many of his supporters.

There are good things I expect from an Obama Presidency and Democratic Congress. I expect the Left and the World Body to knock off their venomous rhetoric that has filled our political discourse for years. I expect the media to knock off the gloom and doom reporting on the economy filling consumers with fear instead of confidence. I expect either the people in general or the Left to feel betrayed when President Obama chooses whether he will govern from the Center or the Left. I expect some to feel the same disappointment I have felt at the results of my preferred party "getting it all". I expect some fun when there is conflict between Reid, Pelosi and Obama when Obama tells them the way it is going to be and they disagree. I expect to have some fun watching how very long it will be before Obama gets out his veto pen in the same way George W. Bush was criticized at the length of time it took him to use his. I expect it to be more fun to go on the offensive against liberal policies than defend conservative policies that rarely exist. I expect it to be fun to observe others try to defend poor decisions. I expect it to be fun when the new administration does things the old administration was heavily criticized for and suddenly it will be ok. Overall, though, I expect at least a small time where divisiveness in politics takes a break. How brief that break is depends mostly on the actions of the new leadership.

In summary, today it is congratulations to Barack, Nancy and Harry. I congratulate all Black Americans who see hope in this man's ascension. I celebrate the offical end of racism in America and all the silly charges that accompany it. Sure there will always be one yahoo or another trapped in prejudice, but today any last vestiges of institutional racism and bigotry can be offically declared dead. Black America can now break free of the surly bonds of oppression. They can now embrace the power of individual achievement and discard the false notion they need the government to accomplish their desires. As a whole they can look to those of their brothers and sisters that took their destiny in their own hands and broke free years prior this moment. They can look to their fellow minorities in the Hispanic, Asian, Indian and Arabic communities for the template to achieving the American Dream by their individual efforts. I truly wish them well.

Others are already declaring war. I choose to give them their days of celebration. I hope I do not have to join, but just in case I will sharpen my tools and prepare in private. In public I will hope for the best and that somehow good can come of this until proven wrong. Country First and May God Bless America.

NObama 08 Blogburst

I am going against the grain for this week's NOBama Blogburst. I feel we have said all we can say on the matter and the decision is in the hands of the American people. But before you vote, take a look at this video:



Before you pull that lever, think about the next four years. Think about the unprecedented power you will be handing over to a greenhorn, an upstart with no resume. Think about the lack of checks and balances we will be missing, if the Democrats control Congress and the White House.

Who will be able to stop them from making more bad decisions?

Win or lose Tuesday, let me say, it has been my honor to participate in this blogburst with such a fine group of bloggers. And always, thank you for reading PYY.


Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Praesidium Respublicae; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH

ADDENDUM: Thanks to Mustang and LA Sunsett for their efforts in providing the blog burst posts this election season. They have been carefully researched and extremely well worded. I hope these efforts have helped a few uninformed voters to see the light.

The MSM-Obama Full Court SupPress

I have been observing the Left leaning bias of the media for 25 years of my life. Many times I have been angry, surprised, shocked and indignant at the sheer blatancy of the bias. Nothing in that 25 years, however, comes close to what I have seen in this 2008 Presidential election. In other elections we have seen the MSM dig up dirt on a GOP candidate and drive, drive, drive the story home. That would be what I have referred to in the past as an MSM Full Court Press.

When McCain and Obama became the nominees, basically there was a candidate that virtually everything was already known about and the other a virtual unknown. Since there was little chance of scandal against McCain, the Full Court Press against him was thwarted. That left the alternative strategy - the Full Court Suppress to do all in their power to suppress anything that would make Obama look bad.

It has been pointed out to me that stories I may think are newsworthy and of interest are not everybody's view. Perhaps not, but the stories and areas of Obama's life that the MSM has failed to lift a finger to pursue go well beyond the typical story. In the conglomerate, nobody of either political persuasion can deny how much the MSM has been in the tank for Obama. They may spin it, they may make excuses for it, but they do not deny it.

Some would claim the MSM has "covered" most if not all of these areas. Wrong. I am looking back into other election coverage using fairly measurable factors of
1) How in depth did they research the story?
2) How in depth did they report the story?
3) How many news cycles did they include the story?

