...who can't wait to either endorse Obama or point fingers of blame at culprit du jour Sarah Palin, Robert Stacy McCain explains simply why she matters, and why you do not:
...George F. Will, Ken Adelman, Frank Fukuyama, David Brooks -- these are just a few names on the list of eminent experts who have declared that Sarah Palin is what's wrong with the Republican Party.
Even if we were to add all their prestigious names to the list, however, it wouldn't be nearly as long as the line of people who stood in the cold wind of Pennsylvania to see Palin this week...
If somehow Team Maverick pulls off a historic upset, those thousands who turned out to see Palin in Pennsylvania will be a big part of that history. Win or lose, the future of the Republican Party depends on generating the kind of excitement among ordinary Americans that Palin has produced ever since her name first flashed on the Drudge Report in late August.
The Republican Party won't notice the defection of a few experts in Washington, but the GOP can't exist without all those people who love Sarah Palin in Pennsylvania and Ohio and Florida. Republicans would be wise to pay more attention to the people, and less to the experts.
My stars...have we lost also Iowahawk - I mean, T. Coddington Van Voorhees VII, to the Obama camp as well???
But there is an even more compelling reason to support Barack Obama: Sarah Palin.
If you are a conservative like me, you guffawed when you heard John McCain announced this declasse rube as a running mate, followed by good-natured applause, thinking it was some sort of whimsical campus prank he was reenacting from his Annapolis years. This was, of course, quickly followed the shock of realizing that he wasn't joking, and all that Hanoi unpleasantness had finally driven him around the bend.
Palin offers true conservatives no such extenuating graces. I mean, my God, this woman is simply awful; the elided vowels, the beauty pageantry, the guns, the crude non-Episcopal protestantism, the embarrassing porchload of children with horrifying hillbilly names, the white after Labor Day.
The idea of this dreadful woman in Washington is almost too much to contemplate. Not only would it be a fashion disaster, one can scarcely imagine the White House social calendar -- mooseburger fetes to that ghastly Joe the Plumber, perhaps followed by snow machine derbies through the Rose Garden?
Best satire of the campaign season; although I'd bet there will be at least one lefty who won't get it, and post about another "defection"...!
Friday, October 31, 2008
The Early Voting (or, why McCain will win)
We talked about the early voting yesterday in Florida and Nevada; let's take a bit of a closer look a day later to see how things are shaking out.
Polling firm DNA - having reached over 12,000 Nevada residents (or, more than 10x what the mainstream media uses for a national poll) has Obama up 52-45. Not a good sign for McCain? Well, think again:
...remember this is in a voter pool that according to the state's numbers, has a Democrat advantage of 53-30 percent in the county that includes Las Vegas and an advantage of 49-34 percent in the county that includes Reno.
The remaining counties make up 12.7 percent of the voters in the state. (Pollster Steve) Nathan said that in recent days, he was seeing increased early voting from the more rural counties, and they were, as expected, heavily McCain.
So John McCain is recieving 45% of the ballot among an early-voting electorate that is only 32% Republican? Either Democrats or Indys are leaning heavily towards him, and that can only be good news...
And about that Democratic turnout advantage that the pollsters keep building into their sample?
....right now, a huge advantage in terms of which party shows up for early voting has translated to a surprisingly modest lead for Obama. Unless there is something glaringly off-base about these numbers, then McCain will carry Nevada on Tuesday...
And why is Obama and Sarah Palin running to Iowa, a state that is apparently solidly in the "pro-O" column, if you believe the polls? Because even Barack Obama doesn't believe the polls:
Survey USA's poll that puts Obama ahead by 15 percent has a sample that is 29 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, and 25 percent independent... But in 2004, the exit polls put the state's electorate at 36 percent Republican, 34 percent Democrat, and 30 percent independent. Is this state really going to shift from a +2 advantage for Republicans to a +16 advantage for Democrats in a four year span?
And that's where those BS poll numbers are coming from...but why can McCain think he can win, and why does Obama think he may lose? Look deeper, deeper:
The early voting supports that wild Democratic skew, because as of Wednesday, it was 48.3 percent Democrat, 28.6 percent Republican, 23.1 percent independent/other.
The state has 2,111,809 registered voters. 400,829 have voted early as of Wednesday. There are about 1.7 million registered voters left out there....
Let's do some math. Taking a realistic/negative-case scenaro - all registered party voters voted for their party's candidate, and the indy's split it down the middle, we would have 240,00 votes for Obama and 160,000 votes for McCain (again, assuming the "Nevada/Florida" effect is not taking place in Iowa). That leaves 1.7 million registered voters still out there, with at least a 50/50 Democratic/Republican split (based on the huge Democratic advantage in early voting).
Can McCain get the 80,001 voters he needs? Let's take a look back at 2004:
In 2004, Democrats went into election day with a John Kerry lead of 71,868 votes. But Kerry lost the Election Day vote by 81,920, for a Bush win of 10,052.
Yeah, that's calling it close. If McCain didn't come out against ethanol subsidies (morally correct, politically unsound), it might not even be this tight. But based on recent history, Iowa is now a toss-up, and it appears as if both Barack Obama and John McCain know it....
Polling firm DNA - having reached over 12,000 Nevada residents (or, more than 10x what the mainstream media uses for a national poll) has Obama up 52-45. Not a good sign for McCain? Well, think again:
...remember this is in a voter pool that according to the state's numbers, has a Democrat advantage of 53-30 percent in the county that includes Las Vegas and an advantage of 49-34 percent in the county that includes Reno.
The remaining counties make up 12.7 percent of the voters in the state. (Pollster Steve) Nathan said that in recent days, he was seeing increased early voting from the more rural counties, and they were, as expected, heavily McCain.
So John McCain is recieving 45% of the ballot among an early-voting electorate that is only 32% Republican? Either Democrats or Indys are leaning heavily towards him, and that can only be good news...
And about that Democratic turnout advantage that the pollsters keep building into their sample?
....right now, a huge advantage in terms of which party shows up for early voting has translated to a surprisingly modest lead for Obama. Unless there is something glaringly off-base about these numbers, then McCain will carry Nevada on Tuesday...
And why is Obama and Sarah Palin running to Iowa, a state that is apparently solidly in the "pro-O" column, if you believe the polls? Because even Barack Obama doesn't believe the polls:
Survey USA's poll that puts Obama ahead by 15 percent has a sample that is 29 percent Republican, 45 percent Democrat, and 25 percent independent... But in 2004, the exit polls put the state's electorate at 36 percent Republican, 34 percent Democrat, and 30 percent independent. Is this state really going to shift from a +2 advantage for Republicans to a +16 advantage for Democrats in a four year span?
And that's where those BS poll numbers are coming from...but why can McCain think he can win, and why does Obama think he may lose? Look deeper, deeper:
The early voting supports that wild Democratic skew, because as of Wednesday, it was 48.3 percent Democrat, 28.6 percent Republican, 23.1 percent independent/other.
The state has 2,111,809 registered voters. 400,829 have voted early as of Wednesday. There are about 1.7 million registered voters left out there....
Let's do some math. Taking a realistic/negative-case scenaro - all registered party voters voted for their party's candidate, and the indy's split it down the middle, we would have 240,00 votes for Obama and 160,000 votes for McCain (again, assuming the "Nevada/Florida" effect is not taking place in Iowa). That leaves 1.7 million registered voters still out there, with at least a 50/50 Democratic/Republican split (based on the huge Democratic advantage in early voting).
Can McCain get the 80,001 voters he needs? Let's take a look back at 2004:
In 2004, Democrats went into election day with a John Kerry lead of 71,868 votes. But Kerry lost the Election Day vote by 81,920, for a Bush win of 10,052.
Yeah, that's calling it close. If McCain didn't come out against ethanol subsidies (morally correct, politically unsound), it might not even be this tight. But based on recent history, Iowa is now a toss-up, and it appears as if both Barack Obama and John McCain know it....
Barack, Manipulating The Mobs
Lawarence Kramer , commenting on Barack Obama:
The appeal to class warfare, to the mob voting itself largesse, is stomach-turning. I’ve heard some pretty respectable people say some pretty nice things about Obama, but I cannot for the life of me get past the idea that tax policy should be based on who is easiest to demonize. The man clearly does not want to be the President of people making more than $250k.
Something new in American politics; the appeal to the looting of your neighbor's wealth. Not to mention the elevation of envy to a moral imperative. What does the bible say about "Love thy...." and "Do not covet thy...."? Ah, it doesn't matter. We have Barack Obama now, and he'll rewrite the rules of decency for us.
Incidentally, perhaps someone ought to remind Mr. Obama that his ability to master the emotions of large crowds is not something that remains in perpetuity? The mob is fickle, as it is said, and one only needs to view a certain picture of Mussolini to realize how quicky it take to go from Il Duce to....well, somewhat less popular, let us say.
But I keep hearing how smart Senator Obama is, so he knows what he's doing....right? Yeah, and maybe that's what scare me...
The appeal to class warfare, to the mob voting itself largesse, is stomach-turning. I’ve heard some pretty respectable people say some pretty nice things about Obama, but I cannot for the life of me get past the idea that tax policy should be based on who is easiest to demonize. The man clearly does not want to be the President of people making more than $250k.
Something new in American politics; the appeal to the looting of your neighbor's wealth. Not to mention the elevation of envy to a moral imperative. What does the bible say about "Love thy...." and "Do not covet thy...."? Ah, it doesn't matter. We have Barack Obama now, and he'll rewrite the rules of decency for us.
Incidentally, perhaps someone ought to remind Mr. Obama that his ability to master the emotions of large crowds is not something that remains in perpetuity? The mob is fickle, as it is said, and one only needs to view a certain picture of Mussolini to realize how quicky it take to go from Il Duce to....well, somewhat less popular, let us say.
