Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Politico has a story (HT: Richard Fernandez) describing how the McCain campaign's donations will be fully audited. The Obama campaign will highly likely not be subjected to the same level of scrutiny. The reason for this is that, in spite of his early campaign promise, Obama did not make use of publicly-sourced campaign funds.
While this is anecdotal evidence, I've heard stories of people donating to both campaigns to test the theory of credit card verification. In each case, their donation to the Obama campaign was not subject to the same (legally-required) verification process that was involved in their donation to the McCain campaign. The possibilities for fraud are astronomical. Credit cards are international. How easy would it be for non-US citizens to influence an election?
It makes sense to investigate possible fraud when public funds might be involved. But does it make sense to investigate fraud even if public funds are not involved? The public certainly has a stake in who wins an election.
The question is whether or not the ends justify the means. I ask everyone, regardless of political affiliation: is fraud acceptable if it results in the election of the candidate you support? Which is more important - your political party, or the very foundation of our constitutional system of government?
Given the potential fraud in the current situation, I support auditing both campaigns. But I understand the potential repercussions. Proof that a sitting president's previous campaign won the election as a result of voter or campaign fraud would tear the country apart. But which is more important - maintaining the integrity of the constitution? or maintaining domestic tranquility?
Of the Democrat colleagues and friends I speak with openly about politics, most of them like to quote the phrase "vote early, vote often." OK, I get the joke. But is it really a joke? Are you really willing to bypass Constitutional principles in order to see to it that the "correct" candidate is elected? Would you support overturning an election if it was found to be definitively decided or influenced by fraud?
We are on a very slippery slope. I submit that, by and large, Conservatives simply want to be left alone to pursue happiness according to their own choosing, and in such a way that it does not infringe on the rights of others. Can the same be said for "Progressives?"
My suggestion, other than air-tight verification of political donations, would be to eliminate vote-by-mail (except in the case of absence) and to maintain a voting system that protects the one-person, one-vote idea that is so central to our system of government. Something like the purple-fingered Iraqis, perhaps. I know, the "Progressives" will scream at me for voter disenfranchisement for the audacity of having to prove U.S. citizenship and singular voting. But I believe that if you value something enough, you will do what is necessary to make it happen. And to make things fair, I think that it should be a law that employers allow time off for voting.
There is value in Civic Ritual. Our system of government depends on the integrity of its voting system.
Monday, November 03, 2008
I recently had a disappointing email exchange with a family member. He is a life-long Republican, but will be voting for Obama due to Bush "muddying the waters" over the past eight years. I was disheartened by our conversation, but drafted up the following response. I post it here in the hopes that it will reach other Republicans that are contemplating an unwise vote:
I certainly understand and agree with your frustration with the GOP generally and GWB specifically. W did a poor job of making use of the political capital he acquired after 9/11, and he's not the kind of eloquent communicator that we have come to expect from our Chief Executives. To be fair to him, though, the media has done an extremely poor job of reporting on the successes of his policies. Nobody's perfect, and no battle plan lasts past the first 5 minutes of engagement. But taken as a whole, and in the context of the times, his successes ultimately outweigh his failures. But I suppose how history judges him depends on to what degree those successful policies are continued.
We won't know for a long time whether the post-9/11 period of no domestic terrorist incidents was as a result of (either deliberately unreported or clandestine) successful policy application, or whether militant islam was never that big of an enemy to begin with. But I suspect it is the former. Such is the price of success.
But to address the question at hand: is "change" always a good thing? Is a drastic change of direction going to result in a net positive? BHO will certainly get the country going again, but at whose expense, and according to whose idea of “justice”?
Given the socio-political climate in our current culture, I fear the potential of "with chaos comes opportunity." Specifically, the use of high uncertainty to gain, consolidate and wield political power. In the case of BHO, his societal perspective comes from a desire to fix a culture that is wrong on balance, rather than build upon a culture that has been the most positive force for humanity that the world has ever seen. And he will likely surround himself with people whose views are even more radical than his.
Any regular run-of-the-mill Democrat would probably be relatively harmless. But BHO is not run-of-the-mill. He’s the farthest left candidate to be brought by the Democrats in a long time, if not ever. Given the choice between a far-left Democrat and a moderate Republican, the choice would seem clear in any normal circumstances.
I do hope that I’m wrong about him and that the office of the President will bring out the best in him. But I’m not optimistic, and it’s a big chance we’re taking to put him in office.
The next 20 years are going to be more challenging than we can imagine. Societal memory is very short, and we’re going to make LOTS of mistakes. BHO may turn out to be relatively harmless. But I think both your and my warning bells should start going off if we see serious consideration of:
1. “spreading the wealth around” and “economic justice.” (already happened, and not surprising)
2. Governing from the far left, without consideration of the views from the minority.
3. Reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine” (silencing his critics) and expanding it to include the Internet (by either outright mandate or a financial disincentive).
4. Looking to the United Nations (a governing body that is outside of our legal constitutional framework) to formulate domestic policies
5. Socialized medicine and child care (already happening), especially if it happens quickly
6. Diplomatic distancing from our closest ally in the Middle East, Israel
7. Nominations of justices who have radical views (Alinsky-esque) about the role of the judiciary in regards to economic and social policy
8. Gun registration and federal limitations on concealed carry (in effect, disarming his critics. The reinstatement, and probably the expansion, of the “Assault Weapons” Ban is a given)
9. Reparations for slavery
With the exception of Israel, none of these actions fit within the framework of the Constitution. And none of them will assuage any racial guilt we may have as a society or as individuals, nor will they really correct those injustices. The union of socialist ideology with racial justice is extremely disturbing to me.
My general point is that people – especially groups of people – can make all kinds of poor decisions when they’re in the middle of a crisis. Clever leaders will use panic to their advantage. It works great against a (external) military adversary (see Sun Tzu), but if the “adversary” is viewed more increasingly as being internal, I will be VERY concerned (see Stalin). And I suppose what’s most troublesome is not what BHO will do, but what his most fervent supporters will do to further his cause.
There are two very good reasons why my online political/philosophical activities are anonymous. The first is to remove my employer and my associates from the situation, and the second (and more important) is to protect myself and my family from harm by those who feel that the first amendment does not apply to people with whom they disagree. While there are constitutional protections of individual rights in place right now, I think that any of them can be removed recklessly, given the right (chaotic) circumstances. So who would be better able to protect and maintain those rights? A person who feels that government should - by default - make decisions on behalf of individuals? Or a person who understands the importance of individual liberty from first-hand experience?
I don’t pretend to believe that I can sway anybody’s opinion. Oregon will go to BHO, and nearly all of my family members will vote for him. But I, like many Republicans, will hold my nose and vote for the GOP. There’s just too much at stake to do otherwise.
“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”
Additional discussion is welcome, but not necessary. I have stated my case.
Friday, October 31, 2008
I posted this a few years ago under the title, "Dont Go Back To Starnesville." Back then, the idea of Marxist America seemed fairly far fetched. But today, on the eve of a critical election and turning point for the American experiment, poised on the precipice of change, it is critically important that those Americans considering a vote for Barack Obama or any Democrat running for Congress this year understand the consequences. Obama is now openly running on the slogan, "I am my brothers keeper." He says he is running against "The Virtue of Selfishness." I submit, this is direct terminology of marxism, and he is unabashed in saying it. Pelosi and Reid are likelwise unashamed in supporting his language, and that means his mission... of change.