The MSM seems to be under the impression that if during a single news cycle, in midsentence they rapidly mention one of these items, without any details, under the notion that it is a claim on "the right", that it meets the criteria of having "covered" the story. How much attention did George Bush's drunk driving arrest get days before the 2000 election? How much attention did George Bush's AWOL story get (yeah, the forged document one)? How in depth and how many news cycles did the Mark Foley and Larry Craig stories get? Using these stories as bench marks, compare that to how much coverage these Obama items have gotten:

- Family claims of Barack Obama's birth in Kenya that would make him ineligible to become President
- Obama's formative years under communist and sexually perverted mentor Frank Marshall Davis
- Obama's drug years. He admits taking them - where did he buy them? Did he sell them? When did he stop taking them?
- Since Obama will not release his school transcripts, how did he get into Harvard?
- What was he doing in Pakistan?
- Why would a virtual unknown community organizer be selected to chair the board of the CAC?
- With a organizational newsletter supporting by claim and a picture that Barack Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, why is he denying being a socialist?
- The depth of his association with William Ayers. Have you seen the little office bldg they shared?
- The likelihood that William Ayers ghost wrote Obama's book "Dreams of My Fathers"

The three newest news suppression stories are:
- The withholding of the tape of Obama praising PLO operative Rashid Khalidi by the LA Times
- The deliberate shutting off of basic credit card security measures on the Obama website to guard against illegal foreign donations and against exceeding donation limits.
- The depth of the investigation of Joe the Plumber in retaliation for getting Obama to reveal his socialist inclinations

There are many more items in this list that the MSM has simply yawned over. It is an all out information suppression campaign. The information is there. It is easy to obtain much of it. The MSM, however, has always had a different standard of what is newsworthy depending on the ideology of the person the story involves. It is only newsworthy to play a story that makes a Republican look bad. It simply is not newsworthy to make a Democrat look bad. In this election, they have been exponentially worse than in the past.

I am certain there are books already in the making describing this information suppression. We can only hope that they are being written by a source not easy for the MSM to dismiss. Either way, the people have seen with their own eyes their electioneering. Somebody said recently that if he is elected, the MSM will have ownership of an Obama Presidency and all the ramifications that come with it. The memory of most people is very short. It will be up to the New Media and word of mouth by the informed to keep the memory fresh.

NObama 08 Blogburst

Presidential Character

Some people argue that domestic issues are of far greater importance than any discussion of character. I could not disagree more. All elections are about character. If we cannot trust the honor, patriotism, and fidelity of our elected representatives, then the issues don’t matter because whatever a candidate of low character shall say about political issues cannot matter.

I believe we each must consider the character of the two men who want us to elect them as our next president. Some may argue “What more is there to know about either candidate?” after a campaign that has lasted far too long. Ordinarily, at this point in the campaign, I would say, “nothing more.” Except in this election, “We the People” have found the press (as guardians of American democracy) seriously deficient. Rather than remaining impartial, the media has fallen head-over-heels in love with one of the candidates; we must excuse them from the jury of the court of public opinion. This year, the American people have not witnessed a fair trial.

Samuel Adams once said, "The public cannot be too curious concerning the characters of public men,” but this was long before the Obama Era. Political correctness and liberal bias have led us to outcries of racism for even asking questions not even remotely related to race.. The press castigated our friend “Joe the Plumber” for daring to ask about income redistribution. According to one radio report, the Secret Service visited a woman because she told an Obama Campaign worker that she would vote for Barack Obama, “over her dead body.” This kind of attention applied to citizens for merely expressing an opinion is patently un-American, but it is also reminiscent of the intimidation used to silence dissent in communist countries. Character matters all right, especially if suppression of the right of expression is what we can expect from an Obama presidency.

In order to assess the character of our presidential contenders, we must decide upon an appropriate exemplar. On the democratic side of the aisle, the obvious notables are Thomas Jefferson, Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt, Harry Truman, John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson, Jimmy Carter, and Bill Clinton. Jefferson may be too far back in time to serve as our role model. Roosevelt was a patent socialist. Truman left office as one of the most unpopular of all our presidents. Lyndon Johnson gave us too many scars. Mr. Carter was a buffoon and Bill Clinton . . . well, I wonder if we aren’t just a little too tired of hearing about him. Kennedy seems to qualify as the best Democratic Party exemplar, even if he was a womanizer; no one is perfect.

In the twentieth Century, notable Republican presidents have included Theodore Roosevelt, Dwight Eisenhower, Richard Nixon, and Ronald Reagan. Of these, Roosevelt was impetuous, Eisenhower cautious, Nixon resigned in disgrace, and Reagan was the great communicator. I therefore propose Reagan as our Republican Party exemplar.

In 1961, John Kennedy issued this mandate to the American people: “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.” John Kennedy became the darling of the American people; many around the world shared this view. We called his presidency Camelot. He was young, relatively inexperienced, but he excited the people about America’s future. He believed in the rights of man, a strong national defense, and the protection of liberty throughout the world. He believed that nuclear deterrence was insufficient to maintain peaceful coexistence. He believed the United States should be a beacon of hope, and he argued for increased world trade. He sought to achieve working partnerships with other world leaders to achieve dignity, justice, and liberty for all the people of the world. He sought to attain solidarity among the western (Atlantic) nations; he refuted communism as doomed to failure. He set forth an economic policy of unshackled enterprise, industrial leadership, and vibrant capitalism. He sought to lower interest rates in order to increase the flow of money, reduced government spending, and lower taxes. He also vowed to help small businesses through government loans and fair trade policy. Mr. Kennedy was a fiscal conservative.

