The Logic Lifeline

OWS and the Great Clear Debate

2011-10-20T08:58:00.000-05:00

Working a few blocks from the Chicago version of Occupy Wall St. has given me a pretty close view of this group. The first day I went I was interviewed by a camera crew. I was sort of surprised, so I did not ask who they were with. I basically stated that I could not easily grasp any coherent message the group was trying to convey. I also underscored my view that this country needs to decide what kind of country we want to live in economically. We can either live in a country that pursues the American Dream where economically the sky is the limit OR we could live in a country where there is a limit to the wealth we can acquire so it is distributed more evenly.

I have gone by to look at the crowd of protesters a few more times since. Each time my goal has been to identify one individual who looks intelligent, engaged and will have a peaceful conversation with me. I have not yet identified that person. Standing across the street staring at the group for several minutes and still at a loss, I cannot imagine the quick passersby either walking or driving could glean anything meaningful to draw them to the crowd.

I actually would love for this group to succeed in conveying a clear message instead of their message being hijaacked by the media or the Democrats. It looks to me like this group wants to be honest in their views, while the media and the Dems seem obsessed with encouraging the group while at the same time obscuring their message. I have felt for some time that what this country needs is an honest, open, clear debate about the issues and may the best message win. OWS seems to be the best opportunity for that debate to happen.

When the Tea Party came on the scene, the Dems and the Media did everything to obscure and corrupt their message. Conservatives should not and do not need to obscure the OWS message. Conservatives need to do all they can to assist OWS to clearly define and communicate their message. We will then be in a better position to have the debate this country desperately needs.

Ridiculing Those Who Ridicule

2011-08-20T12:47:00.003-05:00

A woman this week tried to use her child as a prop to trip up Rick Perry on the subject of Evolution. By her fear of asking the question herself or by her thinking the exchange would be more newsworthy coming from a child, she allows Perry to give the answer in childs terms - a general answer that should avoid the potential of making the news rounds branding Perry as a science hater.

I must say that in recent years, my personal view of religious things has taken a beating. Some of the views and methods of the strongly religious have opened the door both ridicule as well as opening the door to more easily discredit some on the right with easy soundbyte hits. However, when it comes to the science / evolution issue, I think the views and methods of those playing gotcha against politicians that Creationism / Intelligent Design open them to similar ridicule and discrediting.

We have the champions of the so called "establishment clause". We have those that do not view Creation / Intelligent Design as a science. There are those that do not believe in any Higher Being. I get them. I understand them. What I do not understand is the successful marginalization of those who espouse any view but a godless evolution.

According to this About site on Atheism, 79% of Americans claim to believe in God. That is a large number, an overwhelming majority. In fact Gallup is more generous putting the number at 92%. Either number or even taking the average is again, overwhelming. Why that even means that a significant portion of left leaning people believe in God.

What seems ridiculous and silly to me is the notion that God exists, yet He has had no hand at all in any details of how the universe turns out? He is there with more power than we have, yet He just lets everything happen by total chance? Matter just somehow came into being on its own. All the galaxies and solar systems formed by chance. The 3rd rock from the sun formed at just the right place, with just the right raw materials for all this natural beauty and life to form. All the variety of beings: plants and animals just happened.

All the while, this powerful Being - God just watched and stroked his long white beard and was perhaps entertained with all the changes that just happened. Man came along and began communicating, socializing, making laws, building civilizations and this Being just looked on with never a hand in the way anything turned out?

What a ridiculous thought. Of course if such a Being existed, He would have at the very least a hand in how things went from nothing to how they exist today. Then when we look at everything and see repetitive, complex building blocks such as DNA. Such amazing unfathomable things with astronomical odds of happening on their own like the human eye, sexual reproduction, or the germination of a seed. What an interesting and intellectual study to look and find evidence of a master planner. The amazingly broad spectrum of worthless elements of today's education, and yet such a study is ridiculed and marginalized? Maybe the science class is not the best place for such study, but to rule it out altogether and ridicule those who believe it while fully accepting those who believe in God but think He did nothing to bring about the world we live in.

The point of this post is not to promote a view in the evolution / creation debate. My point is that people are so easily swayed by the power of ridicule of those who espouse a creationist view, while at the same time ignoring the exposed flank that to believe in God and believe He has more power than us, but does nothing with it is tremendously open to ridicule.

Happy Independence Day 2011

2011-07-04T11:33:00.002-05:00

Happy Birthday to a country that until now has been great and exceptional. Our greatness has been chiseled away for decades as more and more people turn from an attitude of giving to our country to one of taking from our country. The Givers dwindle and the Takers are increasing. Takers emerge more and more from Giver families and are bred from Taker families. Takers look at taking as their birth right. They want to live their life as they choose - artistically, selfishly, carefree with no consequences. Then they look on those who have made right choices and have been responsible and as a result acquired wealth thinking they have a right to their fair share.

Truth is spurned in favor of Ideology. When a guy on the other 'team' is caught in wrongdoing they want full justice and blood revenge. When it is a guy on their 'team' is caught in the same thing, it is blind eyes, excuses and whistling past graveyards.

Now in these last few years under this administration the already rolling snowball has picked up amazing speed. America's greatness appears to be being systematically dismantled either by purposeful destruction or by willful blind faith in ideological beliefs history and current events have shown to fail.

My hope is that we return to the greatness we once had. That the public debate will become clear, decisive and convincing. It is the only way the truth can prevail.

A Call for an End to Political Timidity

2010-09-18T15:19:00.003-05:00

The debate in the United States has become increasingly frustrating as the Right voluntarily gives up one key speaker after another simply because they say things that are offensive to the Left. These are people like Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, Pamela Geller, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage and others. Perhaps the better way to say it is that these in their pursuit to focus on the deep details of current events to say things that are less concerned about offending people than about advancing the debate.

The fact is that debate is not the Left as a whole vs. the Right as a whole. It is a debate of each individual point of argument. Very few of these points of argument contain much middle ground which often makes me scratch my head over the term moderate. If there are 100 main debate points where the truth lies either on the Left or on the Right, one can go with one side on one point and the other on another point. The concept of moderate however is often conveyed as being somewhere in the middle of ideology as a whole.

Each voice, not matter where they are in ideology, engages in debate on each point one by one; and even if an individual voice is wrong or offensive much of the time, it does not prevent them from being accurate on a given point. Many seem to be quick to cut off a voice if that voice has in some way given offense. Many right of center run from those named above and have written them off. The fact is that if you talk a lot (especially unscripted), are consistently interesting, want to spark controversial debate and are confident in your opinions - you will offend people from time to time. Those named above may have said offensive things and at times smack of arrogance, but the important thing is they are willing to stick their neck out and push the envelope to get people to think. They are also masterful at articulating the issues.

As we have seen in politics, the most destructive force has been the RINO. The RINO has blurred lines, clouded the water, tarnished the GOP brand and taken the motivation to even vote away from many people. In the public debate, there does not have to be party affiliation. However, most people see the public debate as only having two sides. There are, however, at least three groups: the purists on each side and then this big lump in the middle. The debate that occurs in the middle often lacks clarity, effectiveness and progress. Topics go on and on, back and forth with listeners and readers losing attention rapidly.

It is often those voices clearly on each side that ever make advancement in the public debate. When a story, or topic grows legs, or takes wings it is often originating from one or other of the purist's camps. People like Ann Coulter and Pamela Geller frequently cause a major stir when they speak out. They do not hold their punches and instead of worrying about being offensive, they sometimes go out of their way to be offensive. They will discuss things that need to be discussed, but others are two fearful to address.

In summary, the public debate will not be won while debaters are hostage to timidity, fear of offending and middle of the road messages. Some are taking the lead with boldness and clarity. If they happen to go too far, perhaps a reprimand is in order. However, to throw them away is to risk being trapped in the middle or worst to allow the public debate to be lost to the other side. One of the problems I had with the Bush Administration was their affinity for winning a political battle without winning the public debate. They would use all the tools at their disposal to get their agenda advanced - everything except participating in and winning the public debate.

In voting, it is better to vote out the RINOs and lose, than keep voting them in just to win. In the public debate, it is better to risk offense and win the debate than to be too moderate and lose the clarity necessary to capture attention. It is better to convince the people of what is right than to cater to them when they are wrong.

The Stockholm Syndrome of the Left

2010-09-11T12:40:00.003-05:00

In my memory this is the craziest season of remembrance of the attacks on 9/11 2001. All along the Left has acted in ways one can only shake their head in disbelief, but lately their Stockholm Syndrome has been raised to a fevered pitch. There are two reasons to explain their behavior: sympathy with Islamic radicals or Stockholm Syndrome. I have given them the benefit of the doubt. Stockholm syndrome has been defined by Wikipedia as " paradoxical psychological phenomenon wherein hostages express adulation and have positive feelings towards their captors that appear irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims..."

Nothing points to evidence of skewed thinking on the left as the full court press of the media to defend and encourage the building of the Islamic community center near Ground Zero. Obama and the media have tried to frame this as a religious freedom issue. I have not heard anybody of substance claim that Muslims have less right to build a mosque than Christians have to build a church. Yet that is the framed argument of the Left.

Obama said his comments reflected the right to build the community center, not the wisdom of it. The vocal victims and the those on the Right have only been focused on that latter point - the wisdom of building it in the shadow of Ground Zero. It is a huge insult to the death site of those found there and the burial site of those never found. The building of this proposed center has an upper floor where Ground Zero can be seen. How many radical Muslims will go to the top of that building and overlook the site with joy in their hearts at their greatest victory over the Great Satan? Somehow the media can find all those people in the South and at Tea Party rallies that are racist bigots, yet in their view all of Islam in the US is pure from any such hatred and bigotry?

History tells us of the consistent practice by Islam of planting victory flags in places where they have defeated their enemies. See a photo collage and a good write-up on this here. I have not heard anyone from the mainstream media even present the perspective of how the loved ones of victims might feel - except of course the one or two that for whatever reason think it is a great idea.

Then the media descended on this loony pastor in Florida that wanted to burn a Koran. There was story after story from one perspective after another: how loony he is (given), how offensive to Muslims this would be, how it puts people in danger (not sure how they align that with their 'religion of peace' mantra). The mainstream media left out burning of Bibles and crosses in Gaza in 2007. They failed to discuss the Muslim Taliban's destruction of the ancient Buddhist statues. The missed the Muslim destruction of churches in Egypt, Indonesia, India, Kosovo, Nigeria and many other places.

Apparently the pastor has decided not to burn the Koran. I think that is a good idea. We should respect the beliefs and views of others no matter how much we disagree with them. The destruction of that which others view as sacred is particularly ugly. What I think the pastor should have done instead was to take a collage of pictures of the 9/11 terrorists and burn it saying it signifies these 19 pieces of crap are burning in hell to this day. I would be particularly interested to hear the views of "moderate Muslims" on where they think the souls of the 19 terrorists do reside. Has anybody asked the Imam who wants to build the community center what he thinks of this?

In the face of all this madness, there are many, many of us still out here remembering with great respect, grief, anger and loyalty those people who fell on this day nine years ago. We will never forget.

Green Light to Steal Valor

2010-08-18T18:22:00.002-05:00

Well the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals is at it again. They have determined that it is unconstitutional to ban people from lying about their military service such as making claims a medal was granted when it was not. This notoriously liberal court struck down the Stolen Valor Act by a 2-1 vote. According to FoxNews, they claim "the law was a violation of his free-speech rights" and that "there's no evidence that such lies harm anybody". Obviously as leftists they despise the military, and fail to see how this robs soldiers of the full value of the recognition of their honorable service.

Value is closely related to rarity. By having people make false claims of valor without any accountability, the number of honored people rises artificially. Many honors in other fields are obtained by hard work or work of outstanding quality. In military honor, it is granted by placing one's life on the line to varying degrees in the service of our country. We do not honor our brave soldiers with outstanding pay, but instead give them something of value. Allowing people to make false claims of valor cheapens what we do bestow on them.

Once Again the 'Little Guys' Do All the Work for the Benefit of a Big Corporation

2010-07-30T08:52:00.002-05:00

Everyone is scratching their head over the seeming lack of oil on the surface of the Gulf of Mexico. While many fear it is deeper in the water, Y!News is reporting that 'Mighty Microbes' are eating the oil up. Apparently the warmer waters of the Gulf are favorable to the growth of these microbes and so there is a higher count of them than the locations of previous spills. As a bonus, the microbes also seem to like the chemical dispersant that has been used in the Gulf which also keeps oil drops smaller and easier.

It reminds me of the ending of the "War of the Worlds" where the problem was solved "...after all man's devices had failed, by the humblest things that God, in his wisdom, has put upon this earth."

Twisted Pretzel of the Day - Bill Press

2010-07-14T09:33:00.002-05:00

It is amazing how much people twist themselves into a pretzel logically to defend the failures and actions of Barack Obama. I am launching a new theme - Twisted Pretzel of the Day. Although I have not seen it, it is not likely to be original.

Today Bill Press gets the award. Looking at the utter failure of the Obama Administration to stimulate the economy and ensure there is an environment friendly for job creation, Bill Press claims those unhappy with Obama are simply "spoiled". The Radio Equalizer provides the video and a partial transcript of Press saying:

BILL PRESS (32:49): I think this says more about the American people than it does about President Obama. I think it just shows once again that the American people are spoiled. Basically, spoiled-- as a people, we are too critical. We are quick to rush to judgment, we are too negative, we are too impatient. Especially impatient. We want it all solved yesterday, and if you don't, I don't care who you are -- get out of the way.

And again, basically spoiled. To the point where it makes me wonder if it's even possible to govern today. I gotta tell you, I don't think Abraham Lincoln -- who certainly didn't get everything right the first time -- could govern today. I'm not sure Franklin Roosevelt could govern today, the way we are again. Just about like spoiled children. And it's Americans, and it's the media, and if we don't get instant gratification, then screw you is basically our attitude.

Where was Bill Press during the Bush years whenever things got a bit rough? Now the economy, deficit and national debt are far worst than under Bush where 1 out of 10 people are out of jobs and being unhappy with that makes us spoiled!

The fact is that if Obama were doing everything possible to stimulate the economy - including cutting taxes and spending - instead of his ongoing hostility to business, the American people would be more likely to throw him some slack. As it is, his agenda obviously comes before any other concern and that agenda is hostile to the economy and the financial welfare of this country.

Leave it to apologists like Bill Press, however, to twist themselves into a pretzel to defend the guy they fought so hard to put in office. Instead of putting the welfare of the country first, people like Press simply want to reshape the country in their image regardless of the consequences.

Adventures in Comment Land

2010-06-20T11:51:00.002-05:00

Sometimes when reading an opinion piece, whether it be a blog post, an newspaper opinion post or column; I find that the comments on the piece can often be more revealing and interesting than the piece itself. It is true that members of both sides of the aisle from time to time do or say something that is truly ugly and indefensible. When such an event occurs at the hands of a liberal / Democrat, one of the first things I do is rush on over to Daily Kos and search for a story / diary on the event and scroll through the comments. Now any excursion into Daily Kos can be traumatic, revolting and unsettling. I do not have this reaction because people are writing things I disagree with. I love political discourse with those who have different opinions than mine. When I read the comments on Daily Kos I see a teaming sea of people ugly inside to the core, brimming over with hatred and such intense, raw desire to reshape society in their image.

I see the Daily Kos community as the hoard in "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" in the scene where the Great Lion Aslan offers himself to be killed in the place of Edmund. Or as the hoard of orcs, trolls, and dark men faced by the Captains of the West at the Black Gate of Mordor. This is not because of their political positions I disagree with, but because of their unbridled or barely contained hatred and loathing they spew in comment after comment. There are a few here and there that try to keep the discourse on a higher plane, but they are drowned out and swept away with torrents of venom.

When events are captured on video (such as the ugly comments of Helen Thomas telling Jews to "get the hell out of Palestine" or the assault by Bob Etheridge (D), N.C. on a young man simply asking if he supports the Obama agenda) the comments are dismissive out of hand when it is noticed that they are sourced on a conservative website. The usual denial when a break is caught in an edited version would be enough for these people to overlook a video showing a Democrat having sex with a child, slapping his senior mother, or kicking a dog - just as long as there were edited stops in the video. In fact even after Etheridge admitted and apologized for his actions, the commenters were still in denial.

The twisted minds and thought patterns of the hoard can be somewhat unsettling to wade through. Yet, the adventures in Comment Land that I have endured can be enlightening into their mind set, and sometimes in a strange way can be entertaining. After all, we enjoy some circus acts where the human body is twisted into pretzel like shapes; why can't it also be entertaining to see somebody twist their mind into a pretzel to defend the indefensible?

Shakedown - GOP Loses Pair...Again

2010-06-17T20:58:00.003-05:00

The oil spill is reprehensible in so many ways. I have been to locations on the Gulf of Mexico on several occasions and the thought of the damage this area will experience is sickening. BP is very responsible for this disaster and certainly takes primary responsibility for the spill, stopping the spill and for the damages resulting from the spill. The fact that BP (and other oil companies) have punched holes on the ocean without a clear plan and backup plan to address this type of disaster is reprehensible. BP has also been extremely slow in mobilizing cleanup efforts to attempt to tend to the oil in the water before it reaches the shore. So to be perfectly clear, I have no warm / fuzzy or defensive feelings toward BP.

When President Obama announced that he was going to demand the BP set aside billions of dollars to be distributed by and "independent" party to victims of the spill, I thought he was overreaching his authority and secretly hoped BP would reject it. BP should have made a statement that they will act according to statements already made and pay all legitimate damage claims, and since they would be honoring their responsibilities there was no need for an independent party.