Over 50 years ago, the pre-eminent American Philosopher and champion of Capitalism, Ayn Rand, warned the world and America specifically about the dangers of marxism - also known as collectivism, statism, and communism. She warnmed us about men who preach that they and YOU are "Your brother's keeper." She wrote a collection of essays on Capitalism and Liberty titled, "The Virtue of Selfishness." And if Senator Barack Hussein Obama now wishes to direct his assault on America by attacking its foremost philosophical champion, then do let's take a close look at the America that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi are attempting to sell us by way of this election.
The Obama Plan...
"We voted for that plan at a big meeting, with all of us present, six thousand of us, everybody that worked in the factory. The Starnes heirs made long speeches about it, and it wasn't clear, but nobody asked any questions. None of us knew just how the plan would work, but every one of us thought that the next fellow knew it. And if anybody had doubts, he felt guilty and kept his mouth shut - because they made it sound like anyone who'd oppose the plan was a child-killer at heart and less than a human being. They told us that the plan would achieve a noble idea. Well, how were we to know otherwise? Hadn't we heard it all our lives - from our parents and our schoolteachers and our ministers, and in every newspaper we ever read and every movie and every public speech? Hadn't we always been told that this was righteous and just? Well, maybe there's some excuse for what we did at that meeting. Still, we voted for the plan - and what we got, we had it coming to us. You know,ma'am, we are marked men, in a way, those of us who lived through thefour years of that plan of the Twentieth Century factory. What is it that hell is supposed to be? Evil - plain, naked smirking evil, isn't it? Well, that's what we saw and helped to make - and I think we're damned, every one of us, and maybe we'll never be forgiven...(excerpted from Atlas Shrugged, Book 2, Chapter 10, Ayn Rand, 1957)
"Do you know how it worked, that plan, and what it did to people? Try pouring water into a tank where there's a pipe at the bottom draining it out faster than you can pour, and each bucket you bring breaks the pipe an inch wider, and the harder you work the more is demanded of you, and you stand slinging buckets forty hours per week, then forty-eight, then fifty-six - for your neighbour's supper, for his wife's operation - for his child's measles - for his mother's wheel chair-for his uncle's shirt - for his nephew's schooling - for the baby next door - for the baby to be born - for anyone anywhere around you -it's theirs to receive, from diapers to dentures - and yours to work, from sun up to sun down, month after month, year after year, with nothing to show for it but your sweat, with nothing in sight for you but their pleasure, for the whole of your life, without rest, without hope, without end.... From each according to his ability, to each according to his need....
"God help us, ma'am! Do you see what we saw? We saw that we'd been given a law to live by, a moral law, they called it, which punished those who observed it - for observing it. The more you tried to liveup to it, the more you suffered; the more you cheated it, the bigger reward you got. Your honesty was like a tool left at the mercy of the next man's dishonesty. The honest ones paid, the dishonest collected. The honest lost, the dishonest won. How long could men stay good under this sort of a law of goodness? We were a pretty decent bunch of fellows when we started. There weren't many chiselers among us. We knew our jobs as were proud of it and we worked for the best factory in the country, where old man Starnes hired nothing but the pick of the country's labor. Within one year under the new plan, there wasn't anhonest man left among us. That was the evil, the sort of hell-horror evil that preachers used to scare you with, but you never thought to see alive. Not that the plan encouraged a few bastards, but that it turned decent people into bastards, and there was nothing else it could do - and it was called a moral ideal!"
Originally I posted this in response to a story at Stones Cry Out, where Rick posted a sad tale of debauchery as a testiment to the dehumanization of collectivism. At that time recent events in Angers, France revive recollections of Ayn Rand's fictional illustration of Starnesville from her novel, Atlas Shrugged - an excerpt of which can be read below and the entire account here.
In 21st century America, a generation lives devoid of any direct experience with totalitarianism - the inevitable bi-product of the collectivist principle. The glossy impressions of change offered by Obama seem seductive in promise, while the reality of the misery of millions of sufferers of statism should reveal his sheen to be a greasy stain on the legacy of humanity. Would that this generation were interested to know it. Sadly for them, the glossy idea that they covet is be to their brother's burden, free of obligation. They see their rewards coming from above, distributed to them from their wealthy brothers by some messiah-like benefactor. And yet, they miss the abyss of bloodthristy impoverished insects below, waiting on that same benefactor. You see, Obama's noble vision is Ivy Starnes' legacy, and sadly a certain macrocosm of Angers. And the reality of that legacy is that it takes a Village "to turn decent people into bastards" and children into livestock...
...and I should add, a proud strong nation into a dismal rusted wreck.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
In Hollywood, Chad Michael Morisette lynched an effigy of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin, Republican Candidate for President. In Fallujah, fanatic insurgents, hung the burned body of a female American contractor. Both of these acts were committed by supporters of Barrack Obama for President. Both acts are celebrated by the Left. Both actd were virtually disregarded by Mainstream American Media.
Vote wisely!... very wisely!
Monday, October 27, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
It is being reported that Major League Baseball is altering the the start of the World Series Game 6 in order to accommodate the FOX Network airing of Senator Obama's paid infomertial. Obama has purchased 30 minutes of airtime on each network in order to run his campaign advertisement. As reported...
"To accommodate a half-hour Obama time buy on Fox on Oct. 29, Major League Baseball has agreed to move the start time of World Series Game 6 by about 15 minutes. That would move the start of the game from 8:20 p.m. ET or so to 8:35 p.m."
So those great American Baseball fans eager to see the game, will instead be lectured for a delayed quarter hour by Senator "Government." That ought to go over well. One poster on Free Republic called it "Obama's Heidi Moment" refering to the 1968 NFL game between the Jets and Raiders. With 68 seconds remaining in the game and the Jets leading 32-29, NBC, eager to stick with its regular program schedule, switched to the beginning of Heidi, depriving fans outside of the Pacific time zone of Oakland's spectacular comeback. It remains one of the most infamously unpopular TV events in history.
The screen's all yours Senator Heidi! And your paying a tremendous amount of campaign cash for it!
Thursday, September 18, 2008
Lately, in person and by proxy, I have been called a racist for the fact that I will not be supporting for Senator Obama in the 2008 Presidential Election. Interesting! But, do let’s dispense with the issue of race in this Presidential Campaign. It’s really quite easy. What is the fundamental difference between Barack Obama and John Kerry? Really?! Aren’t they exactly the same?
Well, no! John Kerry has been a very active United States Senator for over 15 years. Before that he had a very distinguished Law career. Before that he was a veteran and served in Vietnam. To many, Senator Kerry is a very charismatic figure, with tremendous orator skill. He has been an active , vigorous , and vocal advocate of many issues. It is undeniable that, agree with him or not, John Kerry is a Man of demonstrably strong moral conviction. All that being said, Senator Kerry is one of the most Liberal members of the Senate; third only to Senators Biden and Obama. He and I disagree on nearly every major issue, as is the case with the majority of Americans given the Presidential election of 2008.