Ronald Reagan was once a Democrat. He said, “I didn’t leave my party; my party left me.” We assume he spoke about the party of John Kennedy, a platform designed to inspire the American people to greatness. This was also the platform of Ronald Reagan. He repudiated the policy of Jimmy Carter; looking forward, he said, “Democratic politicians are without programs or ideas to reverse economic decline and despair. They are divided, leaderless, unseeing, uncomprehending, they plod on with listless offerings of pale imitations of the same policies they have pursued so long, knowing full well their futility.”

Reagan brought the American people a new pride in their country and themselves, their achievements and future possibilities. He wanted the American people to have liberty and freedom of choice, low taxes as a catalyst for economic growth. He repudiated the so-called Great Society because it created low human productivity. He fought for an expansion of private property ownership, committed himself to improved economic opportunities for black Americans, rights and equality for every minority, and equal opportunities for women. He was committed to the rights of unborn children.


Modern Democrats have turned Kennedy’s ideal upside down; now the cry is “Ask what your country can do for you.” Today’s Democrat pursues the politics of dependency, the essential breaking point between civil rights leaders Martin Luther King, Jr., and Jesse Jackson. King wanted black Americans to realize the reality of equality, while Jackson’s policies pursue racism, separatism, and demands for greater gifts from the government. King wanted black Americans judged according to their character; Jackson views character as secondary concern because the means justifies the end. King fought for unity, Jackson has dedicated his entire life to reverse-segregation.

Modern Republicans have broken faith with the American people. They broke their Contract with America. Much of what has happened since mid-2005 is the result of this failure. As a Republican, I bemoan a Democratically controlled Congress, but I realize that men such as Duke Cunningham brought it to fruition. But, before anyone starts gloating, we should note that the United States Congress today has achieved the low point of popular opinion; it cannot possibly get worse. Or, can it?

It is time to ask ourselves where Barack Obama and John McCain stand with regard to our exemplars of presidential character. We should assume that “Country First” is a sentiment that every patriotic American deeply subscribes; that all of us want to see positive changes for the future. That said, let us dispense with bumper-sticker ideology, and investigate the actual character of each candidate. Let us consider the deeds of these men rather than their words.

Before announcing his candidacy for the highest office, Barack Obama associated himself with socialist organizations, a peculiar philosophy that supports state or collective ownership of all property and the means of production. Since we achieve personal and national wealth through property and the means of production, Mr. Obama apparently believes than an egalitarian society is only possible when the state controls property and wealth. By extension, the State will distribute wealth according to its own priorities, and the State will achieve this through any number of programs, including taxation. Socialist programs relieve individuals of responsibility, for themselves, and for their families. We see this clearly in Mr. Obama’s platform;

Economic Policy

• An immediate energy rebate to American families

• An expenditure of $50 billion to jumpstart the economy

• Federal assistance to states and localities in education, health care, and infrastructure

• Implement the Congressional housing bill through state and local spending

• Federal investment in infrastructure to replenish highways and bridges

• Expenditures in education to replace and repair schools

• Immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs.

• Increase employment and implementing shared prosperity.

• National health care initiatives

We should perhaps note at this point that governments do not create wealth, people do. Governments may facilitate productivity through sound economic policy, but they cannot interfere in a market economy without significant disruption to capitalist investment and diminishing personal and corporate income and profits. Barack Obama’s socialist platform is anathema to Kennedy’s economic philosophy, and may be unparalleled since the days of Franklin Roosevelt. Simply stated, responsible government cannot spend more than anticipated revenues, and it is contrary to American values to redistribute income in a free-market environment.

John McCain is a moderate conservative approximating John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan. He believes that the Constitution of the United States limits the role of the federal government, and he strives to work with the Congress within a constitutional framework to improve government efficiency and reduce waste. Like Kennedy and Reagan, McCain believes that lower taxes improve productivity, and that reduced spending is fiscally responsible and economically necessary. While there are some things the federal government must do, other projects constitutionally fall within the purview of the 50 states. National defense and homeland security is something the federal government must do, but the central government must form partnerships with the states on other important human-services programs. Reflected in Mr. McCain’s platform:

Economic Policy

• Implement immediate transparency to the budgeting process

• Evaluate and reduce spending on wasteful and inefficient programs

• Empower states to improve public services

• Implement meaningful (and trustworthy) oversight of government programs

• Make government more efficient and responsive to citizen’s needs

• Prioritize spending to improve and safeguard America’s infrastructure

• Modernize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Programs

• Restore Social Security to a sound financial basis

• Expand opportunities to promote personal and industrial prosperity

Of these two men, which has the greatest character? Which of these candidates maintains faith with our founding principles of Constitutional Federalism, a steady hand on the tiller of state, while allowing individuals to choose for themselves their best course? John McCain is not a perfect man, nor is he without justifiable criticism of his previous positions; but John McCain is an open book. His service to his country and his associations has been honorable, and trustworthy.