Only now do we find that the independent party Obama has in mind is his own executive branch of government. Texas Republican Joe Barton correctly identified that Obama's actions as a shakedown, extorting money from BP in order to set up a fund he would have control over. Recipients of the money will view the source as Obama and the government, that without them BP would surely shirk their responsibility. While an apology to BP did seem a bit silly to me, the comments on the shakedown were dead on.

While lately it has seemed the GOP has found the spine they lacked while in control, today they took several steps back. House Minority Leader John Boehner, and House Minority Whip Eric Cantor threatened to remove Joe Barton from his position on the Energy and Commerce committee if he did not retract and apologize for his statements. To be clear it is only because of the ridiculous spin by Democrats and the certain regurgitation of their talking points by the media that would cause the GOP leaders to go this route. The Dems would certainly spin this as support for BP's destruction of the Gulf.

Basically, let me put it this way using a very admittedly extreme example. If Obama had told BP that because of their egregious mishap, members of his administration could now rape the wives and daughters of BP executives somebody stepping up and denouncing such an overstep of power and authority would not be supporting BP. In the same way, Barton denouncing Obama's overreach on the shakedown of money and appointing themselves as overseers of the funds is not a support of BP.

I am not convinced the criteria for payment from this fund will be pristine. This administration has already shown its disdain for red states and red voting blocks and its generosity towards entities that vote for him and support his agenda. We will certainly be seeing evidence of corruption in the distribution of the $20B. Of course the mainstream media will cover it up or not think it worthy of news when it does happen. When evidence warranting investigative journalism does surface, the mainstream media will as usual lack any driving curiosity to peel back any layers.

I have always said that regardless of media spin, the war of ideology will only be won when both sides put up their best and clear arguments and fight with clear, direct arguments. The GOP leadership cowering to the media spin and threatening Barton was an act of cowardice. Once again, they have lost the pair they need to win.

The Apples Spill Shows We Need to Reduce Our Dependency on Oranges

2010-06-16T18:44:00.004-05:00

In the President's speech last night he took the time to discuss how the oil spill underscores our need to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels. Obama then goes on to discuss wind turbines, energy-efficient windows and solar panels. The only area he deals with replacement of the existing fossil fuel solution is in the area of its use to produce electric power. According to Wikipedia, only 1% of electricity in this country is generated by burning petroleum, products made from what is leaking in the Gulf due to the spill. Obama is taking the flimsiest link from the spill and launching into aggressive changes in energy policy; changes that will lead to further taxation and charges to corporations that will only be passed along to the consumer.

I would love to have a vehicle that does not run on petroleum products and I would love to see the entire country shift to an alternate solution for powering cars, trucks, boats, airplanes, etc. What a glorious day it would be to tell OPEC to go pound sand (and they have plenty of sand to pound). How great it would be to deprive revenue to countries that want to see us and our allies destroyed and / or conquered.

Unfortunately, there is nothing in the near or medium term from Obama's policy proposals that will accomplish removing or greatly reducing our dependence on oil. The only remote link is massive job loss resulting in less need and ability for transportation. The topic of electricity generation had no place in the oil spill discussion. It is simply a continuation of this administration's strategy of not letting any crisis go to waste, but be used to reshape this country in their image.

Yes We Can, Unless it is Too Hard

2010-06-13T13:42:00.003-05:00

President Obama , Democratic Leadership and even punching thugs continue to put the problems of the nation solely at the feet of former President George W. Bush. In spite of the Obama Administration and a Democrat Senate being in control for 1.5 years and a Democrat House being in control for 3.5 years, the finger pointing continues.

When a candidate runs for president, they proclaim and sell themselves as fit for the task and qualified to deal with the challenges that might be faced during their term. Being a United States Senator, Candidate Obama was very privy to the details of the problems facing the nation, including those on the horizon. In fact he benefited from the first wave of the looming crisis, as the McCain polls took a nosedive. He had every opportunity to look the problems in the eye and back away if he was not fit or able to handle these problems. Instead, he looked the American people in the eye and said he could do it.

President Obama took the Keynesian approach to solving economic problems which basically involves spend, spend, spend. Both sides of the political aisle complained about the large deficit spending of the Bush Administration. Bush was a budgetary tightwad compared to this President. I keep waiting for some new trick for Obama to pull from his sleeve, but it appears he came to office with only massive spending as an economic solution and it is not working.

There are many problems big and small where the one causing it and the one solving it are different persons or organizations. Every election cycle, whether it be President, Senator, Representative, Governor or Mayor; people step up and claim that if you will elect them, the problem(s) will get solved. It is a given that it is the fault of somebody else. The question is "Can you solve it?" Candidate Barack Obama sold himself that he could.

Solutions are not making things better this month and inversely worst next month. Solutions are not building the biggest economic time bomb in history to obtain the most anemic of respites now. This Administration is dancing, bobbing and weaving, playing shell games, using smoke and mirrors, playing the blame game, dragging its feet and often just hiding from the public. This Administration has placed its agenda and the passage of its agenda above the needs of this country for a strong economy and jobs. Neither the economy, the lack of jobs, nor the oil spill will deter Obama from his obsession with wealth redistribution and changing the entire landscape of this country by instituting systems shown to fail in every country it has been tried. The priority of ramming an ideology down our throats has obviously been a higher priority than our welfare.

This President declared he was capable and competent to do the job. His continued presence in office is either a daily reaffirmation of his claims or if he knows he cannot address the problems a declaration that he places himself above the needs of the American people. In either case, he needs to be held accountable. Instead our media continues to enable his lack of competence by covering for him.

We cannot allow this President to live by the slogan "Yes we can...unless it is too hard".

Pelosi Bank Failure On The Horizon

2010-06-11T20:28:00.002-05:00

Nancy Pelosi's comments according to MSNBC:

“Take it to the bank,” she said, adding: “I’m very pleased with how the primaries have been going in terms of the votes that my members have received. Looking at the other side and who the challengers are, I feel pretty good about it.”

Her "take it to the bank" comment was referring to her opinion on Democrats retaining control of the House. While it remains to be seen how big of a thumping Democrats will receive in November, barring a major game changer, we will at least be seeing a Pelosi's "Bank" go bust as she hands back the gavel of power to a Republican. I realize she must put on a good face and a good spin, but to set yourself up like that for ridicule is foolish. If she does actually believe her comments, then we have proof she is in denial and lacks two feet in reality.

Helen Thomas Puts a Crack in the Liberal Camp

2010-06-07T01:49:00.003-05:00

Anti-Israel sentiments may have strong among liberals for some time, but it seems only in recent years that it has become fashionable and very prevalent. All of this time the Jewish people in America have in overwhelming numbers voted Democrat. It was easy when we had staunch GOP supporters of Israel in the White House. While Bill Clinton was not as friendly to Israel, there was enough lip service to being an ally to Israel to keep it from becoming much of a concern to the American Jewish voting block. The Obama Presidency and Administration has been so extremely friendly and pacifying to the clear enemies of Israel, it has to have been for several months the elephant in the room in many Jewish homes in the US. In their zeal for liberal utopia, many a blind eye must have been turned thus far. I believe that is all about to change. The incredible anti-Israel, anti-semetic comments by Helen Thomas have shaken the tree, and the ripened fruit of Jewish bigotry is falling all over the ground.

I have watched the dialogue on the subject on DailyKos for a couple of days with great interest and some admitted measure of entertainment. There are some quite angry and disgusted with these comments telling the Jews of Israel to go back "home" to Poland and Germany. There are others that are quite fine with her comments and coming to her defense. There was initial denial claiming that just because the video debuted on conservative websites, that they must have edited it and taken her words out of context. Listening to the tape it is difficult to see how that is possible, or any benign nature to her words. Yet she has plenty of defenders among the DailyKos comments. Since her apology, it has become even more interesting. There are those quick to overlook her words since she "apologized" and there are those who recognize that her words are to ugly to accept an apology and move on.

The dialogue over Helen Thomas will be the spotlight that is needed to really shake up the Jewish voting block. If she stays in the White House press corps, it will churn the dialogue against her and the ugly anti-semetic sentiment of many progressives. If she is fired, her defenders will also underscore her views. Either way it goes, this dialogue will certainly churn things up and make some American Jews rethink their support of a movement that wants to tie the hands of Israel against defending themselves against their enemies that want nothing more than the State of Israel to cease to exist.

Update: Helen Thomas has retired effective immediately. Well, well, this is the one scenario that would limit the damage with the Jewish voting block as it allows the dialogue to end the soonest.

How I Would Solve the Oil Leak

2010-06-05T13:39:00.003-05:00

I am completely amazed that this oil leak has not been fixed yet. I do find it interesting that this seems to be the only problem Obama seems to be relying on a solution from the private sector. Every other thing he has looked to government to fix. Plus the only trick he seems to have in his bag is to spend massive amounts of money. Regardless of the arguments over who's fault the leak is, the Obama administration has done an abominable job at addressing the problem. The Gulf of Mexico is a national treasure that should be protected. Once it was determined that there was a large amount of oil spewing into the Gulf, the Obama should have immediately brought the best people together to address the amount of oil in the Gulf. The waited until it was too late to start burning the oil. They dragged their feet on allowing Louisiana to protect its shores with sand berms. They did not bring any tankers into the area to siphon the oil out of the water. Instead of putting the Environment first, they put environmentalists first. Governor Jindal is a Republican and Louisiana is a Red State, so Obama treated both with hostility, a major trademark of this administration. President Obama was nearly invisible during this crisis. He did not want to be associated with the leak, so he put politics above preservation of the Gulf of Mexico.

I have heard many, many solutions offered on talk radio and on the internet. The problem with most solutions is that they address the problem against the direction of the flow of oil. Putting a dome to stop the gushing oil. Plug the hole with golf balls, tires and other junk. Putting a cap on it. All these solutions fight against the pressure of the oil coming out of the hole. I am no engineer so I don't know all the terms that might be used. I will try to avoid using the word "thingy" in my description. My solution involves putting what I would call a sheath with a reverse seal. The sheath would be completely open when placed over the existing pipe. This would allow all attempts to seal the outside rim of the sheath without fighting against the oil pressure. Once the sheath was firmly over the pipe and the rim sealed, there would be an inner rim on the inside of the sheath. There would be (here is where I want to say thingy) a circular plate as wide as the sheath which would be wider than the inner rim between the oil and the inner rim. It would either act as a pop-plunger or by turning a wheel would rise up to seal against the inner rim. The oil pressure would push it against the inner rim and seal it even tighter rather than it being on the other side of the rim and pushing against the oil.

I am sure my description lacks the finesse of a true engineer, but hopefully it was good enough to understand. I am certain that in the end when this is resolved, the solution will be something like that.

Obama the Crude

2010-05-08T11:49:00.003-05:00

Many are expressing offense the President Obama used the sexual slur "Tea-Baggers" in an upcoming book. We have seen one left-leaning reporter after another use this crude term when referring to those associated with the Tea Party Movement. Instead of addressing the genuine and rational concerns of the Tea Party movement (outrageous runaway spending that will doubtless lead to confiscatory tax hikes beyond the already unfair burden), the left attempts to dismiss the movement by using a sexual term used for the practice of dipping ones scrotum into the mouth of another mimicking the dipping of a tea bag in hot water. I do not join the ranks of the easily offended regarding this slur. Instead of feeling offended for myself, I feel embarrassment for the person using the slur. The crude are often unable to feel embarrassment for their boorish acts, that it is often left to those around them to feel it for them.

What I do take offense over is that President Obama somehow came to believe he has time to write a book. In the midst of one crisis after another, somehow time can be spent authoring a book. This would not be just any book, but a book with the name of a sitting US President on the cover. Add to that, being the first black President. Add to that the intense scrutiny he knows the book will be under. Imagine the care and attention such a book must take to ensure it meets the lofty standard of being written by the most powerful man on earth. How in the world does such time exist without drawing attention away from the great cares that demand presidential action?

We have an impending crisis looming that the recent oil spill will only magnify. The economy has a time bomb in it. This time bomb consists of fuel prices. We are already paying a lofty $3 and higher per gallon. Any improvement in the economy with drive up fuel usage which will drive up fuel prices. With the increased restrictions on drilling that Obama already placed and the doubtless further restrictions on offshore drilling the oil spill will influence, we are likely looking at the highest gas prices ever.

With President Obama driving up our deficits so he can recreate this nation in his image the only solution Democrats understand is to increase taxes. We will likely see a poison pill of increased income taxes combined with a new layer of taxation likely in the form of a VAT tax. The increase of taxation and fuel prices will be disastrous.

I guess after further consideration, I should be glad rather than offended that Obama is spending time writing books. Hopefully, such book writing will steal away enough time to keep him from further poisoning the well of economic prosperity our country has enjoyed for a long time.

Obama Smoking - What is the Big Deal?

2010-03-02T18:41:00.000-06:00

So President Obama still hasn't kicked the smoking habit. Should we be concerned about it? After all a lot of people smoke. Ever since I heard Obama was a smoker I really have not thought much of it, other than that it is foolish and a nagging question about the discipline of a man in the most powerful position in the world. After all shouldn't this position be filled by somebody who is driven by the desire to succeed? Well, I shrugged my shoulders and figured there were more important fish to fry.

Then I suddenly saw a parallel between his smoking and his political views. As a smoker, he knows the dangers that are written on every pack. With each year of smoking, Obama risks shortening his life and facing an early, gruesome demise. In order to satisfy an addiction and enjoy the pleasures of immediate gratification, Obama risks the future of his life.

Likewise, Obama in order to satisfy the politicians addiction to massive deficit spending and enjoy the pleasures of immediate gratification to push an expensive political agenda, Obama is risking the future of the life of this country. Everybody, incuding me, was furious with George W. Bush for his excessive deficit spending. Yet we have seen Obama blow past Bush's indescretions with wreckless abandon. Facing a time where 1) Our entitlement commitments are higher than ever 2) The amount of revenue that goes to interest on our debt is higher than ever 3) The value of the dollar is at high risk 4) The main support of our debt is a country with a Communist government that is showing a rapidly waning appetite to continue. These are just the highlights. In short, the house of cards is at risk of a major collapse and the risk is growing.

In summary if Obama does not value his own life enough to overcome his smoking addiction, what confidence do we have that he values his country enough to take the necessary steps to save it? I believe there is every chance the same faulty line of reasoning that puts his life in jeopardy puts the country at risk.

The Phoenix is Rising

2010-02-02T18:00:00.000-06:00

I will keep this short for now. Things have been less than optimal in my life for some time now. I have never forgotten the Logic Lifeline and the still remains one of my passions in life. I just have been forced to place it in a lower priority for some time now. The good news is that the phoenix is beginning to rise out of the ashes. I have been doing a lot of thinking and have some ideas to accompany my return. I am not fully ready, but thought I would give those that peek here every now and then a heads up as well as to let any concerned that know that I am alive and well. I will keep you posted on my return.

Quick Note: Obama's Racist Criticism of Kanye West

2009-09-15T20:57:00.002-05:00

It has been reported that President Obama called Kanye West a "JackAss" for jumping up on stage to claim that Beyonce was slighted of an award, interrupting Taylor Swift who did win it. I am sensing racist overtones in Obama's criticism of West. After all, Obama unlike West is of split ethnicity. Since Kanye West is black, he is immune from ever doing anything worthy of criticism so it is obvious that Obama's outburst is a subtle racist remark masked in pseudo criticism. He must secretly resent West for being fully black and found a controversial event to shroud the outlet of his secret bigotry.

Has the US Leftist Press Ever Gotten a Crowd Count Wrong Favoring the Right?

2009-09-13T13:32:00.004-05:00

I have been following for years the Leftist press in this country time after time distort crowd counts on behalf of their bias. They boost crowds for leftist rallies/protests and artificially lower crowd counts of conservative rallies/protests. Of course that assumes they even cover the conservative gatherings at all or get the message accurate if they do. Looking across several news sources you get:

The Wash-Post gives the number "Thousands"
The New York Times gives an ambiguous number "Sea of Protesters" and later mentions "tens of thousands".
CNN reports "Tens of Thousands"

Then oddly enough the Dailymail from the UK of all places lists the crowd as "up to 2 million". I guess only domestic news sources got the memo.

I did see in two of the sources comments on the lack of an official count. CNN states "An official crowd estimate was not available, but reporters at the scene described the massive crowd as reaching the tens of thousands." The NYT states "the police declined to estimate the size of the crowd". I will have to pay closer attention in the future, but I never recall seeing such comments for Liberal leaning gatherings. Were the police told not to get an authorized count?

I don't ever recall the media getting a crowd count wrong that slights the left or favors the right. I have seen numerous times where the count slights the right or favors the left. I guess this goes along the lines of whether the bank or IRS ever makes a mistake in your favor. Not likely.

As for the numbers. Here are a few pics to give an idea (from Newsbusters and WorldNetDaily):

No Lauer You Got it Wrong

2009-08-17T18:31:00.001-05:00

Newsbusters quotes Matt Lauer in an interview with Howard Dean trying to define the health care public option. He says:

MATT LAUER: Let, let's start by making sure people understand exactly what we're talking about when we say this public option. This is a government-run insurance agency that would give people greater choice, some say break the monopoly held by the private insurers and, thus, drive down costs. Is that fair?