I didn’t vote for John Kerry in 2004. The Nation did not elect John Kerry to be President in 2004. So, why should I or the nation change now, and elect Barack Obama in 2008…
…merely because he is black? Sorry! Not going to happen.
Taking prudent note of the profound words of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., it’s not the color of a man’s skin with which I take note. As with Kerry, it is the content of his character that has me concerned.
Are you curious to know what an Obama Thugocracy would be like? We are witness to a preview now, as Leftist hackers violated the privacy of Sarah Palin's private email accounts. Stealing a variety of personal information including messages, photos, and phone numbers, they offered it for mischievous distribution throughtout the nutroots of the internet. To make matters worse, Mainstream Media venues - rather than reject the looter's bounty - acted on it, published it, and analyzed it as if it were a legitimate public release of information, knowing full well that it was gathered illegally. The Associated Press went so far as to refuse cooperation with a United States Secret Service investigation into the matter.
Now, if watching a horror of this nature unfold against a Vice Presidential Candidate in the 21st Century isn't bone-chilling enough, imagine what it would be like if Obama's Stalinesque Chicagoland Sturmabteilung thugs were to target you and your family. What if they invaded your privacy by crawling like roaches through your most personal correspondence? What if they decided to silence you by attacking your children... scattering their personal cell phone numbers, I.D. and account numbers, photographs, addresses, school and daycare location, and anything else they can find, to the same type of people who fantasize about murder and assasination, and make a hobby of torching homes, cars and businesses. What if altered photos of your adolescent daughter suddenly appeared on pornographic websites? What if your infant child's Social Security number were provided to an identity thief? What if your friends were inundated with inquiries for details about your most intimate exchanges. And what if your son, recently deployed to Iraq, began receiving calls on his private cell phone from anonymous deviants proclaiming him to be a 'baby-killer?' Is that freezing your marrow now? It should. Because this style of politics is not new to Senator Barack Hussein Obama and his Leftist thugs. And if they will do it to a sitting Governor of the largest State in the Union, and a phenomenally popular Vice-Presidential Candidate, even under threat of prosecution by the United States Secret Servive, do you think they would think twice about silencing you in a similar manner?.. or worse?!
Die Sturm operates on many levels as we have seen all too often, but primative violence is the base derivative of their ignorance and hate. Its the fall back tool for the radical Left when the argument is hopelessly lost; fear and coercion being often more powerful than thoughtful persuasion. Clearly losing the arguments at an intellectual level, the thugs that are what is being Left ultimately return back to the method they know best.
Intimidation is certainly not new to American politics. Unfortunately, neither is violence a unique side effect of human disagreement. Even the use of surrogate associates with plausibly deniable connections to conduct the 'dirty' work of a campaign is familiar to everyone. And to be honest, Obama wouldnt be the first political leader in world history to neutralize his political opponents by intimidating, attacking, and destroying their children if necessary. But, to date this degree of reprehensible behavior has not been an acceptable mainstay of American Presidential Campaign politics. The failure of the Mainstream Media so far to seriously investigate this story, much less reject the methodology, would suggest that it is now acceptable and mainstay... at least as fair for what is being Left.
In that respect, one must indeed give Barack Hussein Obama credit. He is the candidate of change...
Visions of Die Sturm - Targeting Soldiers...
Visions of Die Sturm...
Visions of Die Sturm - A Kos For Alarm...
Visions of Die Sturm - A Frisch Dose of Hate...
What Is Being Left - Sturmabteilung ...
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Reporting on the story of Obama supporters hacking into Sarah Palin's private email accounts and distributing personal infromation including, messages, addresses, phone numbers, photos, etc on the internet, AP YAHOO uses the opportunity of the violation to further distribute the pilfered information.
Hackers break into Sarah Palin's e-mail account
Here is the money line from their story,
"The Secret Service contacted The Associated Press on Wednesday and asked for copies of the leaked e-mails, which circulated widely on the Internet. The AP did not comply."
Reporter, TED BRIDIS, goes on to report,
"The disclosure Wednesday raises new questions about the propriety of the Palin administration's use of nongovernment e-mail accounts to conduct state business. The practice was revealed months ago — prior to Palin's selection as a vice presidential candidate — after political critics obtained internal e-mails documenting the practice by some aides."
Then he proceeds to analyze the information.
John Hinderacker at Powerline, says it perfectly, "Just another reminder that there is no sense of decency on the Left."
Until the Obama Campaign denounces both the hackers and the Associated Press, demanding that they cooperate with the Secret Service, we must assume they endorse such activity.
If you had any question about Senator Obama's approach to the issue of National Security as President Barack Hussein Obama, watch his own campaign video... (HT. Macsmind)
Watch it again… and note how they pan the cam ever so slightly to keep him seemingly staring at the audience as he reads the teleprompter. Its really pathetic stage craft. Honestly, I haven’t paid a whole lot of attention to the man and I don’t watch television, so this is the first time I have seen him speaking close up. He really is not very impressive and is rather plastic, imo. And if that is supposedly the extent of his credentials (the great orator), I’ll pass. I've seen better, and I still didn't vote for Senator Kerry. Not to mention the policy positions articulated by Senator Obama surpass the boundary of naïve into the surreal frontier of the absurd.
At least Sarah can see the enemy from her house. Obama can’t see any enemy at all...
...except for George W.Bush, of course.
BTW, could someone in the media, please ask Barack Obama, what and who he means by, "Them?"
Friday, September 12, 2008
As set forth in his Second Inaugeral Address, President George W. Bush expressed his world view regarding the nature of humanity and the historical significance of the United States of America. It has come to be known by many, as the Bush Doctrine, and this is its fundamental premise...
At this second gathering, our duties are defined not by the words I use, but by the history we have seen together. For a half century, America defended our own freedom by standing watch on distant borders. After the shipwreck of communism came years of relative quiet, years of repose, years of sabbatical - and then there came a day of fire.
We have seen our vulnerability - and we have seen its deepest source. For as long as whole regions of the world simmer in resentment and tyranny - prone to ideologies that feed hatred and excuse murder - violence will gather, and multiply in destructive power, and cross the most defended borders, and raise a mortal threat. There is only one force of history that can break the reign of hatred and resentment, and expose the pretensions of tyrants, and reward the hopes of the decent and tolerant, and that is the force of human freedom.
We are led, by events and common sense, to one conclusion: The survival of liberty in our land increasingly depends on the success of liberty in other lands. The best hope for peace in our world is the expansion of freedom in all the world.
America's vital interests and our deepest beliefs are now one. From the day of our Founding, we have proclaimed that every man and woman on this earth has rights, and dignity, and matchless value, because they bear the image of the Maker of Heaven and earth. Across the generations we have proclaimed the imperative of self-government, because no one is fit to be a master, and no one deserves to be a slave. Advancing these ideals is the mission that created our Nation. It is the honorable achievement of our fathers. Now it is the urgent requirement of our nation's security, and the calling of our time.
So it is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.
This is not primarily the task of arms, though we will defend ourselves and our friends by force of arms when necessary. Freedom, by its nature, must be chosen, and defended by citizens, and sustained by the rule of law and the protection of minorities. And when the soul of a nation finally speaks, the institutions that arise may reflect customs and traditions very different from our own. America will not impose our own style of government on the unwilling. Our goal instead is to help others find their own voice, attain their own freedom, and make their own way.