Barack Obama has not been honest and forthright with the American people. He has hidden his past associations or played them down. He has defamed religious teaching through adherence to black separatist theology and racism, consorted with known terrorists, and enjoys the backing of organizations harmful to the interests and the people of the United States. As an advocate of socialist/Marxist ideology, Barack Obama is frankly, in our judgment, un-American. He falls far short of exemplars such as John Kennedy and Ronald Reagan.

Character matters because our nation is facing crises on several critical fronts. If we intend to resolve these problems, we must have the steady hand of true statesmanship. We must have in our president wisdom, experience, honesty, fidelity, and valor. Our president must be a man whose character is consistent with our Nation’s legacy of liberty and equality.

Every presidential election brings forth professional pundits who tell us that this election is the most important of our entire lifetime. This time, they could be right. Our selection of the right man will assure our children, and theirs, of a nation dedicated to individual liberty, prosperity, and the pursuit of happiness. If we choose the wrong man, we may very well witness an end to the United States as created by our forefathers. We are living in perilous times — there is no room for error in our selection of the 44th President of the United States.

On Election Day, one of these candidates will receive a majority of popular votes. In December, the Electoral College will validate the popular vote and confirm the identity of our next president. But this election is more than a referendum on the ability of the American voter to discern between two well-educated men. This election is rather a test of America’s ability to distinguish and reward personal character and to recognize integrity and statesmanship between one man who possesses these qualities and the other who does not.

We urge Americans to vote for John McCain. There simply is no other choice that is good for the American people, or our great country.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin" — Ronald Reagan

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Praesidium Respublicae; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH

The Election Consolation Prize

I have not given up on the election. McCain / Palin may still pull it off yet. Basically the results of the election boil down to whether or not on election day the people know who and what Barack Obama is. Unfortunately, the MSM and the Obama campaign have done everything in their power to prevent enough people from that state of informed votership. How refreshing it would have been if Barack Obama had presented himself to the voters: this is my clear life history, this is who I am, these are my clear positions, this is my record showing how I have supported those positions; please vote for me. However, it Obama had done that he would not have made it past the primaries.

With only a week for the people to catch on to this phony, it seems that we may be facing the prospect of an Obama presidency. For many that is a disheartening concept. I would propose, however, that the Right will be more able to psychologically deal with an Obama win, than the Left would be able to cope with his loss. I for one find myself contemplating what I refer to as the "election consolation prize".

This prize is the positive side of an Obama win. While I fully intend to on day one offer my support to whichever candidate wins, granting out of respect for the office the benefit of the doubt until that candidate chooses a wrong course, it is not likely that Obama will make me wait long to prove my poor opinion of him and his positions. Once Obama, by his policies, declares war on me; I will declare war on him. Not before. I hope and pray I am wrong, but I doubt I am. If I am wrong, there will be a lot of angry Lefties out there.

For eight years Reagan Conservatism has taken a beating and been pushed off of the political map. The fact of the matter is that George W. Bush is not a Reagan Conservative. I have supported several of his policies and actions, but the fact is that his popularity is so low because he is not a conservative. Bush has been fiscally irresponsible, too compromising with liberals and failed to implement policy accompanied by a clear debate between conservative and liberal distinctions. Political accomplishments are not enough. In short, we find ourselves at the point where the conservative movement must be rebuilt from the ground up.

For eight years, those like me have been on the defensive and often defending at best the better of two evils instead of defending right against wrong. The consolation prize will be the opportunity to again be on the offensive. If the DEMS get it all (the White House and both Houses), they will be making decisions and taking actions that will need to be defended. Prior to 2006 the DEMS have not had to answer for their actions (even though they should have). The media was not required to expect any defense. After 2006 the MSM continued to allow DEMS to get away with taking action without accountability under the guise that the GOP still held the White House. When it comes to power, the Legislature wants equal powers with the other two branches, but stick it to the other branches when it comes to accountability.

If the DEMS take it all, the MSM will be forced to demand some accountability from them. After this election cycle, the MSM will be in a very weakened state from their blatant lack of objectivity and full support of Obama. With nearly non-existent credibility, the MSM will next be faced with the prospect of all the things about Obama they so aggressively covered and hid, become exposed. With each Cabinet nomination; with each policy proposal; with each news conference Obama will expose himself and the media filter will not be able to cover for it all. When Obama the Moderate transforms himself into Obama the Leftist before the eyes of the American people, the MSM will either shred the remains of their credibility and carry more water for him or they will realize their only hope is to play stupid like they did not know but now are "shocked" at how radical he is. No matter which way they choose, their words during the election are on record.