But I keep hearing how smart Senator Obama is, so he knows what he's doing....right? Yeah, and maybe that's what scare me...
Thursday, October 30, 2008
Can We Call Neveda for McCain As Well?
If the Florida early votes were any indication, there seems to be a hell of a lot more "McCainicats" than "Obamacons" out there, as voting trends in that state has shown that despite more Democrats voting, McCain was either tied or ahead.
We seem to be showing a similar trend towards McCain in Nevada as well:
The guy doing the exit poll of those who have already voted, with 7,147 responses, puts Obama ahead, 50 percent to 48 percent.
That's a big sample, so I'll go with it. But why is that so positive for McCain?
In Clark County, "through Sunday, 55 percent of early voters were Democrats, 29 percent Republicans."
"In Washoe County, 51 percent of the early voters through Sunday were Democrats, while 33 percent were Republicans."
Clark County, which includes Las Vegas and its surrounding area, has 68.7 percent of the registered voters in the state. Washoe County, which includes Reno, has 18.6 percent of the registered voters in the state.
And those polls - oh, those wacky polls:
No pollster has had McCain ahead in Nevada since the end of September. So why is McCain so dramatically overperforming among early voters who are disproportionately Democrats?
Here's why the Nevada post-voting poll is so accurate, and the national polls so way off:
With those numbers, you would expect Obama to be ahead by a much wider margin. Unless that poll of the early voters was way off — and this pollster managed to reach roughly one out of every 43 early voters; think about that when you see a poll of 1,000 designed to represent a national voting pool of 120-130 million voters! — a considerable number of Democrats and independents/unaffiliateds in Nevada are voting for McCain.
If this pattern holds true, then McCain can win Pennsylvania. And if McCain wins Pennsylvania, Obama is toast.
Oh, we may see a landslide this November - just not the one the media has been calling...
We seem to be showing a similar trend towards McCain in Nevada as well:
The guy doing the exit poll of those who have already voted, with 7,147 responses, puts Obama ahead, 50 percent to 48 percent.
That's a big sample, so I'll go with it. But why is that so positive for McCain?
In Clark County, "through Sunday, 55 percent of early voters were Democrats, 29 percent Republicans."
"In Washoe County, 51 percent of the early voters through Sunday were Democrats, while 33 percent were Republicans."
Clark County, which includes Las Vegas and its surrounding area, has 68.7 percent of the registered voters in the state. Washoe County, which includes Reno, has 18.6 percent of the registered voters in the state.
And those polls - oh, those wacky polls:
No pollster has had McCain ahead in Nevada since the end of September. So why is McCain so dramatically overperforming among early voters who are disproportionately Democrats?
Here's why the Nevada post-voting poll is so accurate, and the national polls so way off:
With those numbers, you would expect Obama to be ahead by a much wider margin. Unless that poll of the early voters was way off — and this pollster managed to reach roughly one out of every 43 early voters; think about that when you see a poll of 1,000 designed to represent a national voting pool of 120-130 million voters! — a considerable number of Democrats and independents/unaffiliateds in Nevada are voting for McCain.
If this pattern holds true, then McCain can win Pennsylvania. And if McCain wins Pennsylvania, Obama is toast.
Oh, we may see a landslide this November - just not the one the media has been calling...
McCain Takes The Lead in Florida!
Democrats are partying a bit early this year (as they did in 2000, and 2004), especially since the early results from Florida may be a snapshot of what we see nationwide:
Democrats are beaming that their party is outperforming the Republicans in early voting, releasing numbers Wednesday that show registrants of their party ahead 54 percent to 30 percent among the 1.4 million voters who have gone to the polls early
But how are those registered Democrats voting? Somebody get a sweat-rag ready for Obama's forehead:
But party breakdowns for turnout aren't the same as final tallies, and at least one poll offered a different view for the campaign of Republican John McCain. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave McCain a 49-45 lead over Democrat Barack Obama among Floridians who have already voted.
Wow. Even if it is tied (and although those polled have already voted, we'll assume some are still lying), we have quite a few "Democrats for McCain" here. Maybe that's why that even polls that factor in a 10% or higher Democratic turnout advantage still only show a 3-5% lead for Obama?
More good news from Florida:
And Republicans continued to show a traditional strength, leading 50 percent to the Democrats' 30 percent in the 1.2 million absentee ballots already returned.
Even if some of those mythological "Obamacons" actually show up, what will the Republican advantage be here, somewhere along the lines of 45% to 35%? Still formidable among 1.2 million votes, especially if McCain is already ahead among the original 1.4 million early voters.
And those polls, again:
Conducted Oct. 25-27, the Los Angeles Times poll gave Obama a 50-47 lead overall in Florida.
So if McCain wins Florida by, say, 3%, that would make the polls off by six points or better. You want to know why Obama is still scrambling aound the country? Oh, he knows it, even as he keeps the aura of invincibility around him...
How bad is it for Baracky? Let's put it this way, apparently even John Kerry (who lost Florida by almost 5%) in 20004 had better early turnout results than Obama:
Among 16 percent of Florida voters who said they had cast early ballots, Kerry received 56 percent of those compared to Bush's 39 percent.
Is it too early to call the election for McCain?
Democrats are beaming that their party is outperforming the Republicans in early voting, releasing numbers Wednesday that show registrants of their party ahead 54 percent to 30 percent among the 1.4 million voters who have gone to the polls early
But how are those registered Democrats voting? Somebody get a sweat-rag ready for Obama's forehead:
But party breakdowns for turnout aren't the same as final tallies, and at least one poll offered a different view for the campaign of Republican John McCain. A Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll gave McCain a 49-45 lead over Democrat Barack Obama among Floridians who have already voted.
Wow. Even if it is tied (and although those polled have already voted, we'll assume some are still lying), we have quite a few "Democrats for McCain" here. Maybe that's why that even polls that factor in a 10% or higher Democratic turnout advantage still only show a 3-5% lead for Obama?
More good news from Florida:
And Republicans continued to show a traditional strength, leading 50 percent to the Democrats' 30 percent in the 1.2 million absentee ballots already returned.
Even if some of those mythological "Obamacons" actually show up, what will the Republican advantage be here, somewhere along the lines of 45% to 35%? Still formidable among 1.2 million votes, especially if McCain is already ahead among the original 1.4 million early voters.
And those polls, again:
Conducted Oct. 25-27, the Los Angeles Times poll gave Obama a 50-47 lead overall in Florida.
So if McCain wins Florida by, say, 3%, that would make the polls off by six points or better. You want to know why Obama is still scrambling aound the country? Oh, he knows it, even as he keeps the aura of invincibility around him...
How bad is it for Baracky? Let's put it this way, apparently even John Kerry (who lost Florida by almost 5%) in 20004 had better early turnout results than Obama:
Among 16 percent of Florida voters who said they had cast early ballots, Kerry received 56 percent of those compared to Bush's 39 percent.
Is it too early to call the election for McCain?
Obama's Destitute Aunt...
...and what is says about him, as a person and a philosopher.
From a foreign paper, of course:
Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.
A second relative believed to be the long-lost “Uncle Omar” described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a “sawed-off rifle” while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.
Bob Krum thinks the Obama campaign found her, and told her to shut up. Her commenst seem to endorse that version of events:
Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Ms Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the “Auntie Zeituni” in Mr Obama’s memoir. She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election. “I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,” she said, adding: “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.”
Tigerhawk damns Obama:
I have finally figured out why somebody who has been as successful as Barack Obama believes that the government must help people who cannot or do not help themselves: He simply does not understand that helping the poor, unlucky, or incompetent is first the responsibility of family.
Finally, right before the election, we are seeing the true soul of this self-proclaimed Messiah. He talks about spreading the wealth, but when it comes to his own fat cash, it stays tightly in his wallet, not even helping out the poor relations that he used as props in his exaggerated life story.
Of course he believes that the government should be doing the job of family - because he does not believe it is his job - his responsibility - to assist his own. How sickening.
A nation, no longer bound by family ties, but by dependence on government. That is Barack Obama's Change for America. Remember in France, a few summers back, when 10,000+ elderly French citizens died in their apartments during a summer heat wave, while their children refused to leave the beach? That is Barack's America, a place where everyone expects the government to take care of them, and their families, and no one lifts a finger...
It's a philosophy that will end in the eventual destruction of a society, as everyone looks to someone else to fulfill their needs, and a mass abdication of responsibilty is considered acceptable, and somehow moral.
Want to see the end result of Barack's liberalism? Just look at his aunt in the Boston slums, or check out his brother in a tinfoil hut in Kenya....
From a foreign paper, of course:
Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama’s best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.
A second relative believed to be the long-lost “Uncle Omar” described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a “sawed-off rifle” while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.
Bob Krum thinks the Obama campaign found her, and told her to shut up. Her commenst seem to endorse that version of events:
Speaking outside her home in Flaherty Way, South Boston, on Tuesday, Ms Onyango, 56, confirmed she was the “Auntie Zeituni” in Mr Obama’s memoir. She declined to answer most other questions about her relationship with the presidential contender until after the November 4 election. “I can’t talk about it, I just pray for him, that’s all,” she said, adding: “After the 4th, I can talk to anyone.”
Tigerhawk damns Obama:
I have finally figured out why somebody who has been as successful as Barack Obama believes that the government must help people who cannot or do not help themselves: He simply does not understand that helping the poor, unlucky, or incompetent is first the responsibility of family.
Finally, right before the election, we are seeing the true soul of this self-proclaimed Messiah. He talks about spreading the wealth, but when it comes to his own fat cash, it stays tightly in his wallet, not even helping out the poor relations that he used as props in his exaggerated life story.