How can anything so ignorant come out of the mouth of somebody who styles himself as being informed? First, he displays an ignorance of the word Monopoly. The 's' at the end of his word insurers should tell him there is no monopoly. While there are some dental insurers in the list to ignore, ehealthinsurance.com has a long list of health insurance companies:

(long, ugly list moved to comments for aesthetic reasons)

Hardly evidence of a monopoly. What Matt Lauer misses in his quest for the forest (due to so many trees blocking his view) is that the Public Option instead of breaking any monopoly, will most likely create one leaving Government Health Insurance the only insurer standing. While real life insurers must contend with the hard constraint of the necessity of bringing more money in than they actually distribute in order to survive, the Public Option will have no such constraint. They just go to the taxpayer and say "Oops, this costs bunch more than we thought and we need more money".

Share the Health

2009-08-06T18:08:00.000-05:00

I am thankful for my health care. In the last two years my family has really needed it. I wish everybody had it. That said, I am against my government forcing me to share a portion of my piece of the pie so others can have it.

Obama has stated for the record that he supports a single payer health system. A single payer health system means all health care payments come from a single source. That can only be a source that IS the government or is controlled by the government. In spite of White House efforts to blur / hide / distort the truth, Barack Obama has never to my knowledge come out and denounced his support for a single payer health system, so I can assume he still supports it. If the ObamaCare plan is passed, it will easily in the future be changed into the single payer system he wants. This plan's clear hostility to existing employer based health care benefits makes their future obselescence a near guarantee.

Setting aside the complete farce that my taxes will not go up to pay for this program, the fact is that this program will result in "Share the Health". Whether it is share the wealth or share the health, liberals always conjure plans based on the notion there is a finite pie. In order for others who do not currently have any pie to obtain some, they want to force me and others to give a portion of our slices to be shared. Setting aside the unfairness of taking from me something that
I earned, the fact is that I will have a smaller slice of pie.

Today I have a very good health care insurance program. My insurance will help me keep more of what I have worked hard for by reducing my risk exposure. My insurance will enhance my quality of life by providing thorough and timely care when me or my family needs it. In the end, my insurance provides care that will likely help me to live longer. When we are on a single payer system, my health care will certainly be less thorough and less timely leading to risks that have a good chance of reducing my life expectancy.

On a final note: watch out for the words "comprehensive reform" regardless of whether it applies to health care or immigration. Fix the root causes first. In this case, fix the causes of health care spiraling costs. The reluctance to do this is obvious. So Democrats are asking us to foot the bill for their package because the do not have the courage to fix the problems. Instead we are being asked to accept a "share the health" scam that will ultimately lead to more bearacracy and government control, higher deficits and higher taxes. No thanks.

P.S. If this post happens to make it onto the White House "Fishy" list, I have a special message for them: Talk about fishy, your propoganda machine puts out a stench worse than a seafood processing plant.

Birther Bashing

2009-07-29T18:57:00.002-05:00

I understand those who are hesitant to get on the Obama Birth Certificate bandwagon. There are several reasons I can name not to spend any time addressing it:

1) Self-preservation: If conservatives get loud and animated enough to "force" a move from the Obama camp and a long form birth certificate materializes showing a US birth with attending physician, it could be the biggest, most elaborate, most expensive "rope-a-dope" ever to be pulled off by an elected official. With a willing media, it could take years to wipe off all the egg from their faces.

2) Futility: If at this point Obama was proven not to be a natural born citizen, it would not matter he is already in office. This may be true. One explanation states that it is up to each representative to certify eligibility of the President. Simply by saying so, he is whether or not he should be. This would be similar to electoral representative casting a vote for somebody other than the one with highest votes. They can do that and if enough did that to sway the election, it would be legitimate. On a second note of futility, the best that could happen would be to force the issue.

That would result in either a retroactive eligibility from a Democratically controlled Congress OR Joe Biden would become President. At the end of a protracted legal fight, we would be in the same position or worse.

3) Importance: Some may suspect there is an eligibility issue, but that given the large amount of effort it would take to bring about any forced action, it would detract from more important issues. Too much political capital would be expended resulting in important legislation not being passed or being too weak to block malignant legislation.

These are valid reasons not to join the bandwagon. However, I have a few points to conservatives regarding those who do choose the fight:

- Don't short circuit claims by "Birthers" by saying Obama has proved he is a citizen. This is dishonesty at a very high level. The claim is that he is not a NATURAL BORN citizen. This dishonest approach is equivalent to the notorious claims that conservatives are "against immigration" and against "stem cell research". WRONG. We are against ILLEGAL immigration
and EMBRYONIC stem cell research.

- Don't join the dishonest ranks that claim Obama has proven he is a natural born citizen. The short form birth certificate has information gaps that come short of putting this issue to rest with confidence. There is no hospital name and no attending physician name.
- Conservatives should not join those on the Left in disparaging those who choose to make it an issue. So far the three I have heard getting insulting are: Bill O'Reilly, Michael Medved and Neal Boortz. Others simply bow out with silence or brief civil commentary.
- Conservatives should not paint "Birthers" as wackos. The term Birther is here to stay. It is not the most descriptive of terms but not worth fighting the term, so I will use it. The word and the way some spit out the word is an obvious equivalence to 911 Truthers. It is ludicrous to compare the notion that the government staged the 9/11 crisis and blew up the twin towers with explosives to those who simply want real proof that Obama is a natural born citizen. There are
several facts that would cause a rational person to believe something may be amiss here and want to see hard evidence:

1. It is much easier to prove Obama's natural born status by simply providing the long form birth certificate.

2. The Obama camp has spent at least $1 Million for legal representation to fight supplying the long form. Other than "creating or saving jobs" the rational person would wonder why Obama is willing to have that large amount of money wasted.

3. There were two different hospitals named by the White House as the place of Obama's birth. The reason for this conflict has not been explained.

4. A soldier in the army reserve refused orders of deployment on the grounds Obama was not eligible to be Commander in Chief. He was not court marshaled and his deployment orders were revoked. However, pressure was applied to the defense contractor the reserve soldier worked for to fire him from his civilian job.

So where do I stand? Am I a Birther? I admit a strong curiosity to know the truth. I scratch my head over the ease with which this issue can be put to rest vs. the great lengths the Obama camp goes through to avoid putting it to rest. I lean toward the Birther argument, but have little interest in championing it or beating a war drum here on it. I think there is a good balance with key politicians and conservative media being silent or low key on it. However, I am quite angry with those who are making Birthers out to be kooks. That is not a fair assessment. My final thought is that one way or another I hope we get to the bottom of this however it turns out.

Please Go Green So I Don't Have to Turn Blue

2009-07-16T18:11:00.000-05:00

Most times that I go out to a dining or entertainment establishment, I am amazed at how COLD they keep the temperature. I brought my son to I-Hop Friday night and by the time I left, I was chilled to the bone. This is very common in other restaurants, in movie theaters, in stores at amusement parks and many other establishments. What is the deal? I estimate they keep the temps anywhere between 55-65F. While I am able to tolerate these temps, it is very uncomfortable. My wife, however, practically needs a hypothermia blanket. Many times we are out, she jumps in a hot bath to warm her core. I prefer 75 but would be ok with 70 or above.

All the establishments across the country that combined could be saving a lot of energy by laying off the excess air conditioning. I am not advocating Obama putting on a sweater and pushing for government to regulate our thermostats. With a little common sense we could self-regulate. I am the kind of person that can be comfortable in a temperature range. I just know when I turn blue, it is time for somebody to go green.

Quick Note: Obama Says Porkulus Doing a Heckuva Job

2009-07-13T18:01:00.000-05:00

Sometimes I wish I could act like a liberal and play hardball with no sense of fairness or honesty. That is the way I am wired though. Those who know me often get extremely frustrated at my deep sense of fairness. Last week I was contemplating how long it took for Reagan's tax cuts to finally kick in and begin an economic revolution that lasted over two decades. While waiting for the results, the liberals were at his throat taunting his voodoo economics plan. Even now those same libs will not give his policies credit even though they have seen tax cuts under three presidents result in an economic recovery (JFK, Reagan and W. Bush).

Then just as I am thinking about this Obama comes out and claims that Porkulus is working as intended. My first snarky thought was to post that I guess his plan was to destroy the country after all and that it is working; however, I will avoid that approach. Obama explains his claim the stimulus is working by pointing to the number of jobs "saved" and proposing that state budget deficits would be twice as much as they are now. I know other bloggers have thumped Obama for brazenly using the "created or saved" rhetoric when it comes to jobs. I would point to the shame of the media and pundits because weeks later Obama is still using references to "saved" jobs with a straight face and no fear of ridicule. If they had one ounce of consistency, they would have universally ridiculed him just as they would have if Bush had made such an asinine statement. Shame on the media for deriding Bush for his misguided "heckuva job" praise and turning a blind eye to Obama making an equally foolish statement by praising a plan that has and will continue to make things worse.

GOP Sex Scandals and the Charge of Hypocrisy

2009-06-29T09:45:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-29T09:28:00.003-05:00

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

2009-06-22T18:17:00.000-05:00

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

2009-06-16T09:18:00.002-05:00

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

2009-06-01T18:32:00.003-05:00

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

2009-05-28T18:00:00.000-05:00

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

2009-05-18T18:07:00.000-05:00

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?

2009-05-17T11:32:00.003-05:00

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

2009-03-23T18:30:00.000-05:00

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

2009-01-31T12:49:00.003-06:00

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

2009-01-31T12:33:00.002-06:00

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

2009-01-09T08:51:00.002-06:00

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

2008-12-19T19:00:00.000-06:00

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

2008-11-08T13:46:00.002-06:00

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

2008-11-08T13:31:00.002-06:00

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

2008-11-08T13:18:00.003-06:00

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

2008-11-05T18:00:00.001-06:00

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

2008-11-03T08:56:00.002-06:00

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

2008-10-30T09:28:00.003-05:00

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

2008-10-28T09:12:00.000-05:00

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

2008-10-27T08:20:00.001-05:00

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

2008-10-21T22:51:00.003-05:00

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

2008-10-21T13:01:00.000-05:00

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

2008-10-20T09:01:00.002-05:00

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

2008-10-17T08:29:00.003-05:00

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.

Joe the Plumber He's Our Man If He Can't Do It No One Can

2008-10-16T08:27:00.008-05:00

It was a stroke of genius for McCain to both tap into Barack Obama's self-exposure of his wealth redistribution plan and to put a face on the difference in policy by referencing Joe the Plumber in the debate last night. McCain was distinctly uncomfortable reaching across the aisle to slap Obama's face instead of shake his hand, but he did it. Yes, I wish he were a more gifted speaker and was able to nail Obama, but he did sow the seeds that now can be used to shoehorn them into the discourse of the MSM. While there were other items McCain brought attention to, the exposure of how Obama views the wealth of hard working Americans is the best chance at a game changer out there.

Joe the Plumber exudes the notion of hard work when you look at his hard, stocky build. He made clear that he hopes to work hard enough to get to the point he may be in the higher tax bracket that Obama wants to raise taxes on. While there is a small percent out there that have acquired wealth by being lucky or unscrupulous, most who achieve do so by having clear goals in their life and work (physically and/or intellectually) to gain their wealth. While taxation is necessary, the view that it is unfair to be able to keep the wealth after working so hard to achieve so it can be given to those who have not achieved is nothing less than socialism.

I have heard all the arguments of how the wealthy use a government funded infrastructure to build their wealth so it is only fair to take more from them. First, every able bodied person has the same opportunity as the next person to achieve. We have free education through high school. From there anybody can put themselves through college if they are committed enough. I put myself through college twice. I paid as much as I could and borrowed the rest. I paid off my loans. Name the obstacle and in most cases you can find many who have overcome the obstacle to achieve. How many millionaires are out there who:

- Have less than a 6th grade education
- Came to this country with nothing
- Grew up in the worst neighborhoods in the USA
- Faced the worst and ugliest prejudice
- Have physical handicaps such as blindness, deafness, lack one or more limbs, etc.
- Were abused physically, mentally or sexually by one or more relatives or family associates
- Made a mess of their teenage years with drugs, alchohol and unplanned pregnancy

All of these obstacles and more have been overcome by many. To then view the resulting wealth as something to take and give to others in the irresponsible ways that tend to keep the recipients enslaved to poverty is ridiculous.

Keep in mind, though, that there is already a built in mechanism to take more money from the wealthy than from those who have less. It is called "percentage". I pesonally think that anybody paying a double digit percentage of tax is nothing short of theft. Taking the lowest of double digit percentage of 10% watch how simple math causes every body to pay their fair share - especially the wealthy:

Income ------------Tax
$10 -------------------$1
$1000 ----------------$100
$25,000 --------------$2500
$75,000 --------------$7500
$250,000 -------------$25,000
$3,500,000 -----------$350,000
$1,000,000,000 ------$100,000,000

To say that because somebody makes $250,000 they should pay twice as much of a percentage ($50,000) is theft. Sadly, the percentages are much higher for achievers. While I am nowhere close to Obama's increase level, I am sickened every month to look at the amount of tax I am paying. I am sickened as I look at the year to date Federal, State and FICA taxes that I have paid this year. I am sickened as this year is coming to a close at the thought of having to work until late April for the government until we finally reach Tax Freedom Day and the money I make will be mine. While my wife and I do not make the cutoff yet, we hope to one day. In addition to my job, we are working hard to build a business she started a couple of years ago. The door to success has just now after all that effort begun to crack. It may take 2-3 more years before we are close, but the thought of reaching the point where we are told we are making too much money is disgusting.

Joe the Plumber interviewed with Family Security Matters. You can read his interview in full at this link. He is very articulate; unlike the sterotypical plumber one might think. We read about his working as a plumber 10-12 hours a day for the last 15 years and is only now in a position to think about expanding. He sums it up pretty well by describing higher taxes on achievers as "punishment":

Most people, you ask them “do you believe in the American Dream?” Nine times out of ten they’ll sit there and go, “Yeah, of course!” That’s where he messed up, because as soon as I asked him that, his answer shows that he doesn’t believe in the American Dream. You know, like the question you asked before – he pretty much contradicted himself. “I don’t want to punish you but – “ Well, you’re going to anyways.

Spread the wealth / Share the wealth is nothing but the wealth redistribution ideas right out of Karl Marx. Socialism is nothing but taking money from achievers at the point of a gun and giving it to non-achievers. There are those that have needs that they simply cannot handle on their own. I think a very thin safety net may be in order where the charitable giving of the many in this country with big hearts is not enough. To take money out of the hands of the wealthy, then put the money in the one hand of an underachiever and a vote in the other hand is a recipe for the unthankful, never ending sense of entitlement we see in this country. It leads people to sit on their door step in the face of a hurricane waiting for the government to come and pick them up and carry them to safety instead of using the two feet God gave them.

Update: It is official. We now know more about Joe the Plumber than we know about Obama's:

- Years at Columbia University
- Selection criteria to be asked to serve as Chairman of the CAC Board with only experience as a community organizer under his belt
- Years on the CAC Board with Bill Ayers
- 1981 trip to Pakistan

The media seems hot and heavy as a dog in heat to point out Joe the Plumber's tax liens, but seems unable to rouse themselves from sleep to discuss that the treasurer of Obama's campaign has tax liens and his companies also have them.

It is official that the media has totally abandoned any shame in being completely in the tank for Barack Obama. It will be months to years after this election that their shameful performance will catch up with them, but it will.

Radio Censorship Conspiracy?

2008-10-15T08:56:00.002-05:00

I have found it odd and frustrating that when I drive one of my vehicles to work, the two conservative leaning talk radio stations go to static when I hit a certain point. I have about a 30 mile drive to work and when I am within 10 miles of work these two stations simply cannot be listened to. The two stations are WLS 890AM and WIND560AM.

Now this is not in any of the other 5 vehicles I have ever driven to work over the years, so I know it does not affect every radio. I simply find it odd that it does affect this radio. I did note that I am close to the WGN booster for some of this 10 mile stretch, but it does not seem to have an effect on any other AM stations. WGN is fine of course. The two news stations 780 and 670 are fine. The Catholic station is fine. The Hispanic station is fine. The sports station is fine. Even the liberal talk radio station is fine.

It is so frustrating to be deprived of what I want to listen to the last 10 miles of my trip. What is even more frustrating is that when I return after work, the static stays longer than the point it begins on my morning trip. I have to drive 15 miles back before I can turn it on and sometimes 560 takes 20 miles before I can hear that.

I don't know if this is some kind of conspiracy that targets a small enough number of radio types to stay under the radar, but large enough to keep some people from listening. It is simply amazing that all the other stations work just fine, but the conservative stations have a problem.

NObama 08 Blogburst

2008-10-14T08:53:00.004-05:00

OBAMA/BIDEN ECONOMIC PLAN A FRAUD

The media and candidates assure us that the number one issue in the minds of prospective voters is the economy, so this week we will address that issue; and we’ll do it clearly and concisely. Two concerns right off the mark: (1) If Americans are nervous about the economy, why on earth would they turn to a Democrat for help? (2) If Americans are nervous about the economy, have you heard Barack Obama say anything beyond vague election-year promises?

We don’t want to waste any time on adolescent bantering, but the truth is that our present economic conditions are a direct product from the seeds of eight-years of Bill Clinton. It is also true that Congressional Republicans failed to deliver on their contract with America . And now let’s get down the brass tacks.

With everything going on in your everyday life, you don’t have the time, and probably not the inclination to spend hours sifting through, and thinking about the Obama/Biden Economic Plan. Neither do the authors of that website, apparently. After considering tens of thousands of words of gibberish, what we found are volumes of proposals, policies, programs, and promises, and less than 10% of these ideas come close to responsible or prudent. And this is apparent at the very beginning. According to Mr. Obama:

Wages are Stagnant as Prices Rise: While wages remain flat, the costs of basic necessities are increasing. The cost of in-state college tuition has grown 35 percent over the past five years. Health care costs have risen four times faster than wages over the past six years. And the personal savings rate is now the lowest it's been since the Great Depression.