I relish the prospect of being on the offensive. For the good of the country I would pass on it, but if thrust upon me I will enjoy it. The memory of the people is very short. They forget what it was like under Jimmy Carter (which is why unemployment going from 5% to 6% can so easily be portrayed as a deep recession). When the people are living under liberal control by all houses, they will not need a long memory. They will see it every day. While we have the prospect of censorship looming, the New Media will still be powerful. The new media was a fledgling during the last Democrat presidency. This time, if that occurs, it will be at full strength.

Some have pushed to vote against McCain for the opportunity the Election Consolation Prize offers. While I don't go that far, if Obama wins; I am ready, willing and able to step up to the plate. I pray for a different outcome, but unlike the loony Left, I am able to cope with a political loss. It may be that for true conservatism, defeat is the best prescription for ultimate victory.

Ostroy Lunacy on Wealth Redistribution

It is very infrequent that the Left ever says anything that makes me drop my jaw. I might raise one or both eyebrows from time to time, but rarely drop my jaw. Eight years ago the Left was simply wrong, sometimes a bit arrogant and mostly hid how they really felt. They now are radical, in your face, obnoxious and make no bones about how they want to change this country (with the exception of those running for office and MSM elements that support them).

I did drop my jaw when I read this blog post by Andy Ostroy of the Ostroy Report. The title of the post is: Wasn't it "Spreading the Wealth" Eight Years Ago with the Bush Tax Cuts for America's Wealthiest 1%? The title was enough to nearly throw me into shock. The body of the post creates neither more or less shock. Ostroy:

- Calls the charge of socialism against Obama's "spread the wealth" statement hypocritical
- Claims the Bush tax cuts were wealth redistribution


Ostroy completely misses several points:

- He thinks that we claim that merely raising taxes is the socialist part.
No, it is the plan to raise taxes on one tax bracket and give lower taxes on other tax brackets (even those that do not pay income taxes)
- He forgets that the Bush tax cuts were for all tax brackets (except those that do not pay income tax)
- Most importantly, he forgets that the money belongs to the person that earned the money
To claim that keeping more of MY OWN MONEY is wealth redistribution transcends socialist thinking and leaps to the communist notion that every thing belongs to the state. If my money is 100% mine before taxation, then it is impossible to have any of my money redistributed to me. My money is mine before it is taken away. The money after taxes is not some gift of the state, it is what is left after the state has robbed me.

I am supportive of paying taxes. We have an imperfect, but great exceptional country. I don't mind contributing to keep things running, to defend us from our enemies, to protect our streets from criminals, to educate our children (not indoctrinate), and even to have a thin safety net for those most in need that have done all to help themselves and cannot. There is so much waste and corruption in government. There is plenty of room for spending cuts instead of raising taxes, but Obama is more interested in real wealth redistribution than budgetary concerns. It has been said that liberalism is a mental disorder, but only in the most crazed mind under the fullest moon would somebody claim that somebody being allowed to keep more of their own money would be considered wealth redistribution.

NObama 08 Blogburst

An Enigma Named Barack
by L.A. Sunset

We The People, in order to preserve a more balanced reality, are committed to learning the truth and uncovering the obscurity of a presidential candidate; a man long cloaked in a mysterious veil, and one that we presume hides the truth and distorts the true man who is Barack Obama.

Our opposition to Mr. Obama is not a factor of race, ethnic identity, nor even his place of domicile (i.e., Chicago); it is rather about his past associations, his character, his judgment, and his vision for the future of the United States of America. We believe that these are valid questions and concerns, that the American press has failed to address them in an honest and forthright manner, and that the American people have the right to know the answers to several questions.

Despite rhetoric designed to mislead and misinform the American voter, such as that Barack Obama is a political centrist; that he sincerely wants to change politics inside the beltway; and/or there is hope for a new day under an Obama administration, the issue of his past associations, statements, and activities demand greater scrutiny. We have learned that Mr. Obama’s associations have deep roots within the modern socialist movement, black separatist theology, known ties to anti-Jewish/Pro-Muslim persons, and Chicago-styled machine-politics. We believe that when combined these radical elements present a clear and present danger to American social tradition and every citizen’s quest for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “A” list of Mr. Obama’s associates includes (but is not limited to):

William Ayers, an unrepentant terrorist, who by his own admission assures us that he did not participate in enough acts of terror to advance his cause properly, has achieve national attention.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, whose vile condemnations of “white America” entertained Mr. Obama for twenty years.

Rev. Louis Farrakhan (born: Louis Eugene Walcott) who, as the leader of the Nation of Islam is a racist, a black separatist, a homophobe, and an anti-Semite.

Barack Obama joined with Louis Farrakhan and Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi supporting Raila Odinga in his bid to become president of Kenya. Odinga’s political defeat resulted in Muslim violence, burning churches, murdering 1,000 anti-Odinga voters, and renewed demands for the imposition of Shari’ah Law.