Of course he believes that the government should be doing the job of family - because he does not believe it is his job - his responsibility - to assist his own. How sickening.
A nation, no longer bound by family ties, but by dependence on government. That is Barack Obama's Change for America. Remember in France, a few summers back, when 10,000+ elderly French citizens died in their apartments during a summer heat wave, while their children refused to leave the beach? That is Barack's America, a place where everyone expects the government to take care of them, and their families, and no one lifts a finger...
It's a philosophy that will end in the eventual destruction of a society, as everyone looks to someone else to fulfill their needs, and a mass abdication of responsibilty is considered acceptable, and somehow moral.
Want to see the end result of Barack's liberalism? Just look at his aunt in the Boston slums, or check out his brother in a tinfoil hut in Kenya....
And The Scales Fell From His Eyes...
....alas, I speak not of Barack Obama, but of another liberal Democrat, New York's Governor Paterson. In Washington yesterday (more on that in a moment), he spoke the gospel of arch-capitalist, arch-libertarian Ayn Rand like a true believer:
Paterson cited Rand, a libertarian icon, and her best-seller "The Fountainhead," noting the novel proclaimed that "our country, the greatest country in the world, was founded on the basis of individuals, where people were encouraged to adventure, not to be complacent; to be daring, not dormant; to prosper, not to plunder."
He went on to say that a failure to live by those principles, combined with a lack of transparency and governmental oversight, had "brought us to the point where our nation faces a downturn in its economy only rivaled by the Great Depression."
Very true, very true...but why was the good governor in Washington? Why, to ask for more taxpayer funds, of course!
...he sought billions of federal dollars to help the state cope with its massive looming deficits....
He called on Congress to consider a sharp hike in federal Medicaid payments to the states, along with increased unemployment-insurance benefits, infrastructure spending, and food-stamp benefits.
"We feel that food stamps are the best economy stimulus," Paterson said.
No, governor, jobs are the best economic stimulus. Jobs provided by businesses that have the money to grow, money that is not confiscated by government to pay for things like, say, "entitlements".
Well, at least he's halfway there. Maybe I should be irked that Paterson is invoking Rand for un-Randian ends, but I feel he is sincere, and understands the fallacy of some of the liberal ideology (now that he actually has to manage a state - maybe he should phone Barack Obama!). He's on the right path, and although he is stumbling a bit, I hope he follows it to its logical end.
And may many Democrats join him on the road...
Paterson cited Rand, a libertarian icon, and her best-seller "The Fountainhead," noting the novel proclaimed that "our country, the greatest country in the world, was founded on the basis of individuals, where people were encouraged to adventure, not to be complacent; to be daring, not dormant; to prosper, not to plunder."
He went on to say that a failure to live by those principles, combined with a lack of transparency and governmental oversight, had "brought us to the point where our nation faces a downturn in its economy only rivaled by the Great Depression."
Very true, very true...but why was the good governor in Washington? Why, to ask for more taxpayer funds, of course!
...he sought billions of federal dollars to help the state cope with its massive looming deficits....
He called on Congress to consider a sharp hike in federal Medicaid payments to the states, along with increased unemployment-insurance benefits, infrastructure spending, and food-stamp benefits.
"We feel that food stamps are the best economy stimulus," Paterson said.
No, governor, jobs are the best economic stimulus. Jobs provided by businesses that have the money to grow, money that is not confiscated by government to pay for things like, say, "entitlements".
Well, at least he's halfway there. Maybe I should be irked that Paterson is invoking Rand for un-Randian ends, but I feel he is sincere, and understands the fallacy of some of the liberal ideology (now that he actually has to manage a state - maybe he should phone Barack Obama!). He's on the right path, and although he is stumbling a bit, I hope he follows it to its logical end.
And may many Democrats join him on the road...
Scary, But Funny....
...just like the whole concept of an Obama presidency!
Check out the ad by Our Country Deserves Better - if there's a better mocking of Barack's naive international policies, I haven't seen it:
Has just the right mocking tone to knock the air out of that incompetent socialist windbag, without being disreseptful enough to cause a backlash.
Well, maybe - unless some member of Obama's puppet media can find something "racist" about it...
Check out the ad by Our Country Deserves Better - if there's a better mocking of Barack's naive international policies, I haven't seen it:
Has just the right mocking tone to knock the air out of that incompetent socialist windbag, without being disreseptful enough to cause a backlash.
Well, maybe - unless some member of Obama's puppet media can find something "racist" about it...
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The LA Times/Obama Video - The Smoking Cannon?
Doug Ross has a reliable inside tip on what is so damaging about the Barack Obama "toast video" of PLO terror operative Rashid Khalidi that the LA Times cannot release it before the election, despite the fact it is potentially world-changing news...from his operative:
Saw a clip from the tape....
Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."
It would be really controversial if it got out. That's why they will not even let a transcript get out.
Yup. So the LA Times, allegedly a news outlet, will intentionally hold back crucial information from the public because the truth doesn't fit their political agenda?
Gross. We may be electing the next Hitler, and the West Coast version of Pravda is egging us on....what has our free press turned into?
UPDATE 4:25PM: There is a bounty out on the tape! Check out Dirty Harry's place; Dune Capital has put up a $150K reward for the original material, or a digital copy
Here's Newt Gingrich offering a $50K bounty on the La Times tape - click on the link for video, here's the money line:
"All around him that evening there were people who were people who would clearly destroy Israel in a heartbeat, And he didn't walk out. He didn't leave. And, I think that it makes it indefensible."
Next time, Newt, you can take out the qualifier "I think".
Heh -from the comment's over at Dirty Harry's - "If it gets to $250,000, Obama can tax it…"
Saw a clip from the tape....
Reason we can't release it is because statements Obama said to rile audience up during toast. He congratulates Khalidi for his work saying "Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine" plus there's been "genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis."
It would be really controversial if it got out. That's why they will not even let a transcript get out.
Yup. So the LA Times, allegedly a news outlet, will intentionally hold back crucial information from the public because the truth doesn't fit their political agenda?
Gross. We may be electing the next Hitler, and the West Coast version of Pravda is egging us on....what has our free press turned into?
UPDATE 4:25PM: There is a bounty out on the tape! Check out Dirty Harry's place; Dune Capital has put up a $150K reward for the original material, or a digital copy
Here's Newt Gingrich offering a $50K bounty on the La Times tape - click on the link for video, here's the money line:
"All around him that evening there were people who were people who would clearly destroy Israel in a heartbeat, And he didn't walk out. He didn't leave. And, I think that it makes it indefensible."
Next time, Newt, you can take out the qualifier "I think".
Heh -from the comment's over at Dirty Harry's - "If it gets to $250,000, Obama can tax it…"
America's Experiment With Obama...
...may be the worst thing that has happened to this great nation since the Civil War, as far as reshaping America in a different form than what our brilliant Founders had intended.
What the hell are we doing?
The messianic style—the cosmic tug to "change history", or stop the seas from rising or the planet from heating, juxtaposed with the creepy faux-Greek columns, Michelle's "deign to enter" politics snippet, the fainting at rallies, the Victory Column mass address, the vero possumus presidential seal, and the 'we are the change we've been waiting for' mantra—reflects the omnipresent narcissism: the exalted ends of electing a prophet always justify the often crude and all too mortal means.
Is this the type of leader envisioned by the Founders? Remember George Washington - resigning after his second term so as not to be seen as the very "dynastic leader" that Obama and his cadres in the media are trying to create?
And what will we have wrought?
If America’s citizens care to wake up and pay attention before they elect as president a sweet-talking, moderate-posing left-wing ideologue with a history of alliances with anti-American radicals, one of the several matters they ought to think seriously about is the future of the Supreme Court. Simply put, the survival of the historic American experiment in representative government will be in serious jeopardy if Barack Obama is our next president….
Obama’s supporters are clamoring for “liberal lions” who will redefine the Constitution as a left-wing goodies bag, and a look at some of their leading contenders, like Yale law school dean Harold Koh (champion of judicial transnationalism and transgenderism), Massaschusetts governor Deval Patrick (a racialist extremist and judicial supremacist), and law professor Cass Sunstein (advocate of judicial invention of a “second Bill of Rights” on welfare, employment, and other Nanny State mandates), shows that there is lots of room for Obama’s nominees to be even worse than Ginsburg and Breyer.
Obama's change: The End of the American Experiment.
Is it worth throwing away all that we have worked for over the last 232 years beacuse the stock market had yet another bad October?
On November 4th, we'll see what the American people - the heirs of the wisdom of the Founders - have become...
What the hell are we doing?
The messianic style—the cosmic tug to "change history", or stop the seas from rising or the planet from heating, juxtaposed with the creepy faux-Greek columns, Michelle's "deign to enter" politics snippet, the fainting at rallies, the Victory Column mass address, the vero possumus presidential seal, and the 'we are the change we've been waiting for' mantra—reflects the omnipresent narcissism: the exalted ends of electing a prophet always justify the often crude and all too mortal means.
Is this the type of leader envisioned by the Founders? Remember George Washington - resigning after his second term so as not to be seen as the very "dynastic leader" that Obama and his cadres in the media are trying to create?
And what will we have wrought?
If America’s citizens care to wake up and pay attention before they elect as president a sweet-talking, moderate-posing left-wing ideologue with a history of alliances with anti-American radicals, one of the several matters they ought to think seriously about is the future of the Supreme Court. Simply put, the survival of the historic American experiment in representative government will be in serious jeopardy if Barack Obama is our next president….
