Lessons in Government - Page 5
Two Quotes: One Pitiful, One Good
'My friends, we live in the greatest nation in the history of the world. I hope you'll join with me as we try to change it.' -- Barrack Obama
'Life's tough.....it's even tougher if you're stupid.' -- John Wayne
John McCain: The Geraldo Rivera Republican
By Michelle Malkin
January 23, 2008
Editor's Note: The following column contains language that may be offensive to some readers.
After spearheading a disastrous, security-undermining illegal alien amnesty bill last year with Teddy Kennedy, "straight-talking" GOP Sen. John McCain claims he has seen the light. In TV appearances, he vows to put immigration enforcement first. On the campaign trail, he offers a perfunctory promise to strengthen border security and emphasizes the need to restore Americans' trust in their government's ability to defend the homeland.
"I got the message," he told voters in South Carolina. "We will secure the borders first."
But how can McCain cure citizens' distrust when his own credibility on the issue remains fatally damaged? He doesn't believe his own election-year spin. And he knows we know it. This is cynicism on steroids with a speedball chaser.
Not all of us have forgotten how the short-fused Arizona senator cursed good-faith opponents in his own party ("F**k you!" and "Chickensh*t" were the choice words he had for Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn during a spat over enforcement provisions). Not all of us have forgotten that he voted against barring felons from receiving amnesty benefits under his plan. Not all of us have forgotten the underhanded, debate-sabotaging manner in which McCain/Kennedy/Lindsey Graham/Harry Reid conspired to ram their package down voters' throats.
His admission of the shamnesty failure is grudging and bitter. While he now tells conservative voters what they want to hear about the need to build the southern border fence, he takes a contemptuous tone toward physical barriers when talking to businessmen. "By the way, I think the fence is least effective," he told executives in Milwaukee, according to a recent Vanity Fair profile. "But I'll build the goddamned fence if they want it." Straight talk? Try hate talk.
For all his supposed newfound enlightenment about what most Americans want -- protection against invasion, commitment to the rule of law, meaningful employer sanctions, an end to sanctuary cities, enforcement-by-attrition plus deportation reform, and an end to special illegal alien benefits that invite more law-breaking -- The Maverick remains a Geraldo Rivera Republican. Like the ethnocentric cable TV host who can't string a sentence about immigration together without drowning in demagoguery, McCain naturally resorts to open-borders platitudes when pressed for enforcement specifics.
Instead of emphasizing the need for local and state cooperation with federal immigration authorities to prevent the release of illegal alien criminals or discussing 100 percent preventable crimes by illegal alien thugs who should never have been on American soil in the first place, McCain harps on open-borders sob stories. Several times over the past year, in response to citizen questioners who have expressed frustration with the lack of accountability for immigration law-breakers, McCain has responded: "I am not going to call up a soldier and tell him I am deporting his mother. ... I'm not going to do it. You can do it."
But what if that mother had stolen an American citizen's Social Security number to work here illegally? What if she had been previously deported, re-entered illegally, and had been convicted of previous crimes? What if she were part of a human smuggling ring? What if she had been working in a sensitive area -- airport security, a military base, a port? Would he still refuse to abide by his constitutional obligation to provide for the common defense and secure the blessings of liberty for law-abiding Americans?
If McCain refuses to enforce immigration law against illegal alien parents of soldiers, what about illegal alien soldiers who used stolen or fake identification to get into the military? And why only illegal alien parents of soldiers? Why not illegal alien parents of police officers, teachers, doctors and store owners? McCain's selective enforcement policy is the exact recipe for immigration anarchy that we have today.
The hothead has succeeded in intimidating voters and eluding tough questions from the press by playing his rhetorical violin. There is a reason so many liberals in the media and the Democratic Party want John McCain to be the GOP presidential nominee. He gives them cover to continue smearing grassroots conservatives.
In Michigan, the illegal alien parent-of-a-soldier story was met with boos. McCain's cheerleaders at The New York Times and other press outlets attempted to depict the detractors as insensitive and racist boors -- just as they did during last year's ill-fated shamnesty campaign.
McCain has learned nothing. What about us?
Bipartisan Primary Blues: In defense of smoke-filled rooms
By Thomas Sowell
Leaders of the Democratic party and much of the media are wringing their hands over what to do about Democratic voters in Florida and Michigan, in order not to leave them out of the process of picking a nominee, which might alienate them as far as the general election in November is concerned.