Abongo (Roy) Obama, the brother of Barack, is a former Christian now radical Muslim convert, supporter of Cousin Raila Odinga. Roy Obama wants to institute Shari’ah law, wants Barack Obama to convert back to Islam and, as an American president, adopt anti-Israeli policies.

Moussa Marzook is a member of Hamas and author of the Hamas Manifesto, first published in the Los Angeles Times and later reprinted and sold by Jeremiah Wright from the vestibule of Trinity United Church of Christ. Mr. Marzook was indicted by the United States government on issues relating to foreign terrorist activities inside the United States of America. Hamas endorsed Barack Obama for the American presidency in April 2008.

Tony Rezko gave financial backing to Barack Obama early in his to-date short-lived political career. Even though Mr. Obama plays down the association with Mr. Rezko, it is difficult to ignore that the facts prove differently. (See also: Allison Davis, below)

Nadhmi Auchi is linked to Barack Obama through Tony Rezko. He is an Iraqi born billionaire who the U. S. government claims operated as a bagman for Saddam Hussein. He is a London-based financier, one of the world’s richest men. In 2003, he was convicted of fraud involving the “Elf Affair,” Europe’s largest scandal since the end of World War II.

Allison Davis, former employer of Barack Obama, who later closed his law firm and became a partner of Tony Rezko. Davis assigned Mr. Obama to legal work on behalf of Mr. Rezko.

Rev. James T. Meeks, whom Barack Obama regularly sought for counseling, who served as an Obama delegate at the Democratic Convention and is a long-time political ally, who aided Obama as an influential black supporter, received funding from Tony Rezko. Meeks is known for anti-Jewish and homophobic rhetoric.

Rashid Khalidi, along with William Ayers and Barack Obama, is a former professor at Chicago University. He directs the Palestine Press Agency in Beirut, is an agent of the Arab American Action Network, and according to a top official of former-President George H. W. Bush and a former CIA intelligence officer, former Weather Underground
leader William Ayers funneled money to Khalidi, who maintains ties with the Palestine Liberation Organization. Khalidi also received $70,000 from the Woods Fund, and held fund-raising events in his home on behalf of Barack Obama.

Barack Obama is a former director of The Woods Fund, a non-profit organization that, in addition to its interests in “giving a voice to less advantaged people,” helped funnel money to Rashid Khalidi for the Arab American Action Network, which presumably includes Palestinian interests within the United States. The Woods Fund also helps to finance “community organizing, and public policy.”

Created in 1995 to help raise funds to reform Chicago public schools, the Chicago Annenberg Challenge involved William Ayers as a leading founder, who in turn appointed Barack Obama to its board of directors. Mr. Obama served on the board for
six years. According to investigative journalist Stanley Kurtz, writing for the Wall Street Journal, reforming Chicago public schools is a bid misleading: it was a program designed to radicalize students more than it was to educate them. According to Ayers, “Teachers should be community organizers, dedicated to provoking resistance to American racism and oppression.”

Astute Bloggers has illustrated additional past associations; it is a well-researched expose providing a clear view of what lays just beneath the surface of Obama’s deception. We understand why Mr. Obama would want to play down these associations; we do not understand why the American news media would assist him in doing so. Nevertheless, Astute Bloggers lifts the veil on two well-known groups: The New Party, and the Chicago Democrat Socialists of America. Let's take a closer look.

The New Party is an obscure, lesser-known political group. It practices a political strategy called electoral fusion, which entails placing a political candidate on several lines of the same ballot. An example of how electoral fusion works is located at this page; look for the lead “Vote your values,” two-thirds of the way down on the right-hand side of the page. Once a candidate receives the support of Democratic kingmakers, and if the New Party feels the candidate will serve their socialist cause, they will add the candidate's name more than once in order to gain votes that are more popular. From the above link:

The New Party is an umbrella organization for grassroots political groups working to break the stranglehold that corporate money and corporate media have over our political process.

Our current work and long-term strategy is to change states' election rules to allow fusion voting - a method of voting that allows minor parties to have their own ballot line with which they can either endorse their own candidates or endorse the candidates of other parties. Through fusion, minor parties don't have to always compete in the winner-take-all two party system and can avoid "spoiling" - throwing an election to the most conservative candidate by splitting the votes that might go to two more progressive candidates (ours and another party's).

Not surprisingly, “community organizing” is the bedrock of The New Party; socialist progressivism is their ideology. The Chicago chapter maintains a close relationship to the Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN). According to this 1996 publication, Barack Obama is clearly affiliated with The New Party

Illinois: Three NP-members won Democratic primaries last spring and face off against Republican opponents on Election Day: Danny Davis (U.S. House), Barack Obama (State Senate), and Patricia Martin (Cook County Judiciary).

Note: Readers familiar with Chicago politics will recognize the name of former Chicago mayor Danny Davis on that list also.

From this evidence, we begin to understand the role electoral fusion played in Mr. Obama’s rapid rise to political power.