Obama’s supporters are clamoring for “liberal lions” who will redefine the Constitution as a left-wing goodies bag, and a look at some of their leading contenders, like Yale law school dean Harold Koh (champion of judicial transnationalism and transgenderism), Massaschusetts governor Deval Patrick (a racialist extremist and judicial supremacist), and law professor Cass Sunstein (advocate of judicial invention of a “second Bill of Rights” on welfare, employment, and other Nanny State mandates), shows that there is lots of room for Obama’s nominees to be even worse than Ginsburg and Breyer.
Obama's change: The End of the American Experiment.
Is it worth throwing away all that we have worked for over the last 232 years beacuse the stock market had yet another bad October?
On November 4th, we'll see what the American people - the heirs of the wisdom of the Founders - have become...
Global Warming, My Ass!
The scene from my deck in Central Jersey yesterday:
Looking at the picture, I was wondering what kept striking me as so off about it. Then it hit me - it was seeing the snow in the foreground, with trees in full autumn color in the backround.
Sorry, maybe it's just a Northeast thing, but I am used to seeing bare trees in the backround in my "winter wonderland" photos. Can't ever remember this much snow pre-Halloween (not counting my self-imposed exile to Chicago many years back)....
With the price of gas dipping close to $2- a gallon, and winter coming six weeks early, will President Obama still "change America" by forcing drastic carbon reductions at a drastic price to our economy to fulfill his liberal agenda, regardless of, you know, whether it's actually true?
Is that a stupid question?
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
Obama Butts Heads With Ayn Rand, Again....
...and Rand wins, again, based on reason and rationality. But as we discussed the other day, that is not what Barack is counting on to win the election.
Anyway - Barack on his ideal Supreme Court Justice:
“[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, boils down Obama's nonsense to obe simple truth:
Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.
And what does Ayn Rand have to say about that? She speaks, through the voice of Judge Narragansett, who explains why he quit the bench and went "on strike":
Yes," said Judge Narragansett. "I quit when the court of appeals reversed my ruling. The purpose for which I had chosen my work was my resolve to be a guardian of justice. But the laws they asked me to enforce made me the executor of the vilest injustice conceivable. I was asked to use force to violate the rights of disarmed men, who came before me to seek my protection for their rights.
Litigants obey the verdict of a tribunal solely on the premise that there is an objective rule of conduct, which they both accept. Now I saw that one man was to be bound by it, but the other was not, one was to obey a rule, the other was to assert an arbitrary wish - his need - and the law was to stand on the side of the wish.
Justice was to consist of upholding the unjustifiable. I quit - because I could not have borne to hear the words 'Your Honor' addressed to me by an honest man."
Imagine the men Obama will appoint; those who will place "need" over the objective values of the law...they will have no problem sneering at distressed plantiffs, telling them the law is powerless to help them; it is only empowered to hurt them...
Anyway - Barack on his ideal Supreme Court Justice:
“[W]e need somebody who’s got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it’s like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it’s like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that’s the criteria by which I’m going to be selecting my judges.”
Steven Calabresi, co-founder of the Federalist Society, boils down Obama's nonsense to obe simple truth:
Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.
And what does Ayn Rand have to say about that? She speaks, through the voice of Judge Narragansett, who explains why he quit the bench and went "on strike":
Yes," said Judge Narragansett. "I quit when the court of appeals reversed my ruling. The purpose for which I had chosen my work was my resolve to be a guardian of justice. But the laws they asked me to enforce made me the executor of the vilest injustice conceivable. I was asked to use force to violate the rights of disarmed men, who came before me to seek my protection for their rights.
Litigants obey the verdict of a tribunal solely on the premise that there is an objective rule of conduct, which they both accept. Now I saw that one man was to be bound by it, but the other was not, one was to obey a rule, the other was to assert an arbitrary wish - his need - and the law was to stand on the side of the wish.
Justice was to consist of upholding the unjustifiable. I quit - because I could not have borne to hear the words 'Your Honor' addressed to me by an honest man."
Imagine the men Obama will appoint; those who will place "need" over the objective values of the law...they will have no problem sneering at distressed plantiffs, telling them the law is powerless to help them; it is only empowered to hurt them...
Watch Your Pocketbook, Here Comes Barack!
Remember the good old days when Obama was promising only to raise taxes on fat-cat plutocrats like Joe the Plumber and Tito the Builder, and anyone making more than $250K? Turns out that's looking more and more like another Lie Barack Told Me:
Obama's position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. But in his new ad, "Defining Moment," he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. "Here's what I'll do as president," Obama says in the ad. "To deal with our current emergency I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut." That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: "Famlies making less than $200,000 get tax cut."
Ah, so rich is being defined down! How low can it go? Why, just wait and watch it drop before your very eyes! In Pennsylvania, Gaffy Joe Biden redefined rich even lower:
What we’re saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn’t need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year.”
And what about the income tax hike on every income level once Obama and the Dems let the Bush tax cuts expire? Taxes start going up for everyone making over $25K - but hey, don't worry, Baracky will give you some back in...credits. (Use the tax calculator here, reset to year 2000 to get a glimpse of what the tax rates will rise to once the Bush cuts expire, then remember...Obama plans to raise them again....)
More on how Obama's gonna leave you penniless here...
How is leaving each and every American with less money to spend going to help the economy? It won't, and Barack Obama knows it, but he can't embark upon the Change He Believes In until he has a sh*tload of your money....
Obama's position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000. But in his new ad, "Defining Moment," he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. "Here's what I'll do as president," Obama says in the ad. "To deal with our current emergency I'll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you'll get a tax cut." That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: "Famlies making less than $200,000 get tax cut."
Ah, so rich is being defined down! How low can it go? Why, just wait and watch it drop before your very eyes! In Pennsylvania, Gaffy Joe Biden redefined rich even lower:
What we’re saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn’t need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year.”
And what about the income tax hike on every income level once Obama and the Dems let the Bush tax cuts expire? Taxes start going up for everyone making over $25K - but hey, don't worry, Baracky will give you some back in...credits. (Use the tax calculator here, reset to year 2000 to get a glimpse of what the tax rates will rise to once the Bush cuts expire, then remember...Obama plans to raise them again....)
More on how Obama's gonna leave you penniless here...
How is leaving each and every American with less money to spend going to help the economy? It won't, and Barack Obama knows it, but he can't embark upon the Change He Believes In until he has a sh*tload of your money....
Obama Hearts Marxists!
In his own words:
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully," the Democratic presidential candidate wrote in his memoir, "Dreams From My Father." "The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist professors and structural feminists."
Obama's hero...
....He continued to associate with Marxists later in life, even choosing to launch his political career in the living room of a self-described Marxist, William Ayers, in 1995, when Obama was 34.
What kinds of actions will he take as president to assure the "MoveOn" wing of his party that he is no sellout? French-kiss Hugo Chavez? Hand Florida over to Fidel Castro? Sell Texas back to the Mexicans? Hand Israel over to the bloodthirsty Palestinians (most likely scenerio)? Raise taxes on everyone making more than $60K?
Like all vainglorious narcissists, he'll sell us all out to maintain the facade of his self-image....Are we getting "poled"?
.....or, post #92 in my series of why Republicans should not be discouraged by the media from hitting the polls full-force come election day:
For what it’s worth, in 1996, when there was an enthusiasm gap between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll for Oct. 27-28 gave Clinton a 16-point margin (51%-35%), and the final poll gave him a 13-point margin. Clinton’s actual margin of victory was only 8-1/2 points. So, especially given the much larger enthusiasm gap this year, perhaps there’s reason to hope that the polls contain an even larger overstatement of Barack Obama’s support—in which case John McCain may be ahead.
So despite all of Clinton's enthusiastic support, he won by eight points, down 5-8 from the week before the election. And what is Barack's lead these days, 3-5 points?
More on how the polls are based more on the preconceptions of the polling companies then, you know, reality, from Mark Steyn:
...the number you get depends as much on the "turnout model" cooked up in the pollsters' office as on anything Mr and Mrs America tell 'em down the phone line.
So it might well be that those pollsters who are anticipating that this is the year that the quadrennially ballyhooed "youth vote" actually emerges are right. And those who say that the five-point turnout advantage Democrats had in Pennsylvania in 2006 will be a 15-point advantage this year might also be right. But half of this stuff is a turnout prediction masquerading as a poll.
A 15 point Democratic "polling advantage" has been yielding Obama a single-digit lead in the Pennsylvania polls. Not impressive; no wonder Ed Rendell is sweating.
More polling BS sniffed out by Steyn:
This was the one that caught my eye, though:
In addition to leading 50-42% overall, Obama also leads men 50-42% and women 50-42%.
Wow. It's raining men, hallelujah! Even in elections they lose, Republicans still win the guys: in 1996, Bob Dole won 44% of the male vote to Bill Clinton's 43%. And that's the Democrats' biggest share of the bloke bloc in over 30 years. So, if that 50% holds up for Obama, we're in for a seismic shift.
Or, alternatively, the poll's a lot of hooey.
Hooey. Just like Barack Obama.
For what it’s worth, in 1996, when there was an enthusiasm gap between Bill Clinton and Bob Dole, the CNN/USA Today/Gallup poll for Oct. 27-28 gave Clinton a 16-point margin (51%-35%), and the final poll gave him a 13-point margin. Clinton’s actual margin of victory was only 8-1/2 points. So, especially given the much larger enthusiasm gap this year, perhaps there’s reason to hope that the polls contain an even larger overstatement of Barack Obama’s support—in which case John McCain may be ahead.
So despite all of Clinton's enthusiastic support, he won by eight points, down 5-8 from the week before the election. And what is Barack's lead these days, 3-5 points?