Tax Cuts for Wealthy Instead of Middle Class: The Bush tax cuts give those who earn over $1 million dollars a tax cut nearly 160 times greater than that received by middle-income Americans. At the same time, this administration has refused to tackle health care, education and housing in a manner that benefits the middle class.

In laying his predicate, Obama wastes our time with what we already know. In 1954, a loaf of bread cost five-cents. In fifty-five years, prices have increased; but I also know that back then, my father earned $60 a month; when he retired in 1972, he earned over $3,000 a month. Next, Obama typically engages in Marxist class-warfare, a classic saw within the Democratic platform. The facts tell us something else. According to U. S. Treasury Department, taxpayers in the top half of income paid 96% of the total income tax revenues. In future years, the percentage of income tax paid by middle class citizens who fall into the bottom half of income earnings will be less than 4% of the total. That presumes, of course, that Barack Obama is defeated in this election. So it would seem that Mr. Obama is being dishonest. If the American people elect Barack Obama to the presidency, taxes will increase across the board. And the proof of this is that Barack Obama cannot increase government spending AND provide meaningful tax cuts to “95% of the American workers.”

Barack Obama claims that he has a plan to jumpstart the economy — and he plans to do this by giving “something back” to Americans. At the very outset, he wants to tax oil company profits to give American families a $1,000 rebate. Now if you lack critical thinking skills, this sounds great. History tells us that government does not exist to give us money; in fact, the opposite is true. Every “benefit” costs the American worker money. But now consider, if these funds come from the “greedy oil companies,” what is the likely consequence to the cost of gasoline and heating oil? By the end of the first year, Obama’s rebate checks might offer consumers with a “break even” scenario.

He also wants to give $50 billion to state and local governments so that each of us can have access to health, education, housing, heating fuels, as an offset to property taxes. Forget that federal grants do not offset state, county, or municipal taxes, but do think about this: his allocation of one-billion dollars to each state, if distributed on a per-capita basis, is a laughable benefit. In California , the per-capita share of one-billion dollars is $27.35, and in Pennsylvania , it comes to $80.43. Once again, Barack Obama is following the example of Bill Clinton in 1991 — promises made, promises broken.

Obama wants to provide “a tax cut” to middle class Americans. This is what he wrote:

Provide a Tax Cut for Working Families: Obama and Biden will restore fairness to the tax code and provide 150 million workers the tax relief they need. Obama and Biden will create a new "Making Work Pay" tax credit of up to $500 per person, or $1,000 per working family. The "Making Work Pay" tax credit will eliminate income taxes for 10 million Americans.

Mr. Obama is not going to cut taxes. It is impossible to cut taxes for 150 million Americans — half of our entire population, when he in fact intends to increase spending by $3 Trillion. Our grandfather might have noted, “This dog won’t hunt.” Additionally, ten million Americans is roughly three percent of our population, so at this point we must ask, “Who benefits most from the Obama plan?” The answer is, “Not the average American.”

Barack Obama and Joe Bide believe that foreign trade should strengthen the American economy; it should create more jobs for Americans. Obama vows to “fight for fair trade,” which means that he will erect trade barriers that will make imported goods more expensive, and domestic made goods less appealing to foreign consumers. How does this help “jump-start” the economy? The answer is it doesn’t. Two issues come to mind. The first is, think about an increase in the retail cost of Chinese-made “junk” you find on the shelves at Wal-Mart. Second, what will happen to American jobs when foreign buyers no longer purchase domestic-made goods? Does Obama have a realistic goal for our economy? No, he does not.

Several years ago, a thoughtful schoolteacher noted the following: when her school district gave teachers a raise, there was a direct and immediate increase in the cost of food, utilities, clothing, fuel, and medical and dental costs. She noted that if her new salary was a modest increase of four percent, the cumulative weight of increased costs across the board resulted in an income loss. Now, Barack Obama wants to “reward” companies with tax breaks when they pay their workers a “decent wage.” We don’t know what “decent wage” means, but we do understand Barack Obama’s very first statement: “Wages are stagnant as prices rise.” We also understand that Obama does not have a solution to a problem he identified as a national problem.

To bolster manufacturing, Barack Obama will create an “Advanced Manufacturing Fund.” The first intelligent question is, “What is that?” The next question should be, “Where will the money come from?” The answer to the first question is it is another costly government bureaucracy. Another government program, another layer of inefficiency added to the federal government. The answer to the second question is simple: it will come from the pockets of the American worker. Is this what Americans want? Does anyone honestly trust Obama with a flagging American economy?

To simplify the process of investigating the Obama Economic Plan, we’ve compiled the following chart. It will take just a few minutes to review it, and the reader can investigate further at the Obama website. But the sheer weight of this information demonstrates that Barack Obama’s Economic “break for Americans” is a fraud.

(click chart for larger image)

Note 1: Job training programs are vital to ensuring that young people entering the work place for the first time are qualified to find and maintain good paying and rewarding jobs/careers. We concur that retraining is a necessary step for workers laid off in a dwindling industry, but we also think that an increase in vocational/technical training as an adjunct of public education makes sense for 70% of high school students. Most educators regard such programs as invalid, but the absence of such programs explains why our dropout rates are so high within the public education sector.

None of the foregoing should surprise; these are economic programs an we can expect an avowed communist to support. The question really is, having won the cold war, do the American people now want to put a communist in the White House? We should make no mistake: Barack Obama has been a communist at least since 1991 . . . more illusive deception on his part . . . and none of these programs are the right fit for the United States of America.

Again, vote NO Obama, and vote NO for socialist members of Congress seeking reelection.

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;

Obama's Pattern of Lying Until Caught

2008-10-13T08:28:00.002-05:00

Once again Barack Obama has been busted in a bald-faced lie. With all of the recent flow of information concerning the role of ACORN in the current financial crisis and the flood of nationwide investigations into massive voter fraud into this dubious organization, Obama clearly backed away from any association with them. Days ago I saw Obama's "fight the smears" website giving a clear denial that he was ever associated with ACORN stating:

Fact: Barack was never an ACORN community organizer
Fact: Barack was never an ACORN trainer and never worked for ACORN in any other capacity
Fact: ACORN was not part of Project Vote, the successful voter registration drive Barack ran in 1992.

Gateway Pundit has pointed out (with before and after screen shots) that the Obama campaign has scrubbed their website with new twisted wording to avoid the clearly false claim that he never trained for ACORN. The Cleveland Leader has the story exposing Obama as indeed having done some training for ACORN. It quotes an ACORN publication from 2004 by Tony Foulkes, ACORN leader:

"Obama took the case, known as ACORN vs. Edgar (the name of the Republican governor at the time) and we won. Obama then went on to run a voter registration project with Project VOTE in 1992 that made it possible for Carol Moseley Braun to win the Senate that year. Project VOTE delivered 50,000 newly registered voters in that campaign (ACORN delivered about 5,000 of them).

Since then, we have invited Obama to our leadership training sessions to run the session on power every year, and, as a result, many of our newly developing leaders got to know him before he ever ran for office. Thus it was natural for many of us to be active volunteers in his first campaign for STate Senate and then his failed bid for U.S. Congress in 1996. By the time he ran for U.S. Senate, we were old friends."

The Obama camp realizes it has been busted in this lie about training and now has changed the wording on their site stating now:

Fact: ACORN never hired Obama as a trainer, organizer, or any type of employee.

The training claim is not the only misleading "fact" on Obama's website. Sweetness and Light has the rundown on the close associations that Project Vote and ACORN have. It has two New York Times' links, a Time Magazing link and a Palm Beach Post link declaring in 2004 that Project Vote is an "arm" of ACORN. It shows the two organziations sharing offices and advertising. Finally it shows proof of money transferred between the organizations.

We saw a pattern with Obama and information about Bill Ayers where he tried to get away with the small claim that Ayers was just a guy in their neighborhood. As more and more info comes out about Ayers and ACORN, Obama just keeps morphing and scrubbing to adapt and trusts his media sycophants to cover for him. With Obama's track record of lies, how likely is it that we will ever get to the bottom of:

- His true association with Ayers
- His the legality of many of his donations
- Whether or not he has actually stopped smoking
- His relationship with an aide
- His side dealings with Iraq to stall a withdrawal plan

Charlie Gibson recently asked John McCain if he thought that Obama has not after two years been thoroughly vetted. McCain had an oppotunity to rattle off a list of the areas of Obama's life we know little or nothing about and ask Gibson how he could consider Obama vetted without having that information exposed.

We are very likely seeing a repeat of history from 1992 when the media covered for Bill Clinton long enough to get him into office. With the New Media maturing they could not hold it back for long and we then had the Whitewater investigation and the exposure of Clinton's sexual addictions. If the media is able to pull it off again, look for a slew of issue to crop up about Obama in the first two years of his presidency. Look for the media to play innocent as if they knew nothing about it. If they don't know, it is because they are not bothering to look. They just ignore the rug with the huge lump under it and call the place clean.

The Hatred and Mob Mentality of the Left

2008-10-12T13:08:00.005-05:00

Ever since McCain allowed Sarah Palin to take the gloves off and the campaign began to do the media's job of finally vetting Barack Obama (no Charlie Gibson, Obama has not yet been vetted since there are still entire chunks of his life we know little or nothing about and the media seems remarkably incurious about), the media has begun the drum beat that the McCain campaign is racist, mean, hateful and inciting a mob. The left is furious at the effectiveness of pointing out the Democrat's role in the current financial crisis, and the extremely poor judgment of Barack Obama over the years when it comes to people he associates with. McCain is also highlighting the truth of Obama's long and deep relationship with the massive voter fraud organization ACORN (exposing the lie that Obama had little to do with them).

(I was going to post the video, but oops! YouTube has once again censored the conservative message and the video is no longer available. You can read the words here)

Michelle Malkin is all over this, showing the lame attempts of the media to find hatred and mob mentality in the McCaign camp. here are some quotes:

Paul Krugman is trembling: “Something very ugly is taking shape on the political scene: as McCain’s chances fade, the crowds at his rallies are, by all accounts, increasingly gripped by insane rage…What happens when Obama is elected? It will be even worse than it was in the Clinton years. For sure there will be crazy accusations, and I wouldn’t be surprised to see some violence.”

Frank Rich decries “Weimar-like rage” and the “violent escalation of rhetoric.”

Michelle then goes on to show some real examples of hatred from the left. There is the recent loony footage of Madonna inciting her crowd to clap their hands and chant about kicking Sarah Palin's ass.

There is the vulgar and profanity laces performance of Sandra Bernhard (I will only link to since it is so vulgar).

Then there is the crazed artwork from the left. You have at least two pictures out there advocating to "Abort Palin". Then you have this winning picture labeling Sarah Palin as a M.I.L.P. (Mother I'd Like to Punch)

Malkin goes on to show more hateful artwork and actions from the Left. Indeed, as I read lefty blogs (for as long as I can stomach them) I am always amazed at the sheer hatred that streams out of their words and artwork. While they contain a steady stream of venom, when I read conservative blogs I rarely see any counterpart. In fact, when somebody gets out of hand they are usually called on it that we don't want to be like the Left. Yet the MSM overlooks all of the Leftist hatred out there and makes every attempt to portray exposure of the truth as hateful and venomous. Once again we hear the MSM telling us one thing, but our eyes show a different story.

My Eyes See a Different Economy Than the Media Portrays

2008-10-12T11:16:00.004-05:00

This weekend I enjoyed an outing held for the company my wife works for when she is not doing work for her own company. We went to Lake Geneva, WI for a Friday dinner cruise and a Saturday on the lake. We stayed at a very nice resort and had a great time. I have never been to Lake Geneva, and I have absolutely fallen in love with the place. The water is the clearest water I have ever seen in a lake. One section of the lake hold the huge summer homes built by the Wrigley family (that's a lot of sticks of gum). The town is charming and the setting is just perfect. We had the chance to use our new toy purchased back in August. We have had quite a number of wonderful times taking out our new SeaDoo to the area rivers and Lake Michigan.

The thing that jumped out at me this weekend was the sheer volume of people engaging in commerce. The dinner cruise was nearly full. There were quite a number of people at the resort for an off season time period. Traffic was heavy in town with people coming and going. Saturday I was caught in heavy traffic in a downtown that consists of about 4x3 city blocks. It took me almost 15 minutes to drive through town to get to the lake. The streets were absolutely flooded with shoppers. In addition to the shoppers in the stores, the sidewalks in front had people packed like sardines as they walked from store to store. The lake had quite a number of boats and personal watercraft.

I have a long drive to work every day. Over the years I can gauge economic conditions by the traffic. After 9/11 I saw a dramatic reduction in congestion when I drove to work. It gradually rose back to normal congestion. Every day I drive to work, I only see more and more congestion. I have not yet seen any reduction at all in spite of all the rhetoric.

With all the swirling economic doom and gloom, you would expect people to be lying in the fetal position at home instead of out enjoying themselves. We may very well be on our way to a weaker economy, but everywhere I go my eyes tell me that as John McCain said and was so ridiculously criticized for - the fundamentals of the economy are sound. Not only does the economy continue to do well, it continues to do well under the drumbeat, onslaught of the Democrats and their friends in the media. Sure people continue to parrot the bad economy media lines fed to them day in and day out, but then they go out and act like the economy is humming along. What speaks louder to you - words or actions? I hear the Democrats and the MSM every day downing the status of the economy, but my own eyes tell me something different.

Screaming at the Radio Part Two

2008-10-10T12:38:00.002-05:00

I recalled another time during the debate between McCain and Obama that I found myself screaming at the radio for McCain to call Obama on a ridiculous statement that he made. When Obama was discussing Energy, he said:

Energy we have to deal with today, because you're paying $3.80 here in Nashville for gasoline, and it could go up. And it's a strain on your family budget, but it's also bad for our national security, because countries like Russia and Venezuela and, you know, in some cases, countries like Iran, are benefiting from higher oil prices.

So we've got to deal with that right away. That's why I've called for an investment of $15 billion a year over 10 years. Our goal should be, in 10 year's time, we are free of dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

When I heard 10 years to energy independence I nearly choked. Hasn't the Democrat line on drilling offshore and in ANWR been that we would not realize a single drop of oil from those venues for 10 years, so it does not make sense to begin the process??? By the way, they have been saying that for 10 years, so if they had had the foresight and judgment required for good leadership, we would NOW be benefiting from that oil.

Basically the Democrat position on oil drilling is ridiculous. There is no consistency and Obama underscores that point by alluding to a 10 year plan. McCain should have jumped all over this and missed an opportunity to capitalize on another Obama stumble.

Let's Take This From a Different Angle

2008-10-09T21:10:00.002-05:00

With the growing list of scummy people that Barack Obama has associated with all his adult life, and the media's reluctance to spend any time on it because "the American people aren't interested in it" (when did I lose my citizenship?), maybe there is another way the media or even the Obama campaign can tackle this problem.

Maybe they can provide a few names of people that Obama associated with when he was at Columbia and Harvard, worked with before his political career began and allies he cultivated after he went into politics; a few people that are respectable, non-radical, non-socialist, non-racist bigots, productive and wholesome. Right now it appears that at every juncture of his life, Obama had bad judgment when selecting his associates. If they are unwilling to address those poor choices directly, maybe they could address it indirectly by revealing good choices along the way.

Screaming at the Radio

2008-10-08T20:22:00.002-05:00

As I listened to the debate last night, there were several statements by Obama that leapt out at me. I was driving at the time, so I was screaming at John McCain to please pick up on what was just said and hit back hard. Although there were several responses by McCain I appreciated, in at least one case he missed a golden opportunity to nail Obama to the wall. Here are some statements from a CNN transcript:

Brokaw: Sen. Obama, time for a discussion. I'm going to begin with you. Are you saying to Mr. Clark (ph) and to the other members of the American television audience that the American economy is going to get much worse before it gets better and they ought to be prepared for that?

Obama: No, I am confident about the American economy. But we are going to have to have some leadership from Washington that not only sets out much better regulations for the financial system.

This is after Obama jumped on McCain again for his statement a few weeks ago:

Obama: And we've -- you know, Sen. McCain and I have some fundamental disagreements on the economy, starting with Sen. McCain's statement earlier that he thought the fundamentals of the economy were sound.

Barack Obama and his media sycophants jumped all over John McCain for making this statement. Campaigns and the media should operate under different rules of engagement, but when it comes to the media and their agenda, they have the same rule. A campaign will take something that somebody said and regardless of what was meant, use the statement to their advantage. In my opinion the media should take what somebody said, attempt in good faith to determine what was meant and comment on what the person meant to say. While I can expect the Obama camp to spin McCain’s “fundamentals” statement against him, I do expect the media to refrain from joining the Obama spin. When a campaign does spin as Obama did in this case, I would expect a certain consistency regarding the spin instead of spinning one way for one circumstance, but spinning another way when it suits.

Here after Obama and his media sycophants made such a huge effort to take McCain down a few notches, Obama turns around in the debate last night and made a virtually identical statement as McCain did weeks ago. Obama says he is confident about the American economy. There are only two ways to read that statement. Obama is confident about the American economy because the fundamentals of the economy are sound OR Obama is confident about the economy even though the fundamentals of the economy are not sound. If it is the first, Obama, may have scored points with it but is a hypocrite of the highest order. If it is the second, then Obama is living in an alternate universe where he is happy and optimistic in spite of the economic house burning down. Hypocrite or hysterical, Obama needs to be called on it.