The great objective of ending tyranny is the concentrated work of generations. The difficulty of the task is no excuse for avoiding it. America's influence is not unlimited, but fortunately for the oppressed, America's influence is considerable, and we will use it confidently in freedom's cause.
My most solemn duty is to protect this nation and its people against further attacks and emerging threats. Some have unwisely chosen to test America's resolve, and have found it firm.
We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. America will not pretend that jailed dissidents prefer their chains, or that women welcome humiliation and servitude, or that any human being aspires to live at the mercy of bullies.
We will encourage reform in other governments by making clear that success in our relations will require the decent treatment of their own people. America's belief in human dignity will guide our policies, yet rights must be more than the grudging concessions of dictators; they are secured by free dissent and the participation of the governed. In the long run, there is no justice without freedom, and there can be no human rights without human liberty.
Some, I know, have questioned the global appeal of liberty - though this time in history, four decades defined by the swiftest advance of freedom ever seen, is an odd time for doubt. Americans, of all people, should never be surprised by the power of our ideals. Eventually, the call of freedom comes to every mind and every soul. We do not accept the existence of permanent tyranny because we do not accept the possibility of permanent slavery. Liberty will come to those who love it.
Today, America speaks anew to the peoples of the world:
All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you.
Democratic reformers facing repression, prison, or exile can know: America sees you for who you are: the future leaders of your free country.
The rulers of outlaw regimes can know that we still believe as Abraham Lincoln did: "Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not for themselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it."
The leaders of governments with long habits of control need to know: To serve your people you must learn to trust them. Start on this journey of progress and justice, and America will walk at your side.
And all the allies of the United States can know: we honor your friendship, we rely on your counsel, and we depend on your help. Division among free nations is a primary goal of freedom's enemies. The concerted effort of free nations to promote democracy is a prelude to our enemies' defeat..."
Last night, in her interview on ABC, Vice Presidential Candidate, Sarah Palin, seems to understand it, even in its profound complexity. ABC's, Charlie Gibson, on the other hand should dust off the Cliff notes and read Norman Podhoretz most definitive analysis of the Bush Doctrine, as described in World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism.
In what respect, indeed, Charlie? In what respect, indeed?!
Thursday, September 11, 2008
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
It cannot be felled by the actions of butchers,
Nor can it be diminished by the rhetoric of fools!
Tuesday, September 09, 2008
Responding to his recent drop in the polls by infering that his VP opponent, Sarah Palin, is "a Pig", Barrack Obama demostrates that not only is he not Presidential, he is little more than an adolescent Jerk.
HT. Hugh Hewitt
Change? He smells like the same old Ass to me.
Wednesday, September 03, 2008
Like the Waponi's of Woo sans the orange soda, the Mainstream media are feeding a monster that will ultimately immolate them. Dueler makes a good point about Palin versus Biden. And yet its true that Obama's Vice Presidential candidate fails to match up with that of McCain's, its even more significant to note that the Democrat's Presidential choice, despite the modern realties of affirmative action, isn't even in the same league as Sarah Palin.
That being sad, the Left, including the Mainstream Media, must provide their base with the plausible deniability regarding Palin's charisma and credentials. The voter who simply "wants" to cast their ballot for the "black" candidate, yet cannot help but recognize the opposing ticket that represents real leadership, real progress, real change, needs only a shadow of doubt and fictitious scandal to support their surrender to whim.
Sadly, that is what Democracy(and the Democrat Party) has been reduced to in the dawn of the 21st century... Affirmative action sacrificing progress, to preference qua patronage. (editorial correction, 08.04.08.11:56)
The MSM may attempt to sacrifice Palin to their big Woo, but it is they who will be burned...
compliments of Hugh Hewitt,
Tuesday, September 02, 2008
Just a quick one:
Barak Obama's choice of Joe Biden is like a 5-year-old reaching back to hold the hand of his "eccentric" uncle before crossing a busy street.
John McCain's choice of Sarah Palin is like a seasoned warrior sizing up an uncertain battle and handing a sword to a younger warrior, saying "Let's face this together."
Tuesday, July 08, 2008
In The Winter of 2004, we moved to Portland... my wife newborn son and I. We had left Seattle where we were finding it increasingly difficult to find a home anywhere near our jobs downtown or in anyplace in the Metropolitan area that we actually wanted to live. We left a place we loved, sacrificing friends and desires, for a place that promised us more opportunity. We were young, smart, professional, upwardly mobile, financially responsible. We had one old wreck of a truck, little cash, lots of (good) credit, and what's more, we understood our limitations.
Knowing the level of house we would be offered by the loan any bank would be willing to provide us, we nevertheless selected a conservative little home in a transitional neighborhood. We did our homework, balanced our budgets, cut corners where we had to, and secured the best loan possible, from a competitive and highly competent lender. We bought our first home... all 960 square feet of the dull little modern ranch-style fabrication.
In the Summer of that year, the local newspaper ran a story of another young couple who had just bought their first home in the Portland Metro Area. By that time real estate here was booming, Portland being consistently listed in the top ten best places to live in the country. The couple was celebrated for being ethnically diverse. They also had a child the same age as our own and were about the same age as my wife and I. The wife did not work. "Wonderful, I thought genuinely, "a stay-at-home Mom. The child was fortunate." The father, it was reported washed dishes at a local restaurant. "Okay," I thought, "aren't we fortunate to live in such prosperous times." I started out myself as a bus boy and this too was the first home I ever lived in in my life; 'home' being defined for me as living in a place you owned.
The story's attached photo was the kick in the stomach for us... the blow that wiped the smile off both my wife and my faces. The house had to be in excess of 2000 square feet. It was nearly brand new in what looked to be a new subdivision. The happy couple stood in front of their driveway which contained a new car and truck. Their little boy played in the drive, behind the wheel of a $400 dollar electric car. For our part, we had just purchased a used car for my wife in order to make her 40 minute commute. Our other recent purchase was a second hand tricycle for my son, via craigslist. Our old wreck of a truck was to be stolen the following winter.
The story went on to fill the gaps in the mystery. The couple had attained their loans with the help of new government program that allowed them to take on far more burden than any responsible lender would ever have allowed. The Oregonian was not only celebrating the tenuous achievement, it was promoting the practice.
Five years later, as we prepared to sell our little home, I read another story in the same newspaper lamenting the poor judgement and so-called cannibalistic tactics of mortgage lenders, who had violated the tenents of better financial judgement and extended credit and loans far in excess of what applicants could reasonably afford. I thought about that couple from years before, wondering now what was their fate... and who was really to blame.
By thi8s time, we were doing reasonably better than before. Now, we had two children, both in daycare. We had the same used car and had replaced the stolen wreck of a truck with a lesser wreck of an old truck. You see, knowing we wanted to buy a bigger home in the next few years, I passed up the chance to buy a new truck for myself and payed 2,200 for a used SUV and bought a new bicycle instead. We had refinanced our home years before, locking into a very low rate 5 year ARM. We used the equity from our home to help pay for city mandated neighborhood sewer improvements. You see, the city of Portland will fund risky loans to 'underprivileged' couples and build apartments for the homeless all with taxpayer dollars, but then refuse to pay for necessary infrastructure.