More on how the polls are based more on the preconceptions of the polling companies then, you know, reality, from Mark Steyn:
...the number you get depends as much on the "turnout model" cooked up in the pollsters' office as on anything Mr and Mrs America tell 'em down the phone line.
So it might well be that those pollsters who are anticipating that this is the year that the quadrennially ballyhooed "youth vote" actually emerges are right. And those who say that the five-point turnout advantage Democrats had in Pennsylvania in 2006 will be a 15-point advantage this year might also be right. But half of this stuff is a turnout prediction masquerading as a poll.
A 15 point Democratic "polling advantage" has been yielding Obama a single-digit lead in the Pennsylvania polls. Not impressive; no wonder Ed Rendell is sweating.
More polling BS sniffed out by Steyn:
This was the one that caught my eye, though:
In addition to leading 50-42% overall, Obama also leads men 50-42% and women 50-42%.
Wow. It's raining men, hallelujah! Even in elections they lose, Republicans still win the guys: in 1996, Bob Dole won 44% of the male vote to Bill Clinton's 43%. And that's the Democrats' biggest share of the bloke bloc in over 30 years. So, if that 50% holds up for Obama, we're in for a seismic shift.
Or, alternatively, the poll's a lot of hooey.
Hooey. Just like Barack Obama.
But Who's Being Sacrificed?
(revised a bit, and bumped...)
Obama speaks yesterday in Colorado:
Now, make no mistake: the change we need won’t come easy or without cost. We will all need to tighten our belts, we will all need to sacrifice and we will all need to pull our weight because now more than ever, we are all in this together.
Hmm. Commie-Speak 101, to be sure. What will he ask us to give unto Ceaser/Obama? He doesn't say, and he won't until November 5th.
Ayn Rand, though, has something to say, albiet from beyond the grave:
“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.
- Ayn Rand, “The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness
Remember Obama's demand for sacrifice, and see above on what he is truly asking us to give up - our reasoning minds, over to him.
Ayn's chilling prophecy:
“It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of service and sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”
-Ayn Rand, 1943, The Fountainhead
And whom do you think that is...?
Obama speaks yesterday in Colorado:
Now, make no mistake: the change we need won’t come easy or without cost. We will all need to tighten our belts, we will all need to sacrifice and we will all need to pull our weight because now more than ever, we are all in this together.
Hmm. Commie-Speak 101, to be sure. What will he ask us to give unto Ceaser/Obama? He doesn't say, and he won't until November 5th.
Ayn Rand, though, has something to say, albiet from beyond the grave:
“Sacrifice” is the surrender of a greater value for the sake of a lesser one or of a nonvalue. Thus, altruism gauges a man’s virtue by the degree to which he surrenders, renounces or betrays his values (since help to a stranger or an enemy is regarded as more virtuous, less “selfish,” than help to those one loves). The rational principle of conduct is the exact opposite: always act in accordance with the hierarchy of your values, and never sacrifice a greater value to a lesser one.
- Ayn Rand, “The Ethics of Emergencies,” The Virtue of Selfishness
Remember Obama's demand for sacrifice, and see above on what he is truly asking us to give up - our reasoning minds, over to him.
Ayn's chilling prophecy:
“It only stands to reason that where there’s sacrifice, there’s someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there’s service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of service and sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master.”
-Ayn Rand, 1943, The Fountainhead
And whom do you think that is...?
Monday, October 27, 2008
Whitey Go Home!
The article itself is garbage, but in what kind of a world does the Philadelphia Inquirer print an article by a self-loathing "person of pallor" positing that white people should be denied the vote?
In Barack Obama's world, I guess.
Here's some of the bile:
As a lifelong Caucasian, I am beginning to think the time has finally come to take the right to vote away from white people, at least until we come to our senses. Seriously, I just don't think we can be trusted to exercise it responsibly anymore.
I give you Exhibit A: The last eight years....
Exhibit B is any given Sarah Palin rally...
I have broken kielbasa with those people. I went to school with their children. I have gone to Sunday Mass with a deer-hunter hangover with those people. They are bitter with good reason, and they are armed because they are scared. They mean well, but they are easily spooked.
I fear for what is to become of them after the campaigns leave town for the last time, and Scranton and Allentown and Carlisle go back to being the long dark chicken dance of the national soul they were before the media showed up.
Not bad for a left-leaning blog - written by a college sophmore, perhaps - but in a major metropolitan daily?
And these clowns wonder why the bottom is falling out of their business model....
In Barack Obama's world, I guess.
Here's some of the bile:
As a lifelong Caucasian, I am beginning to think the time has finally come to take the right to vote away from white people, at least until we come to our senses. Seriously, I just don't think we can be trusted to exercise it responsibly anymore.
I give you Exhibit A: The last eight years....
Exhibit B is any given Sarah Palin rally...
I have broken kielbasa with those people. I went to school with their children. I have gone to Sunday Mass with a deer-hunter hangover with those people. They are bitter with good reason, and they are armed because they are scared. They mean well, but they are easily spooked.
I fear for what is to become of them after the campaigns leave town for the last time, and Scranton and Allentown and Carlisle go back to being the long dark chicken dance of the national soul they were before the media showed up.
Not bad for a left-leaning blog - written by a college sophmore, perhaps - but in a major metropolitan daily?
And these clowns wonder why the bottom is falling out of their business model....
Are We The Pigs...
....feeding at the government trough, willing to take what's free, and not realizing that for a moment's satisfaction we are sacrificing our birthright?
An analogy:
I don't know if you could actually catch wild pigs this way, but it really doesn't matter. In this method, you throw bucketfuls of corn on the forest floor. The pigs eat the corn. A month later you put up one side of a fence and more corn. Eventually, the pigs return, get used to the fence and keep eating. And another side of fence and more corn and so on, until you close the gate and you've caught the pigs. They've lost their freedom. They can't figure out what's happened.
We're not pigs, we're Americans, rightfully worried about the economic future. But the times are changing, and the Boomers should consider the costs and consequences of what they're being offered by our politicians before the last side of the fence goes up.
Read it all...John Kass makes some brilliant points that the media won't make, or that the intelligentsia is not intelligent enough to divine:
The casualty will be the entrepreneurs, those on the outside, the ones who createthe spark and offer up the products or the ideas that fire the economy. The entrepreneurial mind isn't willing to settle and wants to make more than $250,000 in salary or whatever the federal government deems proper. They don't want proper. What they want is to take risks and reach the American Dream. Such men and women will be on the outside for decades now. When they get close to victory they'll get whacked with tax increases and the rug will be pulled out from under them.
Will we recognize America 40 years from now? How long before we understand how fundamentally America has changed? What kind of generational conflicts will this new government market policy instigate? Will our children speak of liberty, as we once did before we forgot?
An analogy:
I don't know if you could actually catch wild pigs this way, but it really doesn't matter. In this method, you throw bucketfuls of corn on the forest floor. The pigs eat the corn. A month later you put up one side of a fence and more corn. Eventually, the pigs return, get used to the fence and keep eating. And another side of fence and more corn and so on, until you close the gate and you've caught the pigs. They've lost their freedom. They can't figure out what's happened.
We're not pigs, we're Americans, rightfully worried about the economic future. But the times are changing, and the Boomers should consider the costs and consequences of what they're being offered by our politicians before the last side of the fence goes up.
Read it all...John Kass makes some brilliant points that the media won't make, or that the intelligentsia is not intelligent enough to divine:
The casualty will be the entrepreneurs, those on the outside, the ones who createthe spark and offer up the products or the ideas that fire the economy. The entrepreneurial mind isn't willing to settle and wants to make more than $250,000 in salary or whatever the federal government deems proper. They don't want proper. What they want is to take risks and reach the American Dream. Such men and women will be on the outside for decades now. When they get close to victory they'll get whacked with tax increases and the rug will be pulled out from under them.
Will we recognize America 40 years from now? How long before we understand how fundamentally America has changed? What kind of generational conflicts will this new government market policy instigate? Will our children speak of liberty, as we once did before we forgot?
The LA Times Covers Up The Evidence...
...oh, they've got it on videotape, all right - the question before us is:
Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist. The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor
Sounds like a fun group, right? No wonder the Times wanted a videotape of the event, and no wonder they won't release it, knowing the truth would be the death knell for the Obama campaign. And what is the media for, if not to help its prefered candidates get elected?
Some of the goodies allegedly on the tape that we won't hear until November 5th:
....a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
Obama's response to this outpouring of hatred? Classic:
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...
So being baised towards the victims of 50 years of terrorism is a "bias"? Gee, it must take an Ivy League degree to overcome that kind of "blind spot"...we are so lucky to have Obama, a man so much wiser in the ways of the world than the rest of us...
Gateway Pundit, incidentally, had a conversation with Peter Wallsten, author of the LA Times article that mentions Khalidi's party:
Wallston was one of the few mainstream media reporters to report on this radical Obama associate. Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story. I asked him if he was planning on releasing this video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at this Jew-bash. He told me he was not releasing the video. He also would not comment on his source for the video.
What can I say, except:
-you're crazy if you believe anything the media is telling you in this presidential campaign
-you're crazy if you pull the lever for an anti-Semetic socialist like Barack Obama (unless, of course, you identify with that)
-finally - if you are Jewish, and planning to pull the lever for Barack Obama, you are completely batsh*t nuts, or simply have a death wish.
Welcome to Barack Obama's America....
Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?
At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist. The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor
Sounds like a fun group, right? No wonder the Times wanted a videotape of the event, and no wonder they won't release it, knowing the truth would be the death knell for the Obama campaign. And what is the media for, if not to help its prefered candidates get elected?
Some of the goodies allegedly on the tape that we won't hear until November 5th:
....a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."