Chicago Democrat Socialists of America pursues socio-political programs implied by the title of their organization, but even this organization is more than meets the eye. Cornel West, while serving as an Honorary Chair to Chicago DSA penned a remarkably revealing essay entitled Toward a Socialist Theory of Racism. Chicago DSA and Dr. West were particularly interested in Barack Obama because of his New Party affiliation, his success in running for State senator, and the strategies he employed, to wit: “Barack Obama, victor in the 13th State Senate District, encouraged NPers to join in his task forces on Voter Education and Voter Registration.”

Well, so what if Barack Obama peaks the interest of the Chicago DSA? It is important because no one backs a dark-horse candidate unless there is a chance he will win, and/or there is a reasonable expectation for a return of political capital. In an article entitled, The End of Liberalism socialist author Daniel Cantor wrote, “A massive Times-Mirror poll registered 53% of the public in favor of a ‘major third party,’ so there's no doubt that the soil is fertile. Among the hopeful contenders is the ‘New Party,’ one of a handful of newly forming independent, progressive parties in the country. New Party chapters have backed 93 candidates in nine states over the last eighteen months and won 62 elections.” An index of New Party political propaganda is available, here.

Daniel Cantor, of course, is the executive director of New York’s Working Families Party, another socialist group with chapters in Connecticut and Oregon. He urges socialists, “Vote Your Values.” This would appear to be good advice for everyone with values.

John Nichols writes for The Nation, a politically progressive publication. Nichols is a well-established writer, perhaps best known for ad nausium demands for the impeachment of George W. Bush for war crimes and other frivolous reasons; so much for his credibility.

Taken by themselves, none of these concerns will alter the course of human history. After all, as Americans, we encourage political and social discourse; we value the right of everyone to express an opinion, no matter how insane that opinion may be, and all of us have the right to associate with anyone we choose. Yet it is instructive to note that socialist radicals have completely infiltrated the Democratic Party, and we need no further proof than the inane rhetoric emanating from every Democrat in the House and Senate. The concern expressed in this essay is not that other ideas are unworthy of debate; it is rather that Barack Obama freely decided to associate with dangerously radical and disreputable influences and he now seeks to hide those associations.

Why would he do that? Barack Obama wants to become our next president; he knows that most Americans repudiate Marxist/socialist ideology; he is aware that if most voters begin to see the real Barack Obama, John McCain will win the election. But we believe that Barack Obama has been dishonest with American voters who are capable of thinking. We believe he has taken advantage of Americans voters who are incapable of thinking. We believe that if Mr. Obama stepped up to a microphone and told us what he really believes, he would be lucky to win the post of an Animal Control Specialist.

Honesty, truthfulness, clarity, judgment, motivation, patriotism, and common sense are all important attributes for the office of the President of the United States. We do not believe that Barack Obama has any of these qualities. And, if Mr. Barack Obama has been less than truthful about his associations, what makes anyone think we can trust his campaign promises, his vision for America? The fact is that every man is free to associate with whomever he pleases; but this does not protect any man from judgments about those associations. We believe that the sheer weight of Mr. Obama’s involvement with questionable individuals and organizations will lead a reasonable person to query both his judgment and motivation for nefarious associations.

We the People of the United States, who are also a loose confederation of bloggers, categorically reject Barack Obama for president. He is a radical socialist, he is a black separatist, a racist, he harbors pro-Muslim/Anti-Jewish sentiments and associates, he identifies with homophobes, convicted swindlers, known terrorists, creative financiers, and he has already signaled his willingness to sacrifice National Security for a dialogue with Muslim fanatics.

We cannot vote for this man. We urge you to join us in defeating Barack Obama. So say us one, so say us all.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Cheese In My Shoe; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Defending Crusader; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; Palace for a Princess; Papa Frank; Mind of a Misfit; Paleocon Command Center; Political Yin and Yang; Pondering Penguin; Right Truth; Social Sense; The Amboy Times; The Bitten Word; The Crank Files; The Jungle Hut; The Logic Lifeline; The Merry Widow; TSOFAH;

After Distinguished Career Peggy Noonan Flushes Credibility Down the Toilet

People have the right to express their opinion, but have no right over the thoughts of others upon receiving that opinion. Peggy Noonan recently wrote a piece called "Palin's Failin'". Upon reading this diatribe, I have lost all respect for Ms. Noonan. She has the right to think that Sarah Palin is a bad pick, but to lay the blame of McCain's polls at the feet of Sarah Palin is ridiculous. In my opinion John McCain would have been behind by 15-20 points if not for Sarah Palin.