Seriously NOBama 08

2008-10-07T08:48:00.002-05:00

We cannot oppose Barack Obama without also opposing the party he represents, along with Republicans who enable socialist engineering. Barack Obama is not the only socialist who seeks elective office in November.

Why do we oppose Barack Obama? As comedian Jackie Mason recently reminded us, Barack Obama is popular because of the way he looks, the way he talks, and the way he presents himself – but remember that’s his field of expertise. His primary accomplishments include looking good, lying with a straight face, and associating himself with powerful radical activists. When you think about it, he is exactly who un-American liberals want living in the White House. Last week, we argued that Barack Obama is an empty suit. This week, we should admit the suit isn’t completely empty … there are dangerous, anti-American forces at work within the Obama election infrastructure.

It is difficult to fathom the arrogance of someone who, after only 143 days in the U. S. Senate, announces he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency. And what is it exactly that causes this egotism? It may be that Barack Obama has cleverly orchestrated a sophisticated behind-the-scenes mechanism designed to create conditions favorable to his election. It is a cooperative of followers of (anarchist) Saul Alinsky, busily implementing the so-called “The Cloward-Piven Strategy of Orchestrated Crisis.” According to The Nation magazine (1966), “The ‘Cloward-Piven Strategy’ seeks to hasten the fall of capitalism by overloading the government bureaucracy with a flood of impossible demands, thus pushing society into crisis and economic collapse.”

American Thinker illustrates the workings of this scheme in the following graph; one that demonstrates a well-funded program centered around George Soros’ Open Society Institute, managed by former SDS member Aryeh Neler, and facilitated by the now infamous Associations of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) (Note: Associations … plural). With 28 days to the National Elections, we do seem suddenly plagued with one financial catastrophe after another. Government bureaucracy is definitely overloaded, and society is being pushed into a sense of crisis. Fact, or fiction … the reader can decide for him or her self. But if it is only partially true, the implications present us with unsettling possibilities.

We are used to political organizations, such as the Democratic and Republican Party; but no one outside the radical left can be comfortable with an organization such as this. And if Barack Obama’s ego causes him to believe that he is brighter than most, and that he is ready to assume the mantle of the presidency … he could be correct – no one so far has been smart enough to figure out what is happening behind the scenes. Few mainstream journalists have seriously evaluated Obama’s connection to the anti-American, radical left; not the so-called conservative press, not the Republican Party, and none of the self-styled America-first organizations.

Barack Obama is dangerous for other reasons, too. On the one hand, it is possible to dismiss the junior senator as one of those people with advance degrees, lacking common sense. We can say that he is able to quote Marxist and anarchist rhetoric, but lacks a concomitant real world understanding of the implications of such radical ideas. But there is yet another possibility: Barack Obama knows exactly what he is doing. He knows precisely where he wants to take this country. And no one who understands this man’s motivations can feel comfortable with that perspective.

Barack Obama’s radicalism, thinly disguised by his subtle move to the political center-left, clearly repudiates everything America stands for. Conservative Americans may find themselves baffled by a man who professes love for the United States, but who then seeks to institute radical Marxist changes in government, in our courts, and within society … but not if we are watching and listening carefully to the Obama rhetoric. If we have not already dismissed common sense concern for his radicalism, if we have not already accepted Obama’s mild protestations of innocence, then we can recall the words of Jeremiah Wright on the pulpit (“g-damn America”) and we can say, “There is the real Barack Obama.” If we can focus on the obvious, we can draw a direct line between Jeremiah Wright’s church and the Black Racist ideology of the Nation of Islam and its leader, Louis Farrakhan – both of whom engage in the radicalization of the black community, then we know the real man behind the deceptively “empty suit.” The underlying, important question is, “Are Americans Paying Attention?”

By pursuing his radical, anti-American agenda, Barack Obama repudiates everything America stands for … and his rejection of our traditional values extends well beyond the sophomoric debate between capitalists and socialists, even if not altogether irrelevant. The United States is a great nation today because of our traditional values. Our forefathers rejected big government, and they were able to raise their families without having to rely on the mistaken notion that “Only a village can raise a child.” They avoided personal indebtedness, preferring to live within their means, and they denounced the idea that government is entitled to their hard-earned income. In the past, we celebrated entrepreneurial spirit; today we demean it. Today, encouraged by the poison of materialism and socialist entitlement programs, America is a nation of debtors; ever the opportunist, Barack Obama and his radical left organization is taking full advantage of our social and individual indolence.

Let us not forget that government largess feeds upon itself. Marxists use government to redistribute wealth; it is the great equalizer ensuring everyone is equally miserable. Obama is using Alinsky’s “community activism” to achieve that power, and socialist ideology to maintain it. We stand in opposition to Barack Obama and his machine politics because we reject Marxist/socialist government. It strips people of their individualism, their dignity, and their will to resist subjugation, but this is the goal of an Obama administration, gift wrapped with empty promises. In our view, Barack Obama is willing to do anything to achieve his objectives, legal or not. We categorically reject him as a new-age messiah, and we stand united against his anti-American programs and policies.

Our question to Obama supporters remains unanswered: “How is it possible to love America, and support Barack Obama?” The horror of radical left/Marxist ideology is Obama’s consistent and unfettered promise for America. It is why we oppose him. It is why we urge our readers to vote NO to Obama and NO to socialists in Congress.

Participants: Always on Watch; And Rightly So; Big Girl Pants; Chuck Thinks Right; Confessions of a Closet Republican; Farmer’s Letters; Fore Left; GeeeeeZ; Has Everyone Gone Nuts?; Learn Something Today; Long Range; 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

More Obama Worship

2008-10-05T16:17:00.003-05:00

This is by far one of the freakiest things I have seen during the campaign. First, there is the youth dressed in military garb. Why military garb? Obama is not a big supporter of the military. Then, they come out chanting "Alpha-Omega". I can only assume they are talking about Obama. Where does the term "Alpha-Omega" come from? In the Bible, it says:

"I Am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty" Revelation 1:8

I for one am quite tired of all the glorified photographs and the God or Savior like tones that are seriously attributed to Obama. There are many that spoof these actions and words, but when they are serious it really makes me sick.

Media Like a One Note Musical Concert

2008-10-05T15:33:00.003-05:00

The media seems to only have a single note in their musical concert when it comes to any criticism of Barack Obama - and that note is flat: cry racism. Sarah Palin is launching off her impressive debate performance to land heavy criticism against Obama on the campaign trail. She referred to the association of Barack Obama to Bill Ayers as "palling around with terrorists". According to AP:

"Our opponent ... is someone who sees America, it seems, as being so imperfect, imperfect enough, that he's palling around with terrorists who would target their own country," Palin told a group of donors in Englewood, Colo. A deliberate attempt to smear Obama, McCain's ticket-mate echoed the line at three separate events Saturday.

"This is not a man who sees America like you and I see America," she said. "We see America as a force of good in this world. We see an America of exceptionalism."

Sarah Palin draws a great ideological distinction between the two tickets by pointing to how very different the two view America. The McCain-Palin ticket strongly support American Exceptionalism. Instead of viewing America as a blessed nation grounded in its rich political and religious history, Palin alludes to the liberal approach to pointing out the many problems and flaws with America, embracing blame for hatred of the US by Islamic radicals and seeing the US as inferior to European countries. Palin sees Obama's selection out of nowhere by Bill Ayers to serve on the board at CAC and Ayers hosting Obama's launch into politics at his home as "palling around with terrorists" because of their common world view.

Only in a liberal logical pretzel could the Associated Press take drawing an idelogical distinction to mean Obama is "not like us" in a way that has racial undertones. Sarah Palin did not even use the words "Obama is not like us". AP had to convert her words into that simple sound bite to even remotely connect them to a racist connotation.

The chronically incurious media when it comes to any area of Obama's life that might look bad for him, casually brushes away the Bill Ayers connection with the statement that Obama "denounced Ayers' radical views and actions". I have seen them over and over again make that claim. I have tried to Google any link that has the wording of this denouncement but can only find references claiming that he has. Taking their word for it, I think there are still questions remaining:

- Why when Obama was first asked about Bill Ayers did he try to claim he was just "a guy from my neighborhood" instead of a guy that selected him from nowhere to server on the CAC board with him?
- When did Obama first meet with Bill Ayers? Obama and Ayers were in the same vicinity when Obama attended Columbia (where we have very little information about him). Did they meet or run in the same circles at this time?
- When did Obama learn of Ayers radical past? Before or after he served on the board with him?
- Why did Obama choose Bill Ayers home to launch his political career?
- Does Obama think that justice was served when somebody like Ayers has never served a day in jail for his crimes?
- Does Obama think that Bill Ayers can go from his radical past to a current respectable position with or without having paid for or even repented of his crimes?

I think that if the media grilled Obama half as strongly as they grilled Palin on the ridiculous book banning claim that we would hear some interesting answers.

The one note media is getting old. Basically, unless we all just sit back and allow Obama to be coronated, we are branded as racist. A couple of weeks ago the media was fretting about an Obama loss due to racists that will not vote for him due to his skin color. I have yet to hear the media fretting about the many who will be voting for Obama (and therefore against McCain) because of his skin color. I doubt we will hear much about that.

NObama 08 Blogburst

2008-09-30T09:27:00.003-05:00

When Sarah Palin was announced as the VP pick, there was not a moment of peace after that point to reflect on what type of person she is. The daggers came out and accusations began flying. You can read a good list of these false claims posted by Incognito here.

In spite of political differences, I give everybody a fair shake. When I heard Obama during his Senate race here in Illinois, I had a good impression of him even though I disagreed with him. When he did a “touch and go landing” in the Senate and began his presidential campaign, I tried my best to see what everybody was buzzing about. I would love to have an election where there are two candidates. I may prefer one, but hopefully not fear the other one to win. In this election cycle that is not the case. Though I have looked objectively at Barack Obama, in the end I find his character to be an opportunist at best and a thug at worst.

I have already written about Obama strong-arming his way into politics by using gutter tactics – essentially disqualifying all four of his rivals by technicalities.

His nomination is tainted by the stench of voter fraud. Obama has strong ties to the organization ACORN. Boortz posts today about all the states where ACORN has been accused of voter fraud during the primaries: Washington, Michigan, Florida, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Nevada. We now find that Obama has a friend in the Secretary of State of Ohio who has been busily disqualifying GOP absentee ballots contrary to Ohio law.

Obama and his surrogates have continually stiff-armed the public when it comes to information about his past. While the media continues to give Sarah Palin a proctal exam, they continue to yawn when it comes to details about Obama's missing years at Occidental College, his trip to Pakistan, his years at Columbia, and his time on the Board of the CAC serving under terrorist Bill Ayers.

When it comes to any public dialogue about the areas of Obama's life that he does not want discussed, Obama uses quite a number of thuggish measures to squelch it. He sends out action alerts for his goons to flood radio stations with calls, he tries to use the Department of Justice on them, he threatens radio and television stations regarding their licenses, banning signs at rallies, and using Missouri law enforcement to intimidate free speech. It is obvious that Obama has a real problem with the 1st Amendment. If we see this haunting display of political brownshirt mentality during the election process, imagine what it will be like when (God forbid) he attains the presidency.

The thuggish character of Barack Obama is one of the reasons I decided to join the NObama 08 BlogBurst effort where a group of bloggers will be posting every Tuesday on why the United States needs to reject this man's bid for the highest office in the world. The other participating members of the NObama 08 BlogBurst are:

The Political Yen/Yang

Always on Watch

And Rightly So

Big Girl Pants

Confessions of a Closet Republican

Farmer’s Letters

ForeLeft

GeeeeeZ

Has Everyone Gone Nuts?

Papa Frank

Paleocon Command Center

Pondering Penguin

Social Sense

The Amboy Times

The Crank Files

The Jungle Hut

The Logic Lifeline

The Merry Widow

The Charlie Gibson Effect on Bill Clinton

2008-09-23T09:25:00.003-05:00

Bill Clinton said recently about Sarah Palin:

"I come from Arkansas. I get why she’s hot out there — why she’s doing well. You know, people look at her and they say — all those kids. Something happens in everybody’s family.”

When applying the Charlie Gibson "exact words" method, Bill Clinton actually said:

"I get why she’s hot"

Exact words.

Did You Really Think Through That, Union Thug?

2008-09-23T08:43:00.003-05:00

United Auto Worker Union President Ron Gettelfinger underscores why I view most unions to be run by non-thinking thugs. In his eagerness to get a microphone and to attack John McCain, Gettelfinger spews out some nonsense that obviously was not thought through for two seconds. His statements according to CNN:

"The last thing we need is a presidential candidate who undermines autoworkers, and these days it seems that John McCain is doing just exactly that," he said. "When he's in the Midwest, he tells voters he supports the industry, when he is in other states he brags about buying a foreign car, as he did with the Prius." (It is not clear if McCain or his daughter bought the Prius)

Gettelfinger also pointed to comments McCain made in an interview with Detroit TV station WXYZ, saying, "I've bought American literally all my life and I'm proud."

"That's really a nice campaign line," Gettelfinger said of the comments. "But it turns out that John McCain wasn't being straight with the people of Detroit, or the state of Michigan, or our country as a matter of effect," adding later, "The American auto industry and the American voters deserve a president who will be straight with them.”

The McCains have 13 cars in their family fleet. Two of those are foreign made (Honda / Volkswagon). There is also a Lexus and Prius that are driven by Cindy and McCain's daughter, but are not registered to them. That leaves 11 American made cars in the fleet. Somehow Gettelfinger considers purchasing 11 American cars as an act that "undermines autoworkers". Apparently Gettelfinger is quite satisfied with Obama's contribution of 1 and only car because it is a Ford. Only in a liberal union thug mentality could one claim that even though McCain has put 11 times the dollar amount into the American auto industry as Obama, he is "undermining" it.

Barack Obama's Gutter Tactics

2008-09-22T08:55:00.002-05:00

The media has painted Barack Obama as above the fray running a clean and ethical campaign. This same media has attempted to paint the McCain campaign as the lowest, nastiest smear machine in election history. They jumped on McCain for allegedly lying about the nature of a sex education bill that Obama supported. The point of McCain's ad was to show that Obama has accomplished very little and that his support of this bill that actually failed was one of the few things that Obama could put on his political resume. When reading the bill in it's entirety, it obviously opens the door for very young kids being exposed to things they are not ready for. While it does claim it should be "age appropriate", who decides that? Just how do you make information on how to avoid STDs age appropriate for a kindergartender?

After plastering McCain for his "attack ads" as a below the belt SOB, the media has turned a blind eye to Obama's gutter tactics. While there have been a few stories on it (mostly media blogs), nobody has asked Obama about his ad that totally distorts parodies by Rush Limbaugh to whip up anger among hospanics. Nobody seems to be concerned about an outright "whopper" being told by Obama about McCain and Social Security in a desperate attempt to scare senior citizens in Florida.

While Obama continues to enjoy free MSM passes, there is a new report that underscores Obama's nasty Chicago political machine mentality. First, taking a trip down memory lane it is good to remember that Obama won his Illinois State Senate seat by "throwing all of his opponents off the ballot on technicalities". This political jujitsu move "Obama disqualified all four opponents -- including the incumbent state senator, Alice Palmer, and three minor candidates" according to the Wall Street Journal.

Now the Jawa Report shows that Obama is bringing his Chicago experiences to the national stage. Apparently some of the smears against Sarah Palin have been the work of a professional PR firm that has links to the Obama campaign. According to Jawa:

Evidence suggests that a YouTube video with false claims about Palin was uploaded and promoted by members of a professional PR firm.

The family that runs the PR firm has extensive ties to the Democratic Party, the netroots, and are staunch Obama supporters.

Evidence suggests that the firm engaged in a concerted effort to distribute the video in such a way that it would appear to have gone viral on its own. Yet this effort took place on company time.

Evidence suggests that these distribution efforts included actions by at least one employee of the firm who is unconnected with the family running the company.

The voice-over artist used in this supposedly amateur video is a professional.

This same voice-over artist has worked extensively with David Axelrod's firm, which has a history of engaging in phony grassroots efforts, otherwise known as "astroturfing."

David Axelrod is Barack Obama's chief media strategist.

The same voice-over artist has worked directly for the Barack Obama campaign.

While many may choose to claim a high standard of proof and deny this report (while retaining a wagon rut low standard of proof when it comes to accusations against Palin), apparently the owner of the mentioned videos takes this report seriously. In an update on this report Jawa notes:

[UPDATE: Within 1 hour of posting, "eswinner" has removed all videos from YouTube and began removing any traces of his activities. But we have the video and all relevant websites backed up.

If "eswinner" isn't Ethan Winner of the Publicis Groupe, then why did "eswinner" yank the video so quickly? Or if this was just an innocent homemade ad, then what does he have to hide? You'd think he'd want more attention for it.

The MSM can continue to highlight everything it can to put McCain in a bad light, don't expect to hear anything about this. Obama has a Season Free Pass with the MSM. Whether Obama wins or loses, the MSM has much to account for in this campaign. I am sure they are putting all their chips into Obama now because a reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine could allow them to skirt accountability of their shameless behavior. In the meantime, it is up to the New Media to expose Obama and his shameful Chicago style politics to strongarm his way into the White House.