Neverthless, we were able to squeeze out some money for a few home improvements.W e payed off some outstanding debt and payed every bill on time for the next several years. Working very hard, we had transformed our modest home into one of the jewels of the block. So by the time the ARM came due, our home had sold for a good price and we were moving on up.
Selling faster than we expected, our new home search became a bit more frantic. We had seen many that we liked, but few that we could reasonably afford. We still understood our own limits. Finally finding the house that we both liked and wanted, our agent prepared the offer. It was more than we wanted to spend, but a good house in a great neighborhood was worth the sacrifice, right?! After a restless night's sleep, however, running numbers in our dreams and having them come up dangerously close to red, we phoned our agent first thing and stopped him from making that offer. Instead, we purchased a smaller home, in need of moderate care in a similar neighborhood. And despite our dissappointment, 2 months later, with gas prices doubled, the grocery bills edging higher, and our 401K's getting crushed once again, we breath a comfortable sign of relief.
Until we read things like this,
Mortgage rescue plan draws Senate support:
...The Senate voted 76-10 Monday to advance the bill, a broad array of housing measures including overhauls of the Federal Housing Administration, the Depression-era mortgage insurer, and government-sponsored home loan giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
Its centerpiece is a new $300 billion FHA program to allow debt-ridden homeowners who are currently too financially risky to qualify for government-backed loans to refinance into safer, more affordable mortgages.
The measure is on track for passage by an overwhelming margin, possibly by week's end. It has survived several test votes in the Senate, repeatedly demonstrating that there's enough support for it to override President Bush's promised veto.
We work hard. We make smart, responsible choices. We earn trust and extend it wisely. We expect a system to award us accordingly. What we get is higher taxes as reward for our efforts with the money getting flushed down a sewer of inequity, to pay for the perks and the political pull of Salem and Washington peddlers...
... and more blindness and misery for those too ignorant to know better and to pampered by mother government to learn from their mistakes.
Here we go again!
Friday, April 04, 2008
As evidence of recession, this is AP's idea of "surging" unemployment...
WASHINGTON - Employers buffeted by talk of recession slashed 80,000 jobs in March, the most in five years and the third straight month of losses.
At the same time, the national unemployment rate rose from 4.8 percent to 5.1 percent, the clearest signal yet that the economy might already be shrinking.
4.8 to 5.1%! A three tenths of a percent increase is an unemployment surge according to AP Economics Writer, Jeannine Aversa. Considering that 5% is considered statistically to be full employment, once again one might question the objectivity of AP reporting.
Friday, March 28, 2008
While the ignorant world cowars in the darkness of their irrational fear, light the torch of freedom in insolence at their stupidity.
Turn your lights on. All of them!
Light the torch! Wyatt's Torch...
...in utter defiance of stupidity's oppression.
Man is the light, the motor of the world.
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Imagine the confusion of Florida in November of 2000, combined with the chaos, rage and violence of LA, 1992... spread across a nation hopelessly divided: politically, socially, philosophically.
There is a darker side of the issue looming before the American electorate. And let's be certain to understand that the term 'dark' refers to a malevolent intent and not the color of one's skin. Reverend Jeremiah Wright is a black soul indeed, and it has nothing whatsoever to do with race. Dark is the content of the man's character, speaking as he does in the cadence of Arafat, Bin Laden, Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Castro, and Krushev, directing the passion of hate like a primed and timed explosive projectile at his philosophical enemies... America, Americans, "the Whites", the Jews, Capitalists, "the Rich", Republicans, and other assorted "Theys." Like his Islamists brethern herding the Palestinians, Wright has stoked emotions and planted suspicions and fears beyond the tolerance of rational restraint. To what purpose? Is it hate for hate's sake? Or is there motive behind such madness?
An Obama candidacy would unify an enormous pool of electoral and emotional Pull, worldwide; from the Muslim Madrassas of the East, to the Universities of Europe and America, the World's media, Television, Newspapers, Hollywood, and of course the Gospel Madrassas of south side Chicago and other inner cities. After August, that political force would slam into the McCain ticket like a Hurricane.
John McCain however, is proving to be a stong and able contender. Traveling to the Middle East and Europe this week, he is seen to be above the bickering and the rhetoric, simply behaving as if he already were the President. If the America electorate continues to view him this way, come September his election may be little more than a foregone conclusion. Yet make no mistake, it will be close. Previous elections have demostrated the reality of political division in America today. Where opposing candidates once battled for States, now they battle for precincts, and votes by the dozen. As the 2004 Gubernatorial election in Washington State demonstrated, even a victory by a few hundred votes can be challenged and stolen. Everyone recalls the debacle of the the 2000 Presidential Election in Florida, where a solid State victory was widdled away by recount after dubious recount until no doubt remained. And still Democrats claimed foul. A victory like that will not stand in 2008 with passions flared, emotions charged, suspicions honed, and the haunting resentment of historical injustice ignited like a fuse ready to trigger a bomb exponentially larger than the one that exploded in Los Angeles in the Spring of 1992 and far less confined. Make no mistake in doubting that there are those who would be eager to use such a bomb. They follow the Alinsky model of sociopolitical evolution whereby any means necessary are acceptable to gain their desired end, even violence and chaos. And clearly, Barack Obama is a student of his fellow Chicagoan, willing to use the suggestion of unrest to further his ends. Fear is a powerful weapon, primarily meant to gain concession.
America might well be facing a climactic moment. With European opinion said to be turned sour, a World War raging against the forces of Islamic Fascism, aggressive trade competition with China, and increasing hostility rising in South America, America can hardly afford another Civil War. It may not even be able to survive it... not as a single Nation. Yet, the threat might easily be neutralized with the selection by the Republican Candidate for President of a running mate that demonstrates once and for all, to all Americans, that the content of one's character is truly the only quality that merits confirmation in the United States of America.
Senator McCain, please choose wisely!
On the face of it, the strategy suggested in part 3 - whereby McCain selects a Black running mate - would seem in itself to be catering to racial politics. Indeed in a sense it is. But, the race card has already been played by the leading Democrat Candidate. Obama continues to double down with his speech today, whereby he asks people to look beyond the content of his character, as represented by his beliefs and the messages he entertains with his family for 20 years. Look beyond, he asks America, the character's of Jeremiah Wright and his own racist grandmother, and consider the color of their skin first and foremeost this election. What other conclusion can one come to when in the middle of a Presidential campaign the leading Democrat Candidate, who happens to be black, delivers a public address on race in America? Barack Obama is making this election about race over ideas. Indeed the gambit is afoot. The victor will be the Candidate who uses the situation at hand on the proverbial battlefield to their best advantage. At the moment Clinton and Obama are engaging one another on that battlefield. Clinton seems to be losing an election about race. She may however be winning an election about ideas, as more of what Obama believes is exposed by the words of his philosophical mentor, Jeremiah Wright. It has clearly caused some level of discomfort among the Aristocracy. Now it seems, with delegates split, the Democrat National Convention and the choice of its super delegates will ultimately decide the primary. Senator McCain has the luxury of opportunity to choose his ground for the battle that is surely to come after the Convention, be it an election of character and ideas or just race and prejudice.