One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
Obama's response to this outpouring of hatred? Classic:
His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...
So being baised towards the victims of 50 years of terrorism is a "bias"? Gee, it must take an Ivy League degree to overcome that kind of "blind spot"...we are so lucky to have Obama, a man so much wiser in the ways of the world than the rest of us...
Gateway Pundit, incidentally, had a conversation with Peter Wallsten, author of the LA Times article that mentions Khalidi's party:
Wallston was one of the few mainstream media reporters to report on this radical Obama associate. Wallston said that the article was written after he watched video taken at the Khalidi going away party. When I asked him about the video he said that as far as he was concerned he was through with the story. I asked him if he was planning on releasing this video of Obama toasting the radical Khalidi at this Jew-bash. He told me he was not releasing the video. He also would not comment on his source for the video.
What can I say, except:
-you're crazy if you believe anything the media is telling you in this presidential campaign
-you're crazy if you pull the lever for an anti-Semetic socialist like Barack Obama (unless, of course, you identify with that)
-finally - if you are Jewish, and planning to pull the lever for Barack Obama, you are completely batsh*t nuts, or simply have a death wish.
Welcome to Barack Obama's America....
Obama's Socialist Agenda: In His Own Words
There's change, and then there is changing the fundamental American philosophy that has worked better than any in the world over the last 200+ years. Obama, from a Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001, spells it out:
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that...
Well, maybe NPR did something useful for once. Maybe. Listen for yourself:
The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society... and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that...
Well, maybe NPR did something useful for once. Maybe. Listen for yourself:
Sunday, October 26, 2008
Our Own Personal Stalin
On the potential Obama victory:
I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places.
There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama...I dare say, this is ominous stuff.
... my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue...Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism.
The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual....
Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society...
Welcome to Barack Obama's America...
I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places.
There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama...I dare say, this is ominous stuff.
... my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue...Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism.
The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual....
Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society...
Welcome to Barack Obama's America...
"Democrats Win On Panic..."
Kyle Smith illuminates us:
Five times in the past century, control of the White House flipped from the Republicans to the Democrats. In 1932 and 1960 the economy was contracting. In 1992 and 1976 the economy was hungover from a recession that ended, in both cases, in March of the previous year. In November of 1912, the economy was between a recession that ended the preceding January and one that would begin the following January.
When Republicans took the White House from Democrats in 1952, 1968, and 2000, it had been three, seven and nine years since the last recession. Republicans can win on likeability, on sturdiness, on values. Democrats win on panic.
Reminds me of a certain European country, in the late '30's...economic conditions were terrible, the government was dysfunctional, the people were told that their country was humiliated, there seemed to be nowhere to turn...
Then a charismatic young figure showed up, an "outsider" of sorts, who told them their nation's pride could be restored, that they were truly a good and great people, and there was enough monies to be looted from minorities as to help alleviate the fiscal crisis.
The people thought. Sure - this guy spent many years outside of the country, but he appears to love it. Sure, he hates the Jews, but hey - who doesn't? And sure, he seems a bit intolerant of democracy and civil liberties, but hey - he'll be cool once he assumes power. And what a great speaker! Wow! Anyone who speaks that well can't be all bad, right?
We used to wonder how "they" could have elected such a person. Now "we" are about to do the very same thing...
Five times in the past century, control of the White House flipped from the Republicans to the Democrats. In 1932 and 1960 the economy was contracting. In 1992 and 1976 the economy was hungover from a recession that ended, in both cases, in March of the previous year. In November of 1912, the economy was between a recession that ended the preceding January and one that would begin the following January.
When Republicans took the White House from Democrats in 1952, 1968, and 2000, it had been three, seven and nine years since the last recession. Republicans can win on likeability, on sturdiness, on values. Democrats win on panic.
Reminds me of a certain European country, in the late '30's...economic conditions were terrible, the government was dysfunctional, the people were told that their country was humiliated, there seemed to be nowhere to turn...
Then a charismatic young figure showed up, an "outsider" of sorts, who told them their nation's pride could be restored, that they were truly a good and great people, and there was enough monies to be looted from minorities as to help alleviate the fiscal crisis.
The people thought. Sure - this guy spent many years outside of the country, but he appears to love it. Sure, he hates the Jews, but hey - who doesn't? And sure, he seems a bit intolerant of democracy and civil liberties, but hey - he'll be cool once he assumes power. And what a great speaker! Wow! Anyone who speaks that well can't be all bad, right?
We used to wonder how "they" could have elected such a person. Now "we" are about to do the very same thing...
Hollywood Doesn't Get it, Part XXXVII
Oliver Stone's attempt at creating an alternative reality with his psuedo-biopic "W" (hey, HBO tried it with ratings-bomb"Recount", why can't he?) collides with...well, reality, as all anti-conservative, anti-America, anti-Bush efforts seem to:
There's been tremdous interest by the public in the box office fate of Oliver Stone's W. for its second weekend in release.
Well, it ran out of steam.
QED International/Lionsgate's Bush biopic sank 58% to No. 8 with $1.5 million Friday from 2,050 dates for what will probably be a $5.2M weekend. The $30M negative cost film should end up with $23M domestic box office gross by the end of its North American run. That means, with a $25M P&A investment and Lionsgate's distribution fees, the film won't recoup.
Another loss on another attempt to force the Left's miserable values down America's throat - will Hollywood ever learn?
Ah...no.
Because liberals never learn; because their ideology trumpets reality, hence Obama's desire - and the entire Democratic Party's desire - to remake America in the shape of such succeses as Chicago, Detroit, and - what the hell - New Jersey...
There's been tremdous interest by the public in the box office fate of Oliver Stone's W. for its second weekend in release.
Well, it ran out of steam.
QED International/Lionsgate's Bush biopic sank 58% to No. 8 with $1.5 million Friday from 2,050 dates for what will probably be a $5.2M weekend. The $30M negative cost film should end up with $23M domestic box office gross by the end of its North American run. That means, with a $25M P&A investment and Lionsgate's distribution fees, the film won't recoup.
Another loss on another attempt to force the Left's miserable values down America's throat - will Hollywood ever learn?
Ah...no.
Because liberals never learn; because their ideology trumpets reality, hence Obama's desire - and the entire Democratic Party's desire - to remake America in the shape of such succeses as Chicago, Detroit, and - what the hell - New Jersey...
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Obama as Carter, Redux
Victor Davis Hanson mocks the gutless "conservatives" who have run wailing into Obama's embrace, and reminds them with whom they seek solace:
Why do so many conservatives think that an Obama-elect might be prove a centrist, and so why do they use phrases like “I pray” or “I hope” that Obama might turn out, well, not to be Obama?
Jimmy Carter did exactly what he promised: raised taxes, grew the government, told the world he had no inordinate fear of communism, trashed our allies as retrograde right-wing authoritarians—and we got the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage-taking (have we forgotten that the “Great Satan” originated as a slur against Nobel laureate Carter?), communism in Central America, the Cambodian Holocaust, and spikes of 12% inflation, 18% interest, and 7% unemployment.
So why would any conservative think that Obama—friend of Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright, veteran of mysterious campaigns in which rivals in 1996 and 2004 simply dropped out or were forced out, erstwhile advocate of repealing NAFTA, controlling guns, stopping new drilling and nuclear plants, zealot for bringing all troops home by March 2008, advocate of a trillion dollars in new spending, and raising the tax burden on the 5% who now pay 60% of the aggregate income taxes, supporter of more oppression studies and racial reparations—would not likewise try to govern as he has lived the last 20 years?
Why would anyone think that an Obama would not wish to enact the visions of those who first backed him—the Moveon.org crowd, ACORN, The Huffington Post, Sen. Reid, Rep. Pelosi, a Chris Dodd or Barney Frank—rather than the late pilers-on like Colin Powell or Scott McClellan?
Two thoughts:
-A second Carter term is terrifying. The two greatest threats to the United States in the last decade have been the Taliban (see September 11th, 2001) and Iran (promising a second and better Holocaust - soon!). Both regimes are creations of the foreign-policy miscues of the Carter Administration. WIll we be suffering from Barack Obama's foolishness in 2035?
-The Left can take Colin Powell and his bandwagon-jumping ilk - we have Joe Lieberman, the Last Honest Man in American politics. And his spirit and his soul by our side is worth more than all the carpet-baggers Obama can collect.
Meanwhile, I hope McCain is keeping a list. 'Cause when he wins the election, I want these valueless tools to banished for life from the corridors of power....
Why do so many conservatives think that an Obama-elect might be prove a centrist, and so why do they use phrases like “I pray” or “I hope” that Obama might turn out, well, not to be Obama?
Jimmy Carter did exactly what he promised: raised taxes, grew the government, told the world he had no inordinate fear of communism, trashed our allies as retrograde right-wing authoritarians—and we got the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, the Iranian hostage-taking (have we forgotten that the “Great Satan” originated as a slur against Nobel laureate Carter?), communism in Central America, the Cambodian Holocaust, and spikes of 12% inflation, 18% interest, and 7% unemployment.
So why would any conservative think that Obama—friend of Ayers, Khalidi, Meeks, Pfleger, and Wright, veteran of mysterious campaigns in which rivals in 1996 and 2004 simply dropped out or were forced out, erstwhile advocate of repealing NAFTA, controlling guns, stopping new drilling and nuclear plants, zealot for bringing all troops home by March 2008, advocate of a trillion dollars in new spending, and raising the tax burden on the 5% who now pay 60% of the aggregate income taxes, supporter of more oppression studies and racial reparations—would not likewise try to govern as he has lived the last 20 years?