Talk About Abuse of Power

2008-09-22T08:16:00.002-05:00

Since there is nothing else, the DEMs keep going back to the alleged "abuse of power" "scandal" involving Sarah Palin. Even though the fired guy admits he was never asked to fire Palin's ex-brother-in-law, they still doggedly stick to it. Funny how DEMs run the other way when their is a REAL scandal like Charlie Rangel's tax evasion; yet hold on to GOP non-scandals like the old man of the sea around Sinbad's neck.

Newsbusters is posting on a real abuse of power scandal regarding that rally from which Sarah Palin was disinvited. We heard via the news how Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin were invited to the rally. When Hillary found out Palin was going, she ran the other way to avoid being on the same platform. When Biden couldn't or wouldn't attend, suddenly Sarah Palin was disinvited to avoid "politicizing" the event. Apparantly, there was more going on behind the scenes that we did not hear about. New York Democrats threatened rally organizers with an IRS evaluation of their tax exempt status if they did not exclude Palin from the rally.

Newsbusters links to local CBS and NBC stories to support its claim. So because Hillary chose her infantile action to pull out of the event and New York DEMs abused their power by threatening IRS action, the rally to protest Iranian leader Ahmadinejad's appearance at the United Nations will not be represented by any national leader.

My assumption is that the national media will ignore this action. Choosing to chase ongoing phantom accusations against Sarah Palin, they will continue to ignore real breaches of ethics by their Democrat friends.

Do Obama Supporters Ever Get Embarrassed?

2008-09-17T10:17:00.002-05:00

It does not ever seem to matter what Obama does, his faithful do not seem to feel any shame. The left has ridiculed Bush for his weakness in speaking, but have no problem with Obama and all of his 'uh, uh, uhs', his 'you knows'. The left laughed at Dan Quayle for his misspelling of potato, but turn a blind eye to the Obama Gaffe Machine. The left ridiculed McCain because of his periodic problems using a teleprompter, yet they have no shame when Obama is so dependent on the teleprompter that he brought it with him on the campaign trail recently. With no real accomplishments in his career and no executive experience, the Obama campaign pitch should be limited to:

I can read!

The Wussification of American Politics

2008-09-17T08:46:00.004-05:00

With every election cycle, we see the election process diminish and contort. The media has done quite a job on the minds of the people to replace historic precedent with their idea of what an election should be. We have moved past strong debate between candidates in the style of Lincoln-Douglas down to practically sitting at the table for Sunday dinner having a political discussion. In the past candidates strongly and clearly defining political positions and plans gave the people both a clear idea of what the candidates stood for AND helped educate the people with details they normally would not take the time to pursue themselves. Today, we can go through a year or longer listening to a candidate and still not have the foggiest idea what they really stand for or what we can expect from them.

A candidate is comprised of what is inside of them, their positions, their ideas, their accomplishments and their actions. What is inside them is their inner core, their character, their belief system, their likes / dislikes, their biases, their ability to be objective when appropriate, their ability to persevere when tested by heavy trials, their outreach to their fellow humans, and their sense of accountability. Their positions represent their ability to take a stand on principle as well as their ability to change when provided with ample reason to do so (outside of political expediency). Their ideas show whether they have the ability to be creative enough to address complex issues of the day with solutions targeted at solving problems rather than expanding government. Their accomplishments show that they have the ability to complete something they have begun; that they had a clear goal to achieve rather than working without aim. Finally, their actions show whether they have been true to and consistent with their inner core and embraced positions.

The goal of the political process should be to investigate and reveal the comprised elements of each candidate and communicate the findings to the American people so they can make informed votes. In other words, the election process should mostly target the intellect of the people. While emotions can be a part of the equation, they should take a back seat in the process.

There are two ways that the goal of educating the people can be accomplished: through the media and from the candidates themselves. We clearly see that the media falls flat in its responsibility to provide the people with the information they need to cast an intelligent vote. My first three substantive posts on this blog (here, here and here) deal with how the media uses what they say, what they don't say and how they say what they say to give the information to the people that they want and how they want. The white glove inspection the media is giving to Sarah Palin would not be so bad if all four ticket candidates went through the same treatment. Aside from highlighting the good, the bad and the ugly as desired, I have not seen any comprehensive coverage of the lives (personal and political) of John McCain, Barack Obama or Joe Biden. The American Thinker highlights key years in Barack Obama's life that we know very little about. The media seems very uninterested in the details of Obama's trip to Pakistan in 1981, the details of his life at Columbia University, why terrorist Bill Ayers selected an unknown Obama to serve on the board at CAC, and the details of his service on the board including his relationship with Ayers during that time. The media also continues to give Obama a free pass on any shred of details to his positions. After speaking, the media can only focus on the quality of delivery (with the aid of a teleprompter of course) instead of asking how. So we cannot trust the media to inform the people clearly and fully.

So education is left to the candidates to inform us about themselves and to inform us what they know of the other candidate that we cannot otherwise know. Once again the media steps in. Having failed (on purpose) at their job, they do not want anyone else stepping in to do their job. When a candidate begins informing us about the shortcomings of the other candidate with details the media will not provide, they step in and call that candidate "negative". They focus on any shred of a detail that may have been spun a little for effect and blow that up like the ink spray of an octopus and mask the important details that are true. They continue to push for "lovefest" style debate instead of direct, confrontational, effective discourse. Of course, what we often see is the media only applying the wussification factor to the GOP candidate. Anything by McCain that is not lovefest discourse is branded by the media as negative, low, sliming, etc. When Obama does it, the media portrays him as strong, direct, taking the gloves off, defending against swiftboat attacks, etc. They even get the definition of a swiftboat attack wrong. A swiftboat attack is an attack that is effective due to the level of distribution and because it is grounded in truth.

The people of America need to wake up and demand a better election process. I have at times desired to go beyond the two party system we have, but in reality the two parties would be sufficient if the process succeeded in providing voters with what they need to cast intelligent votes. Since the media is not at all interested in an informed voter (horror!), we must find a way to circumvent them. Blogs and talk radio do their part, but the media remains a fundamental tool in acquiring the basic building blocs of education. The octopus ink is sprayed by the media and then sprayed by the bloggers. While the MSM feels threatened by the new media, they are still a powerful force and will be for some time to come. Their goal is to hold on to that power as long as possible in hopes the new media will fade away or become regulated to the point they have no teeth.

Interview Questions by Gibson - A Comparison

2008-09-14T21:54:00.002-05:00

According to the Hillary Clinton Forum here are the lists of questions from Gibson's interview with Barack Obama and Sarah Palin:

Obama Interview:

How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to "win"?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?

Palin Interview:

Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]

These lists show a difference of night and day in the treatment by Gibson between Obama and Palin. Add to that the fact that he took TWO quotes by Palin, cut out relevant words in the quotes and used the distorted versions to ask her about them. When she challenged him about the quote not being right, he insisted "Exact words". Sure Charlie, the words in the fragmented quotes were exact, but they represent a totally different meaning.

Add to that the demeaning nature of Gibson toward Palin, as if he were talking to a school girl.

Add to that the fact that Gibson asked about the "Bush Doctrine" known to have multiple meanings. Palin may have known that the definition has changed over the years and wanted to make sure she was answering in the right context. Palin also likely sensed that Gibson was trying to link her to Bush as the Obama campaign keeps attempting to do. Her answer spared her that trap.

Add to that the fact that ABC hacked the interview to pieces. This gave the interview a very disjointed effect and when viewing the missing elements, it is very clear that some very good strong answers by Palin were cut out. You can see those missing statements at Mark Levin's website.

Finally, add evidence from this blog that ABC used different camera techniques with Palin than they did with Obama and Hillary Clinton. With Obama and Clinton, they are shown equal in size to Gibson. With Palin, however, they angle shows Gibson larger than Palin.

The media seems to have totally thrown all concern about their credibility out of the window in this election. Charlie Gibson and ABC hemorrhaged credibility in this interview. I think that at the least Gibson owes Sarah Palin an apology for his distortions of her quotes and Gibson owes an explanation of why there was such a discrepancy between the Obama and Palin interviews. I'm not holding my breath for either.

Did the McCain Campaign Watch Karate Kid II?

2008-09-14T12:13:00.005-05:00

As I have been watching the events unfold the last few weeks, I have come to the conclusion that somebody in the McCain camp has seen the movie "Karate Kid II". Ok, ok, the series was hoaky, campy, sappy, etc. but I admit I loved watching them when I was younger (and still do from time to time). The second movie ended with a fight between the "Daniel-son" and a more experienced but less honorable fighter. Just when all seemed lost, the town observers whip out their drum toys to convey to Daniel the secret of karate. The drum toy as pictured has two beads to strike the drum. When you move it back and forth the beads alternately strike one side of the drum and then the other. Daniel takes the clue and commences to strike his opponent alternately on each side of his face without giving him a break. He has no chance between blows to recover and finally falls.

Like the drum, alternate blows are being landed on Obama every day. The McCain camp is using the media's bias against itself and Obama. In one way or another McCain is getting the media to play and replay his messages. They often are doing this in an attempt to make McCain look bad, negative and mean; but the message gets played multiple times and it sinks in to the viewers.

One difference between the pictured drum and the campaigns is that there is at least one extra bead on the drum. That bead is the floundering Obama Campaign. They seem to be striking blows against themself almost as many times as the McCain campaign does:

- They leap before looking to pounce on Sarah Palin's inexperience only to have left their soft underbelly exposed to Obama's lesser experience.
- They allude to Palin's lack of accomplishment, only to again underscore Obama's lackluster career.
- They act like they are taking the high road and accuse McCain of gutter politics; then they send an attack team of 30 to Alaska to dig up dirt on Palin
- Obama exposes himself with the Lipstick on a Pig line. Normally an ok line to use, but with Palin's Lipstick on a Pit Bull reference, the correlation is too obvious. One of two problems here. Obama thought he could get away with such a low connotation (like he thought when he gave Hillary Clinton the finger while pretending to scratch his nose) OR he innocently used the line but when his audience immediately linked it to Palin (by their obvious reaction) he was too stupid to realize the gaffe and immediately correct the audience. Nasty or stupid: take your pick.
- Getting desparate the Obama camp scours Mother Jones, Daily Kos and Huffington Post for ideas. They come up with the "bright idea" to focus on John McCain's lack of using email and put out an ad about it. We are then reminded that due to John McCains POW injuries, it is too painful for him to use a keyboard. Power Line has the embedded ad AND a March 2004 reference to the fact that "McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes".

The Obama Campaign is in total disarray. Power Line points out that McCain has pulled even with Obama in Minnesota. Gateway Pundit points out that Obama is sliding in "Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Virginia". They also point out that the Dems are afraid of the racism factor ..... from fellow DEMs. I personally know this to be true. My wife and I have heard from multiple Democrat associates that although they are Democrat, they can't see themselves pulling the lever for "a black guy" (yes, they have their embarrassing members too).

I continue to remember that the winds can change the other direction just as quickly as they changed in this direction. The media is working overtime to accomplish that (when they aren't being manipulated by the McCain strategy). In the meantime, it is not only gratifying to see that people are still capable of rational thought; it is so darn fun to watch the Libs go berserk. Olive Oyl and I are having a great time reading all the articles and watching the videos together. We can't wait each day to see the new blow to Obama from the drum toy.

One final point: If Obama is so susceptible to the toy drum style of attack in a campaign, is this a sign of how our enemies can work to put Obama into the fetal position if he ever assumes office? Scary thought.

World Opinion: Something You Can Trust - Yeah Right

2008-09-11T18:13:00.000-05:00

Apparently the world does not have a consensus on who was behind 9/11

BUT

There is world consensus that they want Obama to be POTUS

Europe's Electoral Map for US 2008 Election by Michael Asher

2008-09-11T09:31:00.002-05:00

According to a BBC Poll, the world wants Obama. Townhall blogger Michael Asher, therefore, has created an electoral map of Europe to show their impact on the election.

Lipstick Power by Frank Harris

2008-09-11T09:24:00.003-05:00

Frank Harris is a great political cartoonist. You can see his work on American Thinker. Loved this one.

Obama Demoted to Mortal

2008-09-11T08:13:00.004-05:00

I don't have the time to develop a full state of the election post, but am having so much fun watching Obama's downward spiral I have to post something. The one thing I keep thinking is that we have the opportunity to watch two DEMs (Hillary and Obama) go from totally thinking they have it in the bag to losing it. Hillary had coronation mentality until Obama finally took it from her. Obama has had anointed mentality until Sarah Palin was named for the GOP VP slot.

I have said many times (though not original with me) that the Left ALWAYS overplays its hand. If you have seen the movie "Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" you will see a striking similarity between the antics of the witch-led hoard that kills Aslan and the way the Left has attacked Sarah Palin. Though the whole scene should be watched to get the full flavor of what I am saying, you can see some of it in this clip:

The Left has totally overplayed the attacks on Sarah Palin and it has bitten them. Obama has lost ground in overall polls and in key demographics. People are even putting their money where their mouth is and buying McCain stock in the online election trading site Intrade. Last week Obama led McCain $57 to $43. Yesterday McCain passed him by a fraction and today he is ahead almost $2 a share at the time of writing.

As I see and hear clips of Obama, he seems so lost and floundering. His timing is very bad, he lacks his former confidence, and he strikes out in angry and whiny statements. Yesterday I read one of the most descriptive posts on what Obama must be feeling and thinking. It is called Rattled. Check it out for a very entertaining experience.

So with the polls, fundraising slowing, friends worrying and opponents gaining optimism; Obama for now seems to have been demoted to mortal status. Of course things can change swiftly. I think if Obama EVER has a good day again, the media will run a series of stories claiming he has recaptured his Mojo. Actually, they may lower the bar to if he has a day without sticking his foot in his mouth. For now, it is quite fun to see the dismay on the left. The difference between us and them is that we can cope with a McCain loss without medicinal assistance. I think a McCain win will result in more trips to the pharmacy by the left.

Matter and Anti-Matter Almost Touch

2008-09-08T08:51:00.002-05:00

My wife and I are always amazed that as many airports and flights that we go on, we never really run into any celebrities. About 7 years ago we saw our first 'celebrity' in an airport - Jesse Jackson. We said hello to him and he just looked the other way and walked on by with his bodyguard.

Last December we met somebody named Kalani who is a huge Celebrity in Hawaii, but probably nobody knows him outside the state.

Saturday we saw another 'celebrity' at the airport. At the last minute we had to go to Indianapolis for the day. On our return I was walking through the airport and see this guy talking on his cell phone. I did not get a good look, but I thought he looked familiar. I turned around and he looked right at me and smiled. I realized it was George Stephanopoulos. I told my wife and she got a good look at him and agreed. We hung around a few minutes waiting for him to get off the phone to talk to him. Unfortunately, he stayed on the phone and began walking toward his plane. He did drop his pen and I went back and picked it up and handed it to him. There was somebody with him that I think was a bodyguard. He looked a bit nervous when I walked toward George, but I held up the pen and he relaxed.

So, though we radically disagree on most things I thought it was kind of cool. Handing him the pen it came pretty close there for matter and anti-matter to touch. Wow, the world was at risk twice in one week (this and the new super-collider).

I wonder which celebrity I will meet next? Probably Al Franken.

State of the Election - August 29, 2008

2008-08-29T21:44:00.002-05:00

What an exciting week! Well, it did not get too exciting until maybe last night. I'll give Obama his rock star status at his speech last night. I did not view it as I had better things to do at the time, but I heard enough. There is no doubt that that it was a large, energized crowd. There is no doubt that it was a historic moment and that those who viewed it and favor Obama had quite a show. I did hear he gave more details about the "hope" and "change" he plans to bring. I won't critique it since I did not hear it, nor read a transcript. I will say that emotion and passion are fleeting moments. They have an expiration on them and must soon be tapped into with something solid or they are meaningless. The question is - can Obama convert last night into something meaningful?

There is at least one thing about his speech that I find humorous. Just like in his 2004 Convention Keynote Speech, and in his appearance at Rick Warren's Saddleback church in 2006 on World AIDS Day, and at his May 2008 Speech on Race, Obama in his 2008 Convention Speech spoke about being his "brother's keeper". I just am wondering if his $1 a month brother George Obama liked that part of the speech.

In the last few weeks the John McCain campaign has been nothing short of brilliant. The clear drive to increase domestic drilling to relieve gas prices, the challenging picture of Obama's association with William Ayers that drew a panicked response, the classy ad congratulating Obama on his special day, and finally the amazing handling of the VP selection were all brilliant. Thinking back over the last few weeks of announcements regarding the VP selection, the McCain campaign built a superb tension. They used every method to draw out the media into the process - I'm sure Leiberman and Ridge were never on the table, but it sure got the media involved. It sure made many Conservatives nervous. Then there was talk of Romney and Pawlenty that got the Conservatives talking about it. All during this time, Palin was not really hinted at.

The selection and timing were a flawless tag team that succeeded in wiping Obama's speech off the table. When I was reviewing the news, I was amazed at how little there was about last night. The McCain VP pick was splashed all over the place. The Sarah Palin selection in spite of Liberal's weak effort to undermine was a fantastic pick. First, the vacuum created by Hillary Clinton's loss makes a female choice very appropriate. I am not under the delusion that Hillary supporters will flock to Palin, but many less partisan women who wanted to see a woman in the race, will be pleased with the choice. Palin's life story and rise to be Alaska's Governor is very interesting. She has strong core beliefs that will satisfy and energize the base. She will strengthen the theme of Drill Here, Drill Now. All in all, a very good pick.

As an added bonus, the selection of Palin served as a Rope a Dope for the Libs. They immediately jumped on her lack of experience with both feet. It was only after it was too late to take it back, that they realized that she has more Executive experience and more accomplishments than Obama. The ability to underscore that point about Obama will both wipe the smirk off their faces and hit him where it hurts. I for one cannot wait to see the debate between Palin and Biden.