Noonan basically criticizes Sarah Palin for the style in which she has approached the national stage. No doubt about it, Noonan is an intellectual. It appears she would have no appreciation for anything except intellectual dialogue. She criticizes Palin for not knowing if she is a Bushian or a Reaganite. She criticizes her for not holding news conferences and for only doing safer interviews. Sometimes the gifted can be quite stupid. Sarah Palin is not running for president, John McCain is. As his VP, she cannot come out too strongly on many positions that may differ with McCain. Noonan seems blind to the hysterical attack mode the media is against all that is not Obama this election season. The media response to Palin's selection was to go into immediate attack mode and throw out a list of allegations regardless of proof or validity. The two MSM interviews Palin did became a circus because of the gotcha nature of questioning. The only thing missing before each question was an aside to the viewing audience and fellow liberals saying "This one will really stump the snot out of her".

In short, everything that Noonan thinks Palin should have done, would have been spun by the MSM into a side circus. If she ran on her personal detailed positions, the MSM would have focused on the differences between her and McCain. If she had news conferences and more interviews, again there would always be the one question (the one nobody really knows the answer to, but we pretend even an idiot should) and the next 3 days of news cycles would be spent on how she answered.

Sarah Palin has been used to excite the base and to fill the historical role of attack-dog against Barack Obama. She has done a fantastic job. Look at the huge crowds. Look at the passion in those who attend. Look at her effect to pull the highest ratings on her appearances like the VP debate and SNL. Even as the polls tighten, the media and even quite a number of conservatives have written off the McCain / Palin ticket. They may very well lose. The ticket may very well be "failin'", but it is not because of Palin.

I hate to say this, but the way Noonan has come out to cut off Palin at the knees before the election is even held, she comes across like a catty b**ch. Sorry, but there is no other way to say it. I ask myself what drove her to write a piece against Palin and what drove her to be so personal and nasty about it. What motive? What desired outcome? After much consideration, I don't have an answer. Sorry, the only thing left is catty b**ch. From now on, that is my name for Ms. Noonan until she finds a way to redeem herself.

More Whining By Obama

Apparently Obama is whining again. This time he is claiming that he would be doing better in the polls if it were not for Fox News. He is quoted by Boortz in the NYT Sunday Times Magazine:

"I am convinced that if there were no Fox News, I might be two or three points higher in the polls ... If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak! I am the latte-sipping, New York Times-reading, Volvo-driving, no-gun-owning, effete, politically correct, arrogant liberal. Who wants somebody like that? I guess the point I'm making ... is that there is an entire industry now, an entire apparatus, designed to perpetuate this cultural schism, and it's powerful."

The first thing I think about is how many times entities like Fox News, Talk Radio and Conservative Blogs criticize Obama by taking a good look at the words he is actually saying and the actions he is actually taking. While the rest of the news media is only interested in halo'd pictures, stories of Obama getting flowers for his wife for their anniversary, why Barack loves Michelle, etc. Fox News actually wants to attempt to vet Obama like every Presidential candidate should be. So basically Obama is whining because Fox News is doing its job because he is so used to kid glove treatment by the Katie Courics and the Charlie Gibson's of the media world.

The second thing I think is how the rest of the media has treated Sarah Palin. The unprecedented attacks on Sarah Palin have been disgusting. Time after time the MSM reported allegations before they were confirmed. After days of discussion about them, they were debunked. The MSM shrugged and moved on to the next allegation. If anybody has the right to whine about media treatment, it is Sarah Palin, but she just keeps pressing ahead without complaint. She acknowledges the unfair attacks but says they come with the territory and were expected.

The third thing I think about Obama's statement is that it is a shot over the bow for when he does become President. We have already seen Obama and his people attempt to suppress criticism against him. He rallies armies of people to call into broadcast stations to flood them with calls. Supporters in law enforcement have used intimidation tactics to suppress free expression. We have all been concerned about the revival of the misnamed "Fairness" Doctrine. From Obama's actions and his highlight here against Fox, I tend to think he has his sights of brownshirt censorship much higher than that.

Obama has a logical meltdown in his statement. He says "If I were watching Fox News, I wouldn't vote for me, right? Because the way I'm portrayed 24/7 is as a freak!". He states how he would view himself if he were watching Fox News. By this statement we know he is not watching Fox News. Yet he has claims about how he is portrayed 24/7 on Fox News. Come on! Even Sarah Palin isn't portrayed badly 24/7 on CNN or any other bias network. After all Barack, the news outlets do have other things to talk about besides you. So what is this notion in your head that they talk about you 24/7: arrogance, narcissism, paranoia?

Finally, I imagine a world with zero bias or spin - simply full and deep reporting of only facts without an agenda driven media on either side. Without a multi-year propoganda machine in all the magazines, entertainment shows, and many other venues with the goal of projecting a positive image on Obama. In that world we would see Obama trailing by double digits. Obama here knows there are two driving forces like two winds blowing against a boat from two opposite directions. Of course if the wind stops blowing from one of the directions, the boat will move swiftly to the vacuum. Yet Obama wants to sit there with a straight face and claim that everything is an even playing field, above board, fair and without agenda or bias - except Fox News. Now that is arrogance.