Congratulations President-Elect Barack Obama

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

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

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

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

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

NObama 08 Blogburst

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



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

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

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


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

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

NObama 08 Blogburst

Presidential Character

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Economic Policy

• An immediate energy rebate to American families

• An expenditure of $50 billion to jumpstart the economy

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

• Implement the Congressional housing bill through state and local spending

• Federal investment in infrastructure to replenish highways and bridges

• Expenditures in education to replace and repair schools

• Immediate steps to stem the loss of manufacturing jobs.

• Increase employment and implementing shared prosperity.

• National health care initiatives

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

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

Economic Policy

• Implement immediate transparency to the budgeting process

• Evaluate and reduce spending on wasteful and inefficient programs

• Empower states to improve public services

• Implement meaningful (and trustworthy) oversight of government programs

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

• Prioritize spending to improve and safeguard America’s infrastructure

• Modernize Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid Programs

• Restore Social Security to a sound financial basis

• Expand opportunities to promote personal and industrial prosperity

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Election Consolation Prize

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NObama 08 Blogburst

An Enigma Named Barack
by L.A. Sunset

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

NObama 08 Blogburst

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;

Screaming at the Radio

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

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

Barack Obama's Gutter Tactics

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.

The Wussification of American Politics

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.