A Comparison of Short Lists

2008-08-28T09:12:00.002-05:00

When I look at the short lists for VP candidates, it seems that the DEMs have the opposite problem as the GOP. On the GOP there are several good choices making it difficult to decide which one to pick. When Obama was picking, it seemed like he had to choose who would do the least damage among a very unimpressive list. I'm sure Obama would rather not have had to pick a VP at all because of this. The long delay in announcing underscores his obvious angst at having to make the pick. I can see if there was a really good and exciting candidate, waiting to build good tension and anticipation. When finally announcing such a pick, there would be a climactic reaction. With Biden, it was such an anti-climactic response I cannot imagine the delay was strategic and that Obama was delaying until the last possible moment knowing what a dud it would be.

The Democrat short list was:

Joe Biden
Tim Kaine (of active eyebrow fame)
Evan Bayh

John McCain's short list seems to be:

Mitt Romney (great fundraiser and vote draw)
Tim Pawlenty (who I think would look better the more people knew of him)
Bobby Jindal (great pick, but we need him in LA)
Kay Bailey Hutchison (likeable and a good draw for women)

Every one on McCain's would be an asset that strengthens the ticket. Obama had to settle for Biden and try to spin that he would help in the foreign policy area. Neville Chamberlain had foreign policy experience to be sure, but... In short, if your foreign policy is poor it does not matter how experienced you are at it. Bob Shrum is experienced at Presidential elections, but given his 0-8 record I would not be eager to get his opinion on the subject.

I think the decision to announce the VP pick the day after Obama's speech is fantastic. If he picks Hutchison, the naming of a female VP candidate should eo much to wipe Obama's speech off the front pages. Should. We'll see. Either way, unless McCain falls for the media's bait to name Leiberman or Ridge; the pick should result in good solid results going into the GOP Convention.

Obama the Gaffe Machine

2008-08-25T08:47:00.003-05:00

I wasn't posting during the flurry of Obama's gaffes, but had such a fun time reading about them. Here is a list by Michelle Obama from a few months back when the steam finally began being wiped from the window so we could get a good look at this guy.

Since the gaffes keep rolling in, it is hard to find them all in a real-time single list. The next best thing is an Obama Gaffe Blog. The author John Galt blends in more than the gaffes, but within all that commentary are the gaffes. Hope you enjoy reading them as much as I did.

Some are dubbing Obama the Black Dan Quayle. Sorry, but Obama makes Dan Quayle look good. They can dub the Democrat Convention as the Turd Polishing Convention.

State of the Election - August 23, 2008

2008-08-23T10:41:00.002-05:00

Since I have written nothing since before the primaries ended, I will back up a bit. I was happy to see Barack Obama win over Hillary Clinton. I think she had more of a chance at winning than Obama. I also am very tired of the Clintons and the Bushes. Only by a remote chance would Edwards have won. Even before his affair came to light, he would have been the easiest to beat. Oh well.

Obama
When Obama clinched the nomination, I knew that the more he became known, the less he would be liked. I thought the Media would do a better job at keeping him less known than they have, but their typical over-reactions to conservatives have coaxed them into keeping stories in the public eye long enough for people to get closer glimpses and they have not been pretty. I knew that Obama was phenomenally arrogant, a dyed in the wool socialist and had quite a number of bad associations. However, even I was surprised at how much of an empty suit he is. He is very shallow, cannot think on his feet and seems to have no core beliefs that he is willing to share with us. With this long election cycle it is amazing how long Obama has been in the Feasibility Stage of his campaign where we know very little about any details beyond "hope" and "change". When a detail does come out it never makes him look good ranging from laughable to downright scary:

- Energy plan = tire inflation + tune-ups + tapping oil reserve + taxing the heck out of Big Oil
- Tax plan = class warfare by soaking the rich + raising the Capital Gains tax even though he admits it will result in less revenue but will simply be fair
- Wants to move translators from Iraq to Afghanistan even though they don't speak the same language
- Foreign Policy plan = have talks with all despots in the world without preconditions
- Position on Russian aggression = Moral equivalence between Saddam's Iraq and Georgia + blame the victim (Georgia must have done something to provoke Russia)

Of course most of the details of his plans are given in some sort of code - "uh, uh, uh, uh, uh..." Has anybody tried to convert his long uuuhs and short uhs into Morse Code to see what he is really saying?

Now Obama has finally picked a running mate - Joe Biden. It is funny that I wrote on LA Sunsett's blog something that a day later Rush Limbaugh said - "Please let it be Biden". I took a look at a variety of blogs to take a pulse on the reaction to his pick and the verdict is that a lot of people are extremely excited about Obama picking Biden. Problem is that they are all conservatives. Even the comments on the liberal blogs about the pick seem only to be obligatory. Somehow they think that Biden's foreign policy experience is going to help Obama. What is he going to do - defer every foreign policy question to Biden? "Uh, uh, uh, I think I'll let Joe answer that one". As a final note on Biden: so far the marketing undertone has been comparing a young, vibrant, good-looking black man that can give good speeches to a tired looking white-haired white guy that can't give speeches as well. So what does Obama do? He picks a tired looking white-haired white guy that can't give speeches as well for his running mate. You can't make this stuff up.

McCain
I would be lying if I said I was thrilled that McCain was the nominee. He is barely GOP, and nowhere near a conservative. When he clinched the nomination, I could only shake my head and silently curse Huckabee and his brain dead following. I went for the first month wondering if I could even pull the lever for him. Since I am a conservative more than a Republican, I wished we had a viable conservative alternative. However, even if I wanted to throw away my vote I certainly have no desire to give it to Ron Paul or Bob Barr. So I basically said silently to McCain, "Convince me". I have to admit he has made progress in that area.

First, McCain has always been the only National Security candidate (notice I say only - not stronger. Obama is totally absent on National Security, not just weak). Second, McCain will at least nominate a Sandra Day O'Conner instead of a Ruth Bader Ginsberg. Both his Presidency and his Supreme Court appointments will only disappoint and anger me some of the time instead of all of the time like Obama's. With the balance of the Court as it is, if Obama is elected you can expect at least 2 liberal justices to retire soon after. We run the risk of several deaths as most are now quite old. A single loss of one of the four conservatives being replaced by Obama will be unrecoverable in the next decade. With the tendency of Leftist justices to make up law out of whole cloth the deck will be stacked in favor of the Left for the next 25 years.

Still, I wanted McCain to convince me about McCain. I have been pleasantly surprised by a few things:

- I truly thought McCain was going to roll over and be a nice guy during the campaign while Obama and his media surrogates beat McCain to a pulp. McCain has a spine on the campaign trail and is willing hit back and hard. Good for him.
- His tax policy does not leave me grabbing protectively for my wallet like Obama's
- While some call it a flip-flop, McCain sees that with gas over $4 per gallon we have to take necessary steps boost supply. Hey, if I refuse to buy a plasma screen TV, but change my mind if the cost is cut in half - am I a flip-flopper? No, you can only be a flip-flopper if the conditions remain the same except for populist belief. The high gas prices are hurting the big and little guy alike.
- McCain has been very strong in his words against Russia. His foreign policy has strength and clarity.

I have issues with McCain, but for the most part the issues that affect me directly I think he is ok. I wish he would change positions on illegal immigration, but he is the status quo. I will never be a cheerleader for McCain, but I believe he has taken some steps to convince me to vote for him instead of merely voting against Obama.

Outlook
I have no predictions at this time. The election can go either way at this point. McCain has shrewdly announced that Obama will get a 15 point bump in the polls from the Democrat Convention. If Obama comes near that, McCain can downplay it as to be expected. If, however, Obama fails to get such a significant bump McCain can paint the convention as falling short of expectations. I doubt Obama will obtain a double digit bump.

The question about the Democrat Convention is whether or not any Obama policy details will materialize or will he continue to attempt to skate on the "hope" and "change" mantras? We have seen that details are poison to Obama, but the lack of them furthers the portrait of arrogance and emptiness.

One thing that will not change much between now and November is the excitement factor. Most of Obama's fanatics will continue to be excited about him regardless of what they do or don't know about him. Excitement for McCain, though, will never materialize. So motivation to get conservatives to the voting booth is going to be an uphill battle no matter what happens between now and then. We can only hope that enough of those planning to vote for Obama that are outside of the screaming rock star fan club will lose trust, faith and support for him and stay home to balance the lack of motivation on the McCain side.

One final thought that may suspiciously sound like a prediction even though I said I wasn't making any. I think that since the strongest support of Obama will come from the metropolitan areas and the true blue states, there is a strong possibility that Obama will obtain the popular vote and lose electorally. If that happens, prepare for the storm.

Wading Back Into the Water

2008-08-23T10:21:00.002-05:00

My thanks to everybody for being understanding during my absence. The last year has been difficult for me and in many ways will never be the same. In some areas that is good. I want better than things were and have gained partial success in that area.

Coming back to this blog will represent much to me. Those who know me, know I am not a quitter. "There will be no white flag above my door". However, I previously put too much into blogging and need to keep things in balance. I do not plan daily posts at this time. At most it will be weekly substantive posts. My best opportunity is Saturday morning. So that is my goal for now. Maybe I'll have a few potshots during the week.

I don't know how much my trials will affect my writing. I think it fair to note that while I am still as conservative as always and my faith as strong as ever, inwardly my mindset is now detached in loyalty from any political or religious organization. Sorry, but they have let me down too much to the point of being harmful. I am backing away to a safe distance. Perhaps that makes sense to some. If not, that is all I plan to say on the matter for now.

Hope some of my former readers come back.

A Detour in Life

2008-03-08T17:42:00.002-06:00

Folks, I am sorry I have not been writing. My life has been on a detour for some time now and the things I need to attend to are more important than saving the world one post at a time. I have no idea when or if I will be returning to posting, but it will not likely be before fall. I wish all my blog friends the best.

AICS

Presidential Election December 23, 2007 Snapshot

2007-12-23T16:59:00.000-06:00

By now I thought the nomination would be pretty sown up on both sides. Instead things are so dynamically changing every day it is nearly impossible to determine what will happen. That will not stop me from making my assessments.

First, on the Democrat side it has been a little fun watching Hillary taking some well deserved blows. I spoke of her glass jaw in a previous post and right now it appears she had one. Back in the Philadelphia Debate all it seemed to take was one clear firm question asking her about her position on giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants. When Russert did not allow her to skate by without a clear answer, the glass jaw shattered. Hillary Clinton has been on a downward spiral ever since. There are several theories out there to explain this rapid decline. Some claim they have some serious dirt on her and the party has demanded she take a dive. Indeed many of the missteps since appear to be purposeful they are so bad. The second theory is that it is a setup to announce she is another “Comeback Kid” like Bill was in his first election. For awhile I also thought this, but her descent has been much further than I would expect for such a ploy. I think the real reason she has crashed, is that her public image was so completely based on vapor that the first un-sequestered glimpse of reality has completely pulled the curtain away from the man in the corner.

I think the DEM race is still a 50/50 shot. Hillary will not win Iowa, but she has time to re-surge given the right mixture of action and the help of a few missteps from the inexperienced Obama. The media may also want to keep thinks interesting. They have an investment in the Clintons I think they will be reluctant to throw away. If Hillary loses, she and Bill will be thoroughly damaged goods afterwards. At this point, I think Hillary will pull out of this by February and surge to the nomination by April. Of course, in the interest of full disclosure I think she is the easier candidate to beat in the General.

Now for those head scratching GOP voters – what are ye thinkin’?!! While I strongly have maintained that the worst GOP candidate is better than the best DEM candidate, a Mike Huckabee nomination would be disastrous on multiple fronts. First, I do not think there is a remote possibility of him winning the general election if nominated. Second, his likely un-conservative actions in office would be frustrating for the conservative movement and an embarrassment for Christians. The Bush presidency has opened the door for many comedians and pundits to take cheap shots at Christianity. Huckabee would throw open that door quite widely. The fact is that whether in leadership or among the masses, people today are not representing the Christian faith very well. This is a fact that is highlighted and underscored when there is an Evangelical Christian in high office. A break from that would be welcomed on my part.

Fortunately, I think Huckabee surged early enough to draw enough attention to what he really is about that his rise is now ebbing. I am also happy that Giuliani seems to be sinking across the board. I am not very enthusiastic about a Giuliani or McCain nomination. The GOP candidates can be divided into three categories: 1) They have a chance at winning 2) They have no chance at winning and unless things are exceptionally close will have very little impact on the election 3) They have very little chance at winning the nomination, but will likely pull enough votes to act as a spoiler for at least one other candidate. Giuliani and Romney are the only candidates that have a good shot at winning. Among the 2^nd category, on Ron Paul has enough votes to upset a close election. In spite of Huckabee’s current popularity and possible early success, he will not survive the larger states. Huckabee, McCain and Thompson will carry enough votes to possibly spoil the nomination for either Romney or Giuliani. If too many votes are diverted away from Romney in the early states, Giuliani will likely begin to gain momentum after the first 4-5 states. If Romney can win either Iowa or New Hampshire, he may be strong enough to take South Carolina – especially if Huckabee is 3^rd or 4^th in New Hampshire. If Romney is mediocre in Iowa and New Hampshire, he will be toast in South Carolina and not likely to regain traction. I am still hopeful Romney will persevere.

So in summary for this snapshot my money is on Hillary and Romney for the DEM and GOP nominations. I am planning the next snapshot after Iowa.

CNN Betting the Farm on DEM Victory in 2008

2007-11-29T07:11:00.000-06:00

Can any objective thinking person view the election cycle antics of CNN and not come to the conclusion that they are betting the farm that the Democrats will win the 2008 elections, especially the White House? Last night's GOP debate was yet another example of CNN stacking the deck in favor of the Dems. Michelle Malkin has documented proof that four of the questioners are not only extremely liberal, but have declared their support for a Democrat candidate. Citing You Tube videos, personal blogs and a Union website, Michelle shows how they have clearly put their support behind one of the DEMs. In fact one is pictured wearing a John Edwards '08 T-shirt.

Comparing these antics to the CNN DEM debate where it was one softball question by Wolf Blitzer after another ending with the pearls or diamonds debacle, if becomes obvious that CNN is barely trying to hide its actions. Hillary Clinton flipped, then flopped, then flipped on the Drivers License for illegals issue. On Hillary's third position in such a short time on the same issue, Wolf simply let it go without follow up.

So the question is what is behind all this? There are only two explanations. One is that the staff and decision makers at CNN are so rabidly liberal that all of this seems normal to them. They simply have no ability to rationally realize the role of objective mediator they claim to represent. They lean so far left their ears touch the ground and they think the visual perspective they see is normal. If they were on the ship the hit the iceberg in Antarctica they would think the view was normal. They also fail to notice the foam on their chins. They have a right to this perspective, of course. All I ask is that they declare their bias. However, they claim no bias because to them leaning 90 degrees to the left is the norm. Somebody standing up straight is a radical right wing fanatic in their eyes.

The second explanation is that CNN is making conscious decisions to stack the deck in favor of the Dems. They know and admit their bias to themselves, while claiming objectivity in front of the camera. Perhaps decision makers have gathered in a smoke filled room and clearly determined they cannot survive another 4-8 years under a GOP administration without the "fairness" doctrine. They have the educational institutions locked up in their corner. They have the lawyers associations locked up. They have the unions locked up. They have the libraries locked up. They have the senior citizens associations locked up. They have the medical associations locked up. They have the UN locked up. They have the scientific community locked up. They have the television, movie and radio entertainment community locked up. They have almost all of the major magazine publications locked up. They have live theater locked up. They have the major newspapers locked up. They have almost all of the television news and commentary locked up. They have just about every aspect of American life locked up in their hip pockets. However, they don't have talk radio locked up and they cannot stand it.

If not for Talk Radio, the US would be more left leaning today than Europe. Before Talk Radio even existed as it does today Ronald Reagan took the country by storm and physically moved it to the right several notches. Talk Radio helped move it to the right a few more notches in 1994. Since then regardless of Talk Radio, the country continues to drift back to the left. Talk Radio only slows down the drift.

Conservatives have two things going for them: Talk Radio and barely a Supreme Court that leans about one degree to the right. These two things are equivalent to the Dutch boys finger in the dike. So the second explanation for CNNs embarrassing behavior this election cycle is they know a Democrat in the White House is the only chance at taking away this finger in the dike. They are pressing ahead with no thought to their credibility or how they are going to salvage any reputation after this. They seem to be betting that if a Dem wins in '08, the spring feeding any ill will for them will dry up and this will all be forgotten in a few years. They are fantasizing over the good old days when they could say what they want without challenge and exposure.

Of course it could be a mixture of both. Like Al Gore and the UN on global warming and the Dems on Iraq, CNN is pressing ahead without any fear of becoming a laughing-stock or worse.
They are investing 100% of their stock into the immediate need. If conservatives hold the line this time, CNN and others just might be setup for a world of hurt. Of course, they can always deny, deny, deny while their friends circle the wagons around them like they always do. It is amazing how public ignorance is their best friend.

Hugo Chavez Questions Patriotism of Those Who Disagree With Him

2007-11-25T16:05:00.000-06:00

Hugo Chavez, the darling of the American Left, is questioning the patriotism of any Venezuelans that vote against granting him the ability to be dictator for life. According to AP:

President Hugo Chavez warned his supporters on Friday that anyone voting against his proposed constitutional changes would be a "traitor," rallying his political base before a referendum that would let him seek unlimited re-election in 2012 and beyond.