If Clinton is able to overcome Obama's current primary advantage, by nevertheless gaining the support of a majority of delegates, securing her Party's nomination for POTUS, there will be trouble. A great number of Obama supporters will feel cheated... and perhaps rightly so. The system and its rules as they understood it will have been undermined in favor of the preference of the Aristocracy. As has been pointed out in part one, this is the methodology of Liberal Progressivism - preference over merit. Liberalism is in itself an institution of bias, prejudice and discrimiination. What will those disenfranchised Democrat voters do when their preferred candidate has been sandbagged? Dejection and rage will be one immediate reaction, and who really knows how that will play out. Here's where the allusions to 1968 Chicago have been offered, cautiously yet repeatedly. In the aftermath of a riotous tantrum, maybe Democrat voters will reunite once again behind one inevitable candidate and organize their pull with the Hillary Clinton faction for the November's election offensive. On the other hand perhaps, in total rejection, the Obama faction will simply abandon support for the Democrat candidate altogether... in a sense, pull the pull from the pool.
How would that occur? Will they simply stay home on election day?
Or might they lend their support to the Republican Candidate, John McCain? That is doubtful to be sure, given the rhetoric emanating from the Gospel Madrassas and their Institutional surrogates. Republicans are both the party of the evil white man and patriotic America, the Great Satan. What reason would an Obama supporter, fueled on the audacity of hope for change, have to vote for a McCain ticket? What reason indeed might there be.
On the other hand, might some Obama supporters see the promise in a third alternative? ... one that would begin to fracture the narratives and undermine the invective and divisive agitprop that has been built by the messages of the Gospel Madrassas of the Reverends Wright, Jackson, Sharpton, used by race pimps like Rangel, Conyers, Brazil, Nagen to imprison a good people in sociopolitical slavery and keep a Nation permanently divided for the benefit of the Aristocracy of Pull? Condoleeza Rice or Colin Powell could offer that glimpse of promise... a true audacity of hope, if you will. A Vice presidential Candidate of true merit and superb character linked with an identity consistent with Obama's own superficial marketing and packaging, could be an attractive ticket for those American's who truly do hope for 'progress.'
Of course, there would be fierce criticisms, from all the usual suspects. America could even be witness to one of the most amusing hypocritical philosophical catastrophes in the history of Western Civilization if its lucky. When the uncontrolled invective tirades let loose from the fringe Left, directed at someone like Powell or Rice, the utter collapse of civility and rational public discourse could be both magnificent and highly educational to the world. Most would see it for what it is, especially those members of communities who have been asked to sacrifice far too much and far too long for the puney little nobles of a political Aristocracy that has enslaved them as chattel means to serve its bitter ends. And in the end, who can really argue with the facts as considered by each individual sitting alone with their ballot making the right choice about the future of America?...
...one vote at a time toward their own meaningful ends.
But, what if Obama prevails?
Monday, March 17, 2008
As the official Republican Candidate for forty forth President of the United States of America, Senator John McCain must insulate both his Ticket and the Nation from the ugly realities of the forthcoming election. Unfortunately, whether his team knows it or not, he is left having to play the game of racial politics better than either of his potential opponents. With the selection of his Vice President he has a very unique chance to claim mate to their check. McCain must also select a Black candidate as his running mate. But, he must do so in a manner that illustrates Republican's favor of substance over symbolism. He must select a candidate whose character is sound, and whose political substance, regardless of popularity, is without question. There are only two such candidates in the pool of Republican politics at present: Colin Powel and Condoleeza Rice. For the sake of this Nation, one of them MUST be Vice President of the United States.
The contradiction of racial politics is that it promotes the primacy of race foremost over the recognition of ability. To turn a famous phrase, it judges a man (or woman) by the color of their skin rather than the content of their character. For that reason it is incredibly destructive both for the people that purport to be the beneficiaries of a such a mechanism and for the culture of which they are a part. The culture continues to be pre-occupied by race and skin color, albeit in reverse fashion... enslaving the American people to a hyper-enfranchised minority of its citizens. Worse yet, ratial politics continues the enslavement of that very minority for the purpose of Pull for its noble Aristocracy. And while it is arguable that the Reverend Jeremiah Wright is one of its nobles, he most certainly speaks for its class of Wizards and Mullahs, on behalf of its Princes like Barak Obama, today's leader of the Aristocracy of Race. And a vast majority of the Nation's inner-city minoritues have been listening to the fomentations of the Mullahs of the Gospel Madrassas like Wright and their counterpart Muslim Mullahs, like Farakan.
After August's Democrat Convention in Denver, the selection of their candidate will be certified and the campaign for President will officially begin. That leaves little time for the Candidate to mount an effective drive against a Republican opponent who has been campaigning as the Party's Presidential candidate for over 6 months. The longer the primary goes on for Democrats the uglier and more desperate it is sure to become. The weapons turned in will be targetted more savagely and indiscriminately in an attempt to secure pull over the other. After August, they will be turned outward with the same and even greater savage fury. The Clinton's play a brutal politcial game as America has bore witness in the past. They are experts at its perverted machinations. But, Barack Obama relies heavily, albeit abstrusely, on the Pull of ratial politics. His greatest weapon is the innuendo of conseqence; the foremost electoral effect being the pull of the Black vote form the Democrat base of supoort, should Obama not be the Party's Candidate. The suggestion of violence however, hangs over Denver and the Nation like the front of a pending storm, with whispered allusions of a 1968 redux. Should Barack Obama be the Democrat Party's Candidate and the Presidential Election is similar to that of 2000, is it a 1992 redux that is really at hand?
Friday, March 14, 2008
The goal of racial politics is to promote the advantage of privilege over merit. Privilege in modern politics is bestowed by favor of preference. That which is preferred, is promoted. Preferential treatment according to the Liberal Progressive social model is granted by favor of political affiliation. Politics being the primary vehicle for social evolution, its not enough to be black (or even female for that matter). To be preferred, one must be a 'correct' black - a Liberal black. Since political beliefs are easier to achieve than actual merit, those that advance in privilege by preference need only say the correct things and be seen to do what is expected. Meanwhile, most persons of true merit have no need of such a model, since it affords them few rewards, and often punishes true achievement. Clarence Thomas and Condoleeza Rice are particularly good examples. By merit alone, both have achieved the pinnacles of their particular professions. They are experts... who just happen to be black. Yet, they are despised for their beliefs and especially for their political affiliations. Barack Obama on the other hand, a Man of little merit, heralded nevertheless for his political charisma, is being propelled by nature of his rhetoric alone to the Nation's highest public office.
The problem with racial politics is that the United States Constitution establishes the principle of merit over privilege. Racial politics is therefore, fundamentally at odds with founding American principles. The Constitution secures the blessings of liberty by promoting an environment of opportunity where individuals are free to achieve (or fail) by choice. Racial Politics, on the other hand, like much of Liberal Progressivism, seeks to replace the rewards of achievement, with the endowed privilege of a new nobility... an Aristocracy of Pull.