Why would anyone think that an Obama would not wish to enact the visions of those who first backed him—the Moveon.org crowd, ACORN, The Huffington Post, Sen. Reid, Rep. Pelosi, a Chris Dodd or Barney Frank—rather than the late pilers-on like Colin Powell or Scott McClellan?
Two thoughts:
-A second Carter term is terrifying. The two greatest threats to the United States in the last decade have been the Taliban (see September 11th, 2001) and Iran (promising a second and better Holocaust - soon!). Both regimes are creations of the foreign-policy miscues of the Carter Administration. WIll we be suffering from Barack Obama's foolishness in 2035?
-The Left can take Colin Powell and his bandwagon-jumping ilk - we have Joe Lieberman, the Last Honest Man in American politics. And his spirit and his soul by our side is worth more than all the carpet-baggers Obama can collect.
Meanwhile, I hope McCain is keeping a list. 'Cause when he wins the election, I want these valueless tools to banished for life from the corridors of power....
Why McCain Will Win
A number of good points from the American Thinker:
Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.
What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose.
This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.
Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.
Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.
The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.
All I can tell you is that today, driving through a number of towns in central Blue Jersey, McCain/Palin signs outnumbered Obama signs by a ratio of 4-1, maybe better.
Obama will win Jersey, The Machine here will see to that. But it will be close, closer than the polls tell you, and if the Republicans in this browbeaten liberal hellhole are stirring and arisng, what's going to happen on Election Day in the swing states?
Obama's in trouble; and even if he doesn't know it, I think the media is getting a whiff, even if they refuse to cover it. Hence the hysterical reporting on Sarah Palin's shoes...
Who else is starting to smell liberal desperation in the air?
Republicans and conservatives continue to allow themselves to be unduly influenced, and even demoralized, by what they read and hear in the big city newspapers and on network television.
What are they reading and hearing? That Barack Obama will be the next President of the United States. It's inevitable. It's his election to lose.
This is the "narrative" that the mainstream media has been imposing on this year's presidential campaign almost from the start. Remember how quickly the MSM jumped off the Hillary Clinton bandwagon and onto Obama's? Remember how annoyed and angry they became as Hillary refused to concede the nomination? The MSM decided that electing the nation's first black, socialist, anti-American president was politically and historically more important (and, for them, more exciting) than electing the nation's first female, socialist, patriotic president. And they are doing everything they can to achieve this goal.
Well, there is another story out there that the MSM refuses to address. A huge story. One that could, and I think will, significantly affect the outcome of this race. I'm referring to the widespread phenomenon of registered Democrats openly supporting John McCain. There are numerous "Democrats for McCain" type organizations. There are numerous websites and blogs written by Democrats touting McCain's candidacy. There are pro-McCain grassroots efforts being led by Democrats. And we all know friends or relatives who are Democrats, who voted for John Kerry in 2004, and who are no fans of President Bush - but who are going to vote for John McCain this year.
Let's not forget that during the Democratic primaries - real elections, not polls - Hillary crushed Obama among white working-class and middle-class voters in such key states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia. If a meaningful number of these voters end up voting for McCain, as I predict they will, then Obama's smooth road to the White House is going to run smack into a brick wall.
The point is simple: Don't believe the Obama hype coming out of the mainstream media. If the media were truly objective and unbiased, they would be covering the race much differently. Instead of trying to browbeat the country into voting for Obama, they would be analyzing the issues and factors that favor and disfavor both candidates. Instead of focusing on college students and intellectuals, they would be focusing on working-class and middle-class voters, especially "Hillary Democrats." These voters may very well determine the election. Yet this huge story is being ignored by the MSM.
All I can tell you is that today, driving through a number of towns in central Blue Jersey, McCain/Palin signs outnumbered Obama signs by a ratio of 4-1, maybe better.
Obama will win Jersey, The Machine here will see to that. But it will be close, closer than the polls tell you, and if the Republicans in this browbeaten liberal hellhole are stirring and arisng, what's going to happen on Election Day in the swing states?
Obama's in trouble; and even if he doesn't know it, I think the media is getting a whiff, even if they refuse to cover it. Hence the hysterical reporting on Sarah Palin's shoes...
Who else is starting to smell liberal desperation in the air?
Threats and Hatred from the Obama Brigades...
...the Left has always had more hatred and bloodlust in them (see Stalin, Josef and Pot, Pol) and it runs in the blood of the Obama Nation as well. Their natural urge to silence the truth, especially if it reflects poorly on Dear Leader, can be seen as clearly now in modern-day America as it has been seen in the past in Europe and Southeast Asia.
Interestingly enough, the latest threats are all about those pesky polls:
After releasing this morning’s numbers showing McCain ahead in Ohio and Florida, the Strategic Vision polling company received several death threats through the contact e-mail on the company’s web site.
One of the messages stated:
My goodness, your polls stinks. There are 3 polls that have Obama by double digits and only yours has Obama down. WOW!. How come your poll is the only one giving Palin high favor ratings? I think you nee dto be careful tonight when you get in your car and might want to check underneath your car. SCRAP YOUR IDIOTIC POLLS OR ELSE!
Another stated:
A poll that gave Sarah Palin and Barack Obama the same favorability rating is wrong off the bat. Be careful going outside tonight because you might not see tomorrow.
A third message stated:
Why would your presidential election poll results be so drastically different from every other reputable poll taken over the same time period? Are they that dumb or are you guys that smart? Smart guys wind up dead.
No wonder the polls differ so widely - depends on who's getting the visit from Obama's henchmen on any particular day, I guess...
Long post on the perils and problems of polling here...
Interestingly enough, the latest threats are all about those pesky polls:
After releasing this morning’s numbers showing McCain ahead in Ohio and Florida, the Strategic Vision polling company received several death threats through the contact e-mail on the company’s web site.
One of the messages stated:
My goodness, your polls stinks. There are 3 polls that have Obama by double digits and only yours has Obama down. WOW!. How come your poll is the only one giving Palin high favor ratings? I think you nee dto be careful tonight when you get in your car and might want to check underneath your car. SCRAP YOUR IDIOTIC POLLS OR ELSE!
Another stated:
A poll that gave Sarah Palin and Barack Obama the same favorability rating is wrong off the bat. Be careful going outside tonight because you might not see tomorrow.
A third message stated:
Why would your presidential election poll results be so drastically different from every other reputable poll taken over the same time period? Are they that dumb or are you guys that smart? Smart guys wind up dead.
No wonder the polls differ so widely - depends on who's getting the visit from Obama's henchmen on any particular day, I guess...
Long post on the perils and problems of polling here...
The Blood Of Lincoln...
...runs through the veins of any American who pulls the lever for a good Republican.
Lincoln (if ever there was an American archetype, it is he) was onced faced with a similar chorus of doom and defeat as today's Republicans are bombarded with, a mere eleven days prior to the 2008 election. And as always, The Great Emancipator provides us with guidance in our darkest moment...as in 1839, as in today:
On December 26, 1839, responding to the confident prediction of one of his political opponents "that every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van Buren at the next Presidential election" and that Lincoln's opposition to the Van Buren forces was therefore bound to be in vain, Lincoln responded:
"Address that argument to cowards and to knaves; with the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It may be true; if it must, let it...The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just...Let none falter, who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if after all, we shall fail, be it so."
As it happens, the Whig ticket Lincoln supported won that 1840 election. So might the party of Lincoln again.
I will not let Honest Abe down on Election Day 2008. If indeed it comes to defeat, I will know at least I honored his memory, I will have defied the "cowards and knaves", and I have done what was Right.
Lincoln (if ever there was an American archetype, it is he) was onced faced with a similar chorus of doom and defeat as today's Republicans are bombarded with, a mere eleven days prior to the 2008 election. And as always, The Great Emancipator provides us with guidance in our darkest moment...as in 1839, as in today:
On December 26, 1839, responding to the confident prediction of one of his political opponents "that every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van Buren at the next Presidential election" and that Lincoln's opposition to the Van Buren forces was therefore bound to be in vain, Lincoln responded:
"Address that argument to cowards and to knaves; with the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It may be true; if it must, let it...The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not to deter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just...Let none falter, who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if after all, we shall fail, be it so."
As it happens, the Whig ticket Lincoln supported won that 1840 election. So might the party of Lincoln again.
I will not let Honest Abe down on Election Day 2008. If indeed it comes to defeat, I will know at least I honored his memory, I will have defied the "cowards and knaves", and I have done what was Right.
Friday, October 24, 2008
Barney Frank: Raise Taxes, Defund the Military !
I kid you not. This is the future of America under the auspices of the far-left wing of the Democratic Party...Barney Frank speaks from the bottom of the barrel:
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will "eventually" raise taxes.
Frank told the editorial board of the SouthCoast Standard-Times that he wanted to reduce defense spending by a quarter, meaning the United States would have to withdraw from Iraq sooner.
"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary."
Frank also said the post-election stimulus package will focus on spending for building projects, extending unemployment benefits, and further supporting states' healthcare costs. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately," Frank said. "Not now, but eventually." Frank told the Standard-Times that if Democrats cannot secure the votes they need in November, they will try again in January, when they will likely have stronger majorities in the House and Senate.
He's lying about Iraq, but who's gonna call him on it?
Bush would never sign such a bill, but Barack Obama would, in a heartbeat - it's the bill he has been dreaming about all his adult life...
Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.) said Democrats will push for a stimulus package after the November election, and called for a package reducing defense spending by 25 percent while saying Congress will "eventually" raise taxes.
Frank told the editorial board of the SouthCoast Standard-Times that he wanted to reduce defense spending by a quarter, meaning the United States would have to withdraw from Iraq sooner.
"The people of Iraq want us out, and we want to stay over their objection," he said. "It's extraordinary."