The usual knee-jerk reaction of American liberals is to cry that their patriotism is being questioned whenever they are criticized for positions that are contrary to those of the current administration. While I have rarely heard claims against their patriotism, the left simply cannot abide any criticism of their beliefs. I have heard several key liberals question the patriotism of some conservatives. Since they will be unwilling to relinquish their love affair with Chavez, look to the left for similar inconsistency in dealing with Hugo's new label for dissenters.

Where in the World is AICS?

2007-11-21T09:01:00.000-06:00

Sometimes my life is hit by very busy waves and I find myself at the bottom of the sea looking up at the waterline and pray I can surface in time to breath. Such has been the last few weeks and it looks like it will be that way through next week. Of course one of the reasons I am so busy is that I must get my work done before I take a trip to Hawaii at the end of the month. Looking forward to it, but I don't want things hanging over my head. Of course I will be busy when I return catching up. So while I may add a post or two here and there, don't expect too much until mid-December or the beginning of next year.

Everybody have a Happy Thanksgiving

Speaking of Waterboarding

2007-11-10T12:20:00.000-06:00

I know some may think I am minimizing waterboarding here, but I believe I am intimately familiar with the practice every time I go to the dentist. While when I was a kid, I compare my dentist to Dr. Frankenstein due to his brutal pain inducing ways, he did let me hold the suction and use it when I wanted.

Now that I am an adult, the dentist never offers to allow me to hold the suction. Somehow I never remember to ask to hold it until it is too late. I have always thought the dentist was just busy and forgot until I was at a specialist last week and he had an assistant holding the suction. No, they just are not concerned about the lake of saliva that accumulates in the back of my throat during the work until the level is so high it reaches the tooth they are working on at the moment. If it happens to be a tooth near the front, forget about it. However, even the last tooth way in the back leaves enough liquid to drown you.

It is a tricky job to navigate this situation. The dentist is working on your teeth. You are constantly moving your tongue around to keep from getting a hole drilled in it. It's "Open" then "Close", "Relax", "Open Wider", etc. Then there is the chronic nagging to satisfy the automatic reflex to swallow. Ever try to swallow with your mouth open? Last week the dentist put a jack in my mouth so it was quite a feat to swallow with my mouth open at its widest. When swallowing it is important not to actually swallow anything. First, you don't actually want to swallow that accumulation of liquid, drilled particles and chemicals they have placed in your mouth. Second, you cannot swallow the entire lake in one action. To try to swallow some, opens the gate for the whole mass to shout "Once more unto the breach" and dive for the gap. It is at this point that the waterboarded feeling takes full effect.

You can't really tell the dentist anything because your mouth is wide open. He would only hear, "I xcheed thouexseambn". Since your tongue is blocking the gap for dear life, it cannot assist in producing distinct consonants and diphthongs; so that representation is probably much clearer than the actual words that you say. The dentist will politely act as if he understands every word and keep drilling as more water flows to cool the drill. You try curling your finger like an upside-down 'J', but he thinks you are making some strange attempt to give him the finger. He knows everybody hates him, so he is used to it.

Your thoughts begin to get frantic. "I am going to drown in my own saliva and drill water. How long will it take for the paramedics to get here to revive me? Who will give me mouth to mouth - the dentist or the matronly assistant? If I survive the drowning, will the chemicals get me? Aghh, more chlorine based chemicals. Don't breath. Don't breath. If I swallow, will that force my tongue next to the drill? Will I feel it now or after the Novocaine wears off? When is this going to be over? Oh no, the dentist has to take a phone call and he forgot to suction me before walking away. Maybe when he comes back I can just turn my head and let it all dribble out onto his knee." And so it goes. When the procedure is over and all instruments, liquid and chemicals are out of your mouth, you breath fully and freely; enjoying every moment of stale dentist office air.

Yes, I will be accused of taking a serious subject and minimizing it. However, I truly believe I have a clue as to what this treatment is like and nobody is going to convince me otherwise.

Give Him Something Broken

2007-11-10T11:05:00.000-06:00

I continuously resist the urge to break out into a full scale Science Fiction / Fantasy topic. While I have not read much new SF in years, it is something near and dear to my heart - as R2W can attest. I would love to start an SF blog, but I hardly have time for this one so today I will simply drop a reference.

One of my favorite SF series is The Chronicles of Thomas Covenant The Unbeliever by Stephen R. Donaldson. He wrote the first and second chronicles and is now on a slow path to writing the third. As he is no spring chicken, I am biting my nails that he will finish. I also am waiting until he finishes to begin reading it. I had a long haul wait when he was writing the second set. In fact I did not even know it was a second series until I read the last page. I have been in the same camp with some of Terry Brooks books and others, so no thanks - I'll wait.

All that to point out that in the war between the "protagonist" (read it to find why it is in quotes) and the antagonist, it is stated that "The only way to hurt a man who has lost everything is to give him back something broken".

While George W. Bush is far from having lost everything, he is a lame duck so it fits in a way. The nomination of Michael Mukasey for AG was a clear attempt on the part of Bush to avoid controversy. Many across the aisle had a favorable opinion of Mukasey including Chucky Schumer. The confirmation should have been a slam dunk. Then, as always, the Dems began playing games. They threw in the red herring of waterboarding demanding that Mukasey declare the treatment to be torture. The choking hypocrisy of the Dems is apparent as we have yet to see any real attempt to outlaw the use of waterboarding by non-Pentagon agencies. As usual the Dems blubber and bluster about this or that, yet do not do anything about it. They do not want to be in the position of waking up to news of a terrorist attack where tactics like waterboarding were not used because they passed a law against it.

In the case of Mukasey, if they really had a problem with waterboarding they would not have confirmed him. Yet Mukasey was confirmed by a vote of 53-40. In short, the Dems could have praised Bush for the nomination of a mutually acceptable candidate, instead they threw a fly in the ointment by demanding action of the nominee they are unwilling to do themselves. The goal here as always is to avoid EVER, EVER giving Bush even the slightest word of having done something good. No matter the area, no matter big or small, the Dems and their water carrying media cannot allow the notion that Bush did something good or right to ever pass their lips unless it is well contaminated with offsetting criticism.

The Dems have taken a bipartisan, compromising nomination and returned Bush something broken. Instead of allowing him to begin his AG duties with an excellent reputation and moral authority, they have branded Mukasey with a mark of Cain and primed the public for the slightest criticism of Mukasey's actions if he does not do their full bidding. At the slightest controversy the media will immediately toe their party line and take the side of the Dems in undermining Mukasey's character and reputation.

After looking at the continuous behavior from both sides of the aisle, it never ceases to amaze me how the GOP has alone been the saddled with the reputation of "dirty tricks". The Dems never, ever miss a dirty trick and this is just another one.

Sarkozy a Breath of Fresh Air

2007-11-07T21:34:00.000-06:00

After suffering for years under the arrogant Chirac, it is refreshing to see Nicolas Sarkozy embracing the United States and remembering what the US did for France. I think he is probably nice enough he won't mind me having a little fun.

Separated at Birth?

John Kerry Chooses Weapon Instead of Truth

2007-11-06T23:06:00.000-06:00

There may be times when during a campaign people come to the conclusion they can think of one or two reasons to vote for a candidate. A good true test comes after a few years can you still name even one reason you would have voted for the losing candidate. I would think most former John Kerry supporters would have a hard time naming anything specific.

The media has allowed John Kerry and other liberals to coin the term "swiftboating" in a misleading manner. The newly coined term is now generally accepted by the liberal media as making a strong assault using false accusations against a candidate in order to discredit them. The incorrect coinage of the term centers around the word false. The problem is that neither Kerry nor the media ever did prove that the allegations of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were false. In fact John Kerry danced around and around when it came to releasing the documents that should support his claims. It took him over a year to finally sign the form 180 to release his full military record. However, even then he could not give a full release, but only allowed friendly media such as AP, LA Times and Boston Globe to have full access to the records.

Now John Kerry instead of using the truth to fight any future battles, has compiled a power dossier on many of the Swift Boat Veterans in order to use against them in the future. The Patriot Ledger states:

Kerry, whose service as a U.S. Navy Swift boat skipper during the Vietnam War came under attack in his race against President Bush, said he has compiled a dossier on his war record critics that he wishes he had as the Democratic presidential nominee.

``We have put together a documented portfolio that frankly puts their lies in such a total light of absurdity and indecency, that should they ever rear their ugly heads again, we have every single ‘t’ crossed and ‘i’ dotted, and I welcome that in a sense,'' Kerry said following a morning address to the South Shore Chamber fo Commerce. ``It’s a shame we weren’t able to produce all that at the time.''

John Kerry dodged and weaved instead of just releasing his records. Now in the future he has a weapon. Bitter times for a bitter man.

Newt Says Hillary Chances Down to 50-50

2007-11-01T23:31:00.000-05:00

The National Review provides comments by Newt Gingrich on Sean Hannity's radio show:

Newt Gingrich called in to Sean Hannity's radio program to discuss Hillary Clinton's debate performance. Highlights:
“Her performance in that debate was so bad, on issues that matter so much, she may not be able to recover from it… This issue of Spitzer trying to give out d l to people at a time when your driver’s licenseallows you to vote – for her to trap herself into saying that creates a big wound…
The fact that she said she’s basically sympathetic with Rangel’s trillion dollar tax increase – that’s going to arouse some deep opposition. The huge Democratic tax increase allowed us to win in 1994… Then, I saw in a ticker on Fox News, when Sen. Edwards said nominating her would be ‘a victory for a corruption machine’… it brings back a lot of memories of the Chinese funding scandals of 1996… It takes her winning the nomination from an 80 percent likelihood to a 50 percent. It’s even money. If she doesn’t turn this around quick, I may have to call back in and take it even lower.”

I'm not so sure the damage is that bad - Yet. I would say she had a 99% chance before and this combined with other recent developments lowered her to 70%. Hillary is on fly paper right now. I don't see how she will be able to release herself from it. She has based her whole campaign on avoiding locking herself into key positions. Until the Philadelphia debate, she has been able to get away with it. Her performance, however, was so bad that the media simply could not cover for it. The genie is out of the bottle now and it will be very difficult for the media to go back to allowing her to get away with such across the board ambiguity. She is sunk in the general election if she continues on this route. However, being forced to take positions that will satisfy the far left enough to get the nomination will slaughter her in the general.

If Hillary does lose the nomination, she will likely lose it to Obama. That move will be a gift to the GOP. Obama has been very clear on his positions, but most are deal-killers. Some have said that unless the GOP can make 2008 about National Security they will lose. An Obama nomination where he has clearly stated he supports giving illegal immigrants drivers licenses can easily make 2008 about immigration. A strong policy that opposes amnesty and drivers licenses is a clear winning position. If Hillary has ceded the nomination to Obama, it may prove that the debate was the first domino that leads to a GOP victory in 2008.

Glass Jaw Clinton Has Vacuous Supporters

2007-11-01T07:25:00.000-05:00

An article in The Hill contains some insight into Hillary supporters. They seem to be quite vacuous and not quite in touch with reality. The article provides some response to the debate during a campaign conference call. Even the writer of the article seems way out of touch with reality. It states:

"Clinton came under withering assault in the Philadelphia debate..."

Give me a break. Withering assault? This is like moving the first pawn in a chess game and portraying that the opponent came under "withering assault". The job of the candidates in these debates is to show why they are different and better than the other candidates. It has always been common for trailing candidates to place most of their focus on the lead candidate. Instead of recognizing this, these vacuous supporters picture it in terms of piling on:

Those female voters are saying, “Sen. Clinton needs our support now more than ever if we’re going to see this six-on-one to try to bring her down,”

As pointed out in the previous post, this is one of the first real attempts by the other candidates to actually score points against Hillary. I have seen the video and heard the clips. In reality it was a very weak attempt by Obama and Edwards. They tapped on her glass jaw with their pinkies and she dropped to the ground. To picture this as ganging up on her unfairly is a continuation of Hillary's supporters to lay down rules that because Hillary is a woman, nobody can challenge her. They want all the pluses of her being a woman, but they want special rules because she is a woman. Isn't this the heart and soul of the modern feminist movement? The supporters are going so far to paint the weakest of challenges by Obama and Edwards as worthy of a "backlash":

He also said criticisms from Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) would backfire and that he was already “detecting some backlash,” particularly among female voters.

If questioned about this, Obama and Edwards should state "If Hillary Clinton wants special rules protecting her from any challenge whatsoever, she will be setting the women's movement back 50 years if she gets her way". Hillary is going right along with this 'Eek, I'm a woman, you can't challenge me' approach:

The Clinton campaign released a video Wednesday, entitled “The Politics of Pile On,” showing clips of the senator’s rivals going after her by name during the debate.

Wow, she might as well wear a sandwich sign that states she has a glass jaw and can't take it.

The supporters also attacked Tim Russert and Brian Williams for their role in simply asking a question about her position on a current policy trend:

He, Mantz and several supporters hinted repeatedly on the call that Clinton was unfairly targeted by Tim Russert, debate moderator and host of NBC’s “Meet the Press.”

“Russert made it appear that President Clinton had done something new or unusual,” Penn said, before adding that it “is, in fact, an extremely confusing situation … I think there will be further clarification.”

“I hope so,” a female caller responded. “To me, it was the most uncomfortable part of the debate.”

Penn turned again to Russert. “The other candidates were asked questions like, ‘Is there life in outer space?’ ”

Russert asks a question that made them uncomfortable so he is a bad guy. As for the space topic, do you think Kucinich supporters were comfortable that he claimed to see a UFO? Did that advance his chances of getting the nomination? This question is also very appropriate for Hillary because aside from the fact she is a carpetbagger, Hillary is Senator from the same state as Governor Spitzer. The policy is going to be enacted in her state. Asking her what she thinks of that is totally appropriate. The fact she was unwilling to clearly state her position is what caused the trouble. One supporter on the call was so angry at Russert for asking the question she declared he "should be shot".

The Obama campaign did follow up the next day to score a few more points. His campaign spokesman Bill Burton underscored the situation:

Burton wrote that Clinton dodged questions on Social Security, Iran and the National Archives issue. And on one of the more talked-about moments from the end of the debate, Clinton’s position on a move by New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer (D) to grant driver’s licenses to illegal aliens, Burton said, “Twelve hours after the debate ended, the American people are still waiting for an answer on Sen. Clinton’s position … She didn’t answer the question in the debate and her campaign couldn’t answer it afterwards.”

Hillary has an opportunity to clearly state her position. Instead she engages in meaninless rhetoric:

The senator did not appear ready to surrender Wednesday, though. When accepting the AFSCME endorsement, Clinton handed McEntee a pair of boxing gloves.

“When it comes to fighting for America’s working families, I’ll go 10 rounds with anybody,” she said.

From her debate performance and follow up afterwards, it appears she wants 10 rounds of swinging wildly in the air and rules that forbid her opponents from making contact with her. Hillary can't take powder punches from the Democrat 'weanie' candidates. How will she take challenges from leaders of other countries if she is elected?

Hillary Cracks at First Tough Question

2007-10-31T23:13:00.000-05:00

AFP reports on the aftermath of last night's debate:

For the first time, Hillary Clinton woke after a 2008 presidential debate Wednesday roughed up by rivals finally showing the capacity to draw blood in the Democratic race for the White House.
Clinton's top foes John Edwards and Barack Obama painted her as unelectable, facilitating war with Iran, untrustworthy, and claimed to have caught her in a political flip-flop on immigration during the campaign clash in Philadelphia.
Volley after volley of attacks rained in on Clinton, offering the first hints of potential political vulnerabilities, just 65 days before Iowa holds the 2008 race's first party nominating contests.

Was it "attacks" by Edwards and Obama? Or rather was it simply the first time tough questions were able to squeak through to Hillary. If a media interviewer of Hillary is not already favorable toward her, the interview climate is carefully controlled. We have seen with the GQ story suppression how the Clintons crack down on the media in order to get their way.

We have all seen how the GOP candidates get grilled with tough questions and multiple follow-ups if the answer isn't considered complete. With Hillary it has been powder puff softballs or shameless fawning. Then in the debate, the unthinkable happened. A tough question got through. The question about giving drivers licenses to illegal immigrants is pretty tough to give a middle ground. She tried pretty hard though. She can see how Governor Spitzer thinks it is necessary because Congress won't pass comprehensive immigration reform. Huh? Of course when Chris "Bread Slice" Dodd called her on supporting it, she snaps back that she didn't say she supported it. So does she or doesn't she? She is not saying and she wants the right to not say anything.

When combined with her weak answer on releasing documents from when she was First Lady, it is obvious that Hillary is not used to tough questions. The other candidates smelled blood in the water and tried to capitalize on it. However, they were very weak in their attacks. They left some points on the table. Obama, made a few points picturing Hillary as an ambiguous waffler; but then fell flat on his face by claiming clear support for giving illegals drivers licenses. He slit his political wrist on that one. No way he can win the general election with that one statement hanging out there. He will be beaten mercilessly over the head with it if he wins the nomination.

So while the others lost a full opportunity, the media for whatever reason has decided to grant the public a glimpse of the real Hillary by actually covering this. She is cold, calculating, unwilling to take clear positions, and folds at the first tough questions to ever hit her. The nomination is hers to lose. If there was another Democrat candidate with any promise, Hillary would sink fast after her stumbles in the last month. On the other hand, Democrat voters seem to like corruption and flaws. Remember William Jefferson? I think in this debate, Hillary rose like Smaug the dragon and exposed the flawed patch in her armor. The question is which of the GOP candidates is going to be Bard the Bowman?