The ruler of that Aristicracy is granted to the noble who achieves the most powerful pull or influence. Once installed, the ruler commands all pull and influence, dispensing it by leave of preference, favor, and whim with the primary goal being the maintenance of power... and pull. Currently, two factions of the Democrat Party battle with their pull, for the ultimate power. Hillary Rodham Clinton was, by noble heredity, to be the presumptious Queen of Pull. Barack Hussein Obama, on the other hand, demonstated his own desire to be seated as the King of Pull... and his own pool of formidable pull it seems, to install him there. Both are fighting feircely, by means of their particular factions, just for their Party's nomination, and all of its unified Pull for the fiercer battle that is to follow. Eventually, one of them will need to unleash the Pull againt John McCain to win American's elective favor as their new executive, and leader... their President.
The battle for the Democrat Presidential nomination has gone on far longer than was expected. Because of that, the conflict has become more aggressive then desired with each faction deploying increasingly negative tactics against the other to gain favor in the form of electoral delegates. In a recent post at the Belmont Club, Wretchard looks at these Weapons Turned Inward,
... consider how hijackers and hostages takers get the authorities' attentions by demonstrating their seriousness.
The principle followed by kidnappers in Baghdad who sent five severed fingersbelonging to "four Americans and an Austrian taken hostage more than a year ago in Iraq" was that if you want to be taken seriously you have to demonstrate how far you are willing to go in order to get what you want. And although neither Barack Obama nor Hillary Clinton have sent anyone actual severed fingers yet, both have amply shown their astonished supporters that they are willing to ignite race war, tear the Party apart or engage in political cannibalism to serve their own individual ambitions. What's really awesome about Hillary and Barack is not their resumes but the lengths to which they are willing to go.
His observation aptly describes the ugly nature of today's battle among the American Aristocracy of Liberal Progressivism for the control of their collective Pull. But, Wretchard stops short (for now) of looking at what happens later, when all of those threats and weapons are turn outward...
...at John McCain? At Republicans? And at the America people?
For as Wretchard so eloquently puts it, " The problem with the axiom "by any means necessary" is that it means "by any means necessary". " And the power of that ultimate Pull, is a insanely seductive end.
Some years back, I sat with my wife and children on the pew of our Lutheran Church listening to yet another sermon of condemnation delivered by the new Pastor from the old pulpit against the primary source of evil in the modern world... Israel. He had been with our church for a little over two months and this was his fourth such Sermon. Living in Portland, I'm used to a general deficit of faith and an abundance of progressive humanism... including a touch of anti-semetism. We sought a place of refuge where our children could be nutured by a sheltering community of faithful people who share our values and can help promote commensurate virtue. We returned home that Sunday afternoon, where I immediately drafted a letter to the Church Council on which I sat, explaining why I was resigning from the Council and leaving this church. I was not going to sit with my boys and have them believe of me that I, by default, shared the views of the man preaching before us any given Sunday, simply by tolerating his incessant invective. Children are peers. They will watch carefully and learn accordingly.
The American electorate should react likewise when they hear the message preached by the longtime Pastor and mentor of Senator Barack Obama. Much has been made as late, of Barack Hussein Obama's Muslim heritage. Is he still a Muslim? Does that matter? One could argue that it might, considering that the world is currently engulfed in a War between two clashing philosophies... one of them being a fanatical form of Muslim faith - Islam. Islamic Fascism has replaced moral principle with a feverish determination to displace human liberty with the shackles of a global caliphate, by any means necessary, including mass murder on a cataclysmic scale. Western Civilization and Islamic Fascism are struggling at present on the razor's edge of Armageddon. America is the primary picket separating liberty and slavery. As America approaches the 2008 Presidential Election, it is the responsibility of each American to exercise their judgment about the next leader of this ongoing struggle, asking one critical question: does that candidate have the passion, the determination, and the loyalty to the fundamental values of Western Civilization with a conviction necessary to do whatever is needed to achieve victory. Obama must be judged according to all the knowledge and evidence at hand.
Right or wrong, it is everyone's prerogative to judge as they see fit. Discrimination is nothing more than a set of personal preferences built on a series of judgments...and even prejudices. In absense of instinct, judgment is a human's primary means of survival. A choice exercised in favor of survival is a moral imperative. The choice between food and poision, for instance, is a mechanism of survival using a method of discrimination based on personal judgment. Choosing food is moral. Choosing poison is not. Similarly, the choice between Coke and Pepsi is a discriminate judgment, albeit not necessarily tied to survival. Some choices are simply based on preference; Hillary or Obama? Either is a judgment of desire. And while preference choices are no less valid than moral imperatives, they can be exercised with less intellectual consideration, for they carry less potential for negative consequences. Moral choices, on the other hand, decide fate. Survival or death.
The particulars of Obama's religious affiliations are not nearly as troubling as the nature of his actual beliefs. Islam in itself, truly in its intent a religion of peace, is of little concern to most people when considering the qualifications of a political candidate. Like Judaism, Christianity, Budaism, or Mormonism, the qualities of character contributed by the belief system to a dedicated practicioner would be a resume enhancement for the candidate in the eyes of most, regardless of to which he or she ascribes. Whether Obama considers himself Christian in fact, and or Muslim in spirit, it is the nature of his spiritual beliefs that define the Man.
So, when we listen to the messages emanating from America's inner city Gospel madrassas: notably, "God damn America...", it makes most Americans pause and re-consider the character of a candidate who has spent the last 20 years absorbing just such a message from a Pastor like Jeremiah Wright of Chicago's Trinity Church... A man who remains, ostensibly Senator Obama's primary spiritual and campaign advisor. Consider the message...
Radical Muslim or radical Christian, it makes no difference. If the message is "God Damn America!... America is the great Satan!... Death to America and Americans!..." Then the two messages define the exact same belief; the belief that led to the murderous attacks on 911; and that represent the motivating spirit of the enemies of Western Civilization, both foreign and domestic. It is a message of hate, lies, and agitation propaganda that has been pouring forth from radical madrassas of the Middle East spreading all over the world, generating radicalized armies of rampaging butchers and homicide bombers to do its bidding. And apparently it is the same sentiment being propagated in the American inner city, by Pastors like Jeremiah Wright...
- "We bombed Hiroshima. We bombed Nagasaki. And we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians, and black South Africans. And now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back into our own front yards. America’s chickens are coming home to roost."
- "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three strike law, and then wants us to sing God Bless America? No, no, no. Not God Bless America, God damn America, that’s in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating us citizens as less than human."
... with the approval and support of Barack Obama?
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
Much has been made of Hillary Clinton's shrewd parsing of words in her recent 60 Minutes interview (HT: Politico) leaving the uncertain impression that Barrack Hussein Obama might or might not still be Muslim. To be clear, she did not use his actual middle name. And she didn't actually say that he was... or even that he wasn't for that matter. What she said in response to the question, "...a Muslim. You don't believe that he's…?" was this...
“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know,” she said.
Now, regardless of the facts in the issue (because who cares, right?!) is anyone really shocked or surprised by a Clinton's ability to parse conjecture into invective while evading conviction?
Come to think of it, do we really know the answer to Kroft's question if it were turned against Clinton? A Muslim? You don't really believe that she's... (gasp!) Truth is, there's nothing to base that on. As far as I know. Just because My Sandmen say Hillary Bin Lyin'? there's nothing more to the rumors...