Frank also said the post-election stimulus package will focus on spending for building projects, extending unemployment benefits, and further supporting states' healthcare costs. "We'll have to raise taxes ultimately," Frank said. "Not now, but eventually." Frank told the Standard-Times that if Democrats cannot secure the votes they need in November, they will try again in January, when they will likely have stronger majorities in the House and Senate.
He's lying about Iraq, but who's gonna call him on it?
Bush would never sign such a bill, but Barack Obama would, in a heartbeat - it's the bill he has been dreaming about all his adult life...
Krauthammer Skewers The One
On why voting for Barack Obama is dangerously, criminally, insane:
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who’s been cramming on these issues for the last year, who’s never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign-policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of “a world that stands as one”), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as “the tragedy of 9/11,” a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
There’s just no comparison. Obama’s own running mate warned this week that Obama’s youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis “generated” precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on November 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he’s been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it, and — finally — deny its success. The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor...
Let us pray...
Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who’s been cramming on these issues for the last year, who’s never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign-policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of “a world that stands as one”), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as “the tragedy of 9/11,” a term more appropriate for a bus accident?
There’s just no comparison. Obama’s own running mate warned this week that Obama’s youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis “generated” precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on November 4 to invite that test?
And how will he pass it? Well, how has he fared on the only two significant foreign policy tests he has faced since he’s been in the Senate? The first was the surge. Obama failed spectacularly. He not only opposed it. He tried to denigrate it, stop it, and — finally — deny its success. The second test was Georgia, to which Obama responded instinctively with evenhanded moral equivalence, urging restraint on both sides. McCain did not have to consult his advisers to instantly identify the aggressor...
Let us pray...
Palin Guarantees Pennsylvania Triumph!
My last hero to guarentee a victory was Mark Messier, prior to game six of the NHL Eastern Final between the Rangers and the Devils. He came through, the Rangers won, and Messier is legend in New York, now and evermore.Can Sarah Palin achieve that lofty status? She invokes the most famous sports guarantee of all time, made by the bushy-haired, sideburn-sportin', pantyhose-wearing quarterback of the upstart New Jork Jets back in '69:
“This morning we were in Ohio, we were in the home of Joe the Plumber,” Palin said to a crowd of supporters packed onto the football field of Beaver Area High School near Pittsburgh, Pa., this evening. “And now, we are here in Beaver County, Pa., home of Joe the Quarterback.”....
“Now, Joe Namath is probably a little bit before your time,” Palin said to the high school students in the crowd. “But do you remember, though, in the biggest game of his life, all the experts had Joe Namath and the Jets written off to defeat? They were up against the elite team that had all the money, and they were held in awe by the media. And Broadway Joe replied, 'we’re gonna win the game, I guarantee it.' And they won.
“And I hope Joe won’t mind if I paraphrase him some in this state, his home state, Pennsylvania, with your help, we’re going to win this state. I guarantee it,” Palin said to wild applause.
Broadway Joe was a 16 point dog going in, about where the media likes to peg McCain/Palin (despite numerous polls to the contrary). Should John and Sarah pull this off, she will go down in the history books as having fulfilled the most audacious guarantee in political history...
Wanna "Kill" Sarah Palin? A-OK in Brooklyn !
Ah, "progressives". I see them all the time in New York City; noses held a bit higher, quoting from Smugopedia, wearing "Obama" pins with a look that says, "C'mon, just try to challenge me and my button!"...a brave attitude in a city where 90% of the population has got your philosophical back...
As we all know, artists are the vanguard of the progressive movement, celebrated and understood in a way that simple, base, conservatives could never wrap their minds around. And maybe that's why I can't understand this - via Pagen Power:
Imagine for a moment that you have an opportunity to pretend you are killing Sarah Palin. Would you do it? Would it be cool with your morals? After all, it’s only imaginary.
Well an artist in New York City has thought all this through and decided that shooting Sarah or her daughter Piper might just be great fun. This woman has made it possible for passersby to line up with a gun and pretend they are doing just that. What’s the harm? It’s only make believe.
As we all know, artists are the vanguard of the progressive movement, celebrated and understood in a way that simple, base, conservatives could never wrap their minds around. And maybe that's why I can't understand this - via Pagen Power:
Imagine for a moment that you have an opportunity to pretend you are killing Sarah Palin. Would you do it? Would it be cool with your morals? After all, it’s only imaginary.
Well an artist in New York City has thought all this through and decided that shooting Sarah or her daughter Piper might just be great fun. This woman has made it possible for passersby to line up with a gun and pretend they are doing just that. What’s the harm? It’s only make believe.
Yeah, well. Imagine the outcry from the media if we were pointing that gun at Obama's image, or had a diorama with an Obama doll, a white hood, and a noose. The media would be screaming in full throat about the racist right.
But to pretend your are killing the Vice Presidential candidate, who may be the first woman to obtain high office? A-OK with the MSM.
Why?
Because the Left (and the media, and much of the elected Democrats in power) hate for hate's sake. Sarah Palin represents an existential threat (successful career woman/mom living by conservative values), one that liberals cannot rationally argue against - without simultaneously burying their own Supreme Leader - so, like haters throughout history, they dehuminize her so their bile is more palatable (just like the Germans did to the....).
She's a hick. A redneck. An idiot. Evil. Dumb. Unqualified. She doesn't even count as a woman - after all, she's a conservative woman - therefore, is nothing wrong at all to act out her murder in public (in front of her daughter, also in the picture).
And we are about to put the very people who appreciate this "art" into control of all three brances of our government.
Remember: First they came for Sarah Palin...
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Obama as the Pied Piper
Well, based on Barack Obama (and Barney Frank's) rhetoric, we've finally found a minority that is politically correct to abuse: the rich!
Well, there's only one little problem with that, as the late Robert Heinlein points out:
Once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.
Without arguing the "franchise" aspect of this comment, the point - that if the majority bleeds the minority of wealth producers dry, whom will there be to create wealth in the first place - is one that has been proven again and again in history. Hence the walls that need to surround most communist/socialist states....
This is the road of our Pied Piper - aka Barack Obama. Should this nation follow him down the path, dancing to his tune of envy and wealth confiscation, we will have no one to blame but ourselves should we disappear forever.
Incidentally, Barney Frank's quote is as follows:
Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money...
Yeah. And when the rich bail out for the Canary Islands, where are you going to "recover the money" from? Middle class, hold onto your wallets...
Well, there's only one little problem with that, as the late Robert Heinlein points out:
Once a state extends the franchise to every warm body, be he producer or parasite, that day marks the beginning of the end of the state. For when the plebs discover that they can vote themselves bread and circuses without limit and that the productive members of the body politic cannot stop them, they will do so, until the state bleeds to death, or in its weakened condition the state succumbs to an invader — the barbarians enter Rome.
Without arguing the "franchise" aspect of this comment, the point - that if the majority bleeds the minority of wealth producers dry, whom will there be to create wealth in the first place - is one that has been proven again and again in history. Hence the walls that need to surround most communist/socialist states....
This is the road of our Pied Piper - aka Barack Obama. Should this nation follow him down the path, dancing to his tune of envy and wealth confiscation, we will have no one to blame but ourselves should we disappear forever.
Incidentally, Barney Frank's quote is as follows:
Speaking personally, I think there are a lot of very rich people out there whom we can tax at a point down the road and recover some of the money...
Yeah. And when the rich bail out for the Canary Islands, where are you going to "recover the money" from? Middle class, hold onto your wallets...
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Will Obama Take Control of the Internet?
Well, it seems as if Barack Obama has long called for an effort for nationalized broadband access...from his site:
"...let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.”
"Let's" meaning the government, funded by you, of course. Anyway - Say Anything brings up some salient points:
Wouldn’t it just be cheaper to let private enterprise handle internet access? And wouldn’t government-run internet be sort of like government-run postal service? Do we really want our internet experience to be about like our post office experience?
Betcha Obama thinks the Post Office runs just fine, thank you, and wishes he could set up 100 similar agencies to do 100 similar jobs that the private sector does just fine. But maybe Obama has a different motive?
The FCC is already pushing plans for a national wireless internet access initiative, and if that happened that would probably mean that the agency would want to extend the same sort of content controls it exercises over broadcast television and radio to the internet. Obama’s plan could come with the same sort of regulation.
Given Obama’s penchant for using lawyers and thug tactics to pressure and intimidate people he disagrees with, how much of a stretch is it to believe that an Obama administration would implement strict new regulations on online free speech?
Between the ObamaNet and a reinstated Fairness Doctrine, I am sure the First Amendment will fare just fine under a Democratic-controlled federal government...
"...let's lay down broadband lines through the heart of inner cities and rural towns all across America.”
"Let's" meaning the government, funded by you, of course. Anyway - Say Anything brings up some salient points:
Wouldn’t it just be cheaper to let private enterprise handle internet access? And wouldn’t government-run internet be sort of like government-run postal service? Do we really want our internet experience to be about like our post office experience?
Betcha Obama thinks the Post Office runs just fine, thank you, and wishes he could set up 100 similar agencies to do 100 similar jobs that the private sector does just fine. But maybe Obama has a different motive?
The FCC is already pushing plans for a national wireless internet access initiative, and if that happened that would probably mean that the agency would want to extend the same sort of content controls it exercises over broadcast television and radio to the internet. Obama’s plan could come with the same sort of regulation.
Given Obama’s penchant for using lawyers and thug tactics to pressure and intimidate people he disagrees with, how much of a stretch is it to believe that an Obama administration would implement strict new regulations on online free speech?
Between the ObamaNet and a reinstated Fairness Doctrine, I am sure the First Amendment will fare just fine under a Democratic-controlled federal government...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)