The price of an Associated Press headline - and a purchased AP narrative - seems to be blood... lots of it. Terrorists in Iraq have proven time and agin that if you kill enough people at a given time, the Western Press will deliver their ultimatums, complete with conditions and the appropriate sprinkling of American condemnation. So it is again with a rampage of recent attacks in Iraq...
Group of Iraqis asks UN to take over
Indeed! A group of Iraqi tribal leaders, former politicians and intellectuals would like the U.N. to arrest control of Iraq from Coalition Forces...
BAGHDAD - A group of Iraqi tribal leaders, former politicians and intellectuals appealed Wednesday to the United Nations to take control of Iraq in a move they say would help U.S. troops leave the beleaguered country.
Both the U.S. administration and the Baghdad government are unlikely to endorse the request, which was addressed to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and delivered to the Cairo offices of the organization.
"We believe that the only opportunity left for Iraq to be saved from a dark, but not inevitable future, is to engage the international community represented by the United Nations," the letter said. "Such a step will allow the American troops to leave and the occupation to be brought to its end."
... a group like the Associated Press it seems as well,
... and a group like Al Quaeda.
Tuesday, March 11, 2008
Is starvation the price of sustainability?... because the current devotion to corn-based ethanol and other bio-mass based fuels is quickly driving up the price of groceries. From the Dallas News,
Grocery prices getting fat on ethanol demand, weak dollar
Escalating food costs could present a greater problem than soaring oil prices for the national economy because the average household spends three times as much for food as for gasoline. Food accounts for about 13 percent of household spending, compared with about 4 percent for gas.
And consumers spending more on food have less disposable income to spend on items that keep retailers happy – from electronics to dining out. Food prices are rising while home values fall and the stock market falters – all of which can shake consumer confidence.
According to the Bureau of Labor statistics:
- Chicken prices are up 10 percent
- Whole milk was up at least 20 percent
- Tomatoes are up 25 percent
- Bread was up 5.4 percent
- Eggs gained more than 30 percent.
Corn, a key foodstuff for farm animals, has shot up as ethanol demand increases. Corn prices have more than doubled in commodity markets over two years, and soybeans nearly tripled, according to DTN, a commodities-analysis firm in Omaha, Neb.
Soybean farmers, lured by higher margins, are growing more corn, causing soybean supplies to shrink and prices to increase, said Ephraim Leibtag, an economist at the U.S. Department of Agriculture's economic research service.
To make matters worse, the rising price of corn means higher beef prices. This all translates into an artificial inflation of overall food prices coming at a time, when American's are already facing a number of looming economic challenges. Not all ideas are good ones. Why for instance, should one grow fuel - consuming enormous amounts of water, fertilizers, soil, and external energy - to create a product that oozes freely from the bowels of the Earth?
Some facets of sustainability, it seems, are quite unsustainable. Starvation being one of them. Unless eugenics is one of the sublime goals of the modern Green movement...
...the darker spectrum, perhaps.
Monday, March 10, 2008
One might think being a Democrat, means never having to say your sorry. Does it?
From William Jefferson Clinton's impotent impeachment to William Jefferson's bribery indictment; Senator Reid's own silent bribery fiasco; Senator Obama's inescapable link to indicted doner, Tony Rezko, one might get the idea that Democrats can get away with all manner of malfeasance and walk away relatively unscathed, and most astoundingly, still holding office.
The latest addition to the list today, is New York Governor, Elliot Spitzer. Not two years into his office and Governor Spitzer is implicated in a prostitution ring.
Official: NY gov caught on wireta
By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press
NEW YORK - A law enforcement official has told The Associated Press that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's involvement in a prostitution ring was caught on a federal wiretap.
The official says Spitzer is identified in court papers as "Client 9," and the wiretap was part of an investigation that opened in the last few months.
The official says the New York governor met last month with at least one woman in a Washington hotel. The law enforcement official spoke on condition of anonymity because of the ongoing investigation.
A few moments ago, Mr. Spitzer essentially told reporters and the State of New York , he's sorry.
With his wife at his side, Spitzer told reporters that he "acted in a way that violates my obligations to my family."
"I have disappointed and failed to live up to the standard I expected of myself," he said. "I must now dedicate some time to regain the trust of my family."
When corruption, real or alleged, rears its ugly head on the Right side of the political spectrum, the America media and the Democrat political machine make certain the subject of the investigation is utterly destroyed... personally, professionally, and politically. Rightly so, perhaps. Corruption of any kind, moral or ethically, should be intolerable, Period! But, it seems that being a Democrat in this era of Media-defined degeneracy means simply having to say 'you are sorry.' Then you are off the hook.
Where is the demand for Spitzer's immediate resignation?
Where is the official (read: Democrat; read: Mainstream Media) demand for Spitzer's resignation?
Every day he stays in office, should be considered an official endorsement of Spitzer's malfeasance by the DNC and The New York Times.
Monday, March 03, 2008
Another string of arson fires in a Washington neighborhood, demonstrates that radical environmentalists are increasingly turning to violence as a means to pursue their ends.
Ecoterror link eyed in Wash. fires
WOODINVILLE, Wash. - Fires gutted three multimillion-dollar model homes in a Seattle suburb on Monday, and authorities found a sign purportedly left by eco-terrorists that mocks claims that the homes were environmentally friendly.
"Built Green? Nope black!" said the spray-painted sign that bore the initials of the radical environmental group Earth Liberation Front.
Crews removed explosive devices found in the homes, said Fire Chief Rick Eastman of Snohomish County District 7. The FBI was investigating the fires as a potential domestic terrorism act, said FBI spokesman Rich Kolko in Washington, D.C.
No injuries were reported in the fires, which began before dawn. The sheriff's office estimated damage at $7 million. In addition to the three homes destroyed, two sustained smoke damage.
As is known with the methodology of thugs, one form of violence begets the next in an escalating surrender to brutality as a substitute for intellectual persuation. How long will it be before their complete abandon of reason presents them with murder as an acceptable means to their ends? Such is the cycle of fascists and terrorism, and these radical environmentalists are no different than the Sturmabteilung of decades past.
Last night it was abandoned homes that burned in Woodinville, Washington. Next week, perhaps it will be families immolated to make the animals' point.
Friday, February 15, 2008
Its another sad, grimly puncuated statement on the current state of the American culture, as it is being packaged and delivered via the Public Schools and Universities, and the headline of today's Oregonian says it all,
"Run, He's Reloading The Gun!"
5 Students are reported dead this morning, plus the insect who shot them at near point blank range as they completed a geology class at Northern Illinois University on Thursday. Another 15 are wounded.
The shooter, it is being reported, was a former student of Sociology at NIU. Interesting to note, that the Department of Sociology at Northern Illinois University as of this posting seems to have disabled their own website. It might have been interesting to view their mission statement and note the particulars of the faculty that might have helped cultivate a sensibility that ultimately converted other people's children into lifeless heaps, and a boy into their sociopathic predator. You see, even as renewed cries erupt in favor of tighter nationwide gun controls and bans in the face of a growing trend of school shootings, one really must ask the most poignant question at hand. What did more damage in that lecture hall on St. Valentine's Day, 2008?.... the guns loaded with bullets?
... Or the boy loaded with bad ideas directing the gun?