Like so many things that politicians do that end up in a tangled mess, the current rules and practices may have been things that “seemed like a good idea at the time.”
There might be a lesson there about not getting carried away with rhetoric, and about the need to stop and think through the consequences before the consequences overwhelm you.
Do we want the magic words of “universal health care” to end up in a similar tangled mess — as it has already in some other countries — while we end up saying, “it seemed like a good idea at the time”?
The idea behind letting “the people” decide whom the Democratic party should nominate for president of the United States was that such things should not be decided behind closed doors by party bigwigs in the proverbial smoke-filled room.
But, in this context and in many others, the question must be asked: Who are “the people”?
We are not talking about the American people as a whole or even a majority of the members of a given party. We are talking about those who happen to show up on primary election day or at the caucuses, including in some states people who are registered members of the opposition party.
Not only in primary elections, but in other local elections — and especially in off-year local elections — vested interests such as the teachers’ union can get a big turnout that can give a disproportionate weight to people who are nowhere near a majority but who can win big time with one-fourth or less of the electorate.
Is that the voice of “the people”?
As far as party primaries are concerned, both Republican- and Democratic-party primaries are dominated by the most zealous voters, whose views may not reflect the views of most members of their own respective parties, much less the views of those who are going to vote in the November general election.
In recent times, each election year has seen each party’s nominee selected — or at least subject to veto — by its most extreme wing and then forced to try to move back to the center before the general election.
This can only undermine the public’s confidence in the integrity of the candidates of both parties.
Back in the bad old days of the smoke-filled rooms, people with a long-term stake in their party had to take into account what the American public at large wanted, because that would determine who would actually get elected to the White House and the Congress, who in turn would then decide who would be put on the federal courts across the land, including the Supreme Court.
It is by no means clear that “the people” voting in primaries have made better choices than those made in the smoke-filled rooms. More important, those who regard the present system as sacrosanct don’t even want to make such a comparison.
It is questionable whether any of the three candidates still viable in the Republican or Democratic parties would have been chosen by either party if those with a long-run stake in the future of those parties had made the decision.
All three candidates have a lot of baggage.
Nevertheless, no one dares change the rules in the middle of the game. The big question, however, is whether either party’s leaders will have the courage to change the rules after this fall’s election.
Back in 1944, the Democratic party’s leaders, knowing that President Franklin D. Roosevelt was in such frail health that he was not likely to live out his next term, decided that the choice of vice-presidential nominee was too important to let go by default to the current vice president, Henry Wallace.
They proposed that little-known senator Harry Truman be put on the ticket
instead, and FDR went along with it. You would have to know what a dingbat
Henry Wallace was to realize how the smoke-filled room saved this nation
President Obama and the Coming Stock Market Crash
How destructive to the U.S. economy would a Barack Obama presidency be? An exclusive Newsmax analysis warns: There could be a very rough time ahead.
Beneath Obama's flowery rhetoric lies a dangerous economic plan that will wreak havoc on the American economy. Obama plans to return to the failed policies of high taxation coupled with an expansion of government spending. Worse, Obama says he is absolutely committed to almost doubling the capital gains rate — something he will easily accomplish with a Democrat Congress.
In the coming months — when investors realize that Obama will raise the cap gains rate — there could be a stampede of asset sales as investors rush to take their profits now to avoid Obama's doubling of the tax rates next year.
All of these issues and more are explored in Newsmax magazine's special report "Obamanomics — the Coming Tax-and-Spend Nightmare," by Wall Street Journal John Fund. This Newsmax magazine special report gives Americans the first in-depth look at the Democratic presidential candidate's likely strategies — and how they will affect not just the larger economy, but your personal wealth as well.
Indeed, Obama makes no bones about his plans to go on a tax rampage. Not only would he increase the capital-gains tax rate from 15 percent to as much as 28 percent, he wants to allow the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010, which effectively raises taxes on Americans by tens of billions of dollars.
He also wants to do away with the $102,000 FICA payroll tax cap, which means anyone making over $102,000 would pay an additional 7 percent in taxes on earned income -- and the loan dividend tax rate George Bush implemented? Under President Obama it will be DOA!
If you are concerned about your wealth and family's financial well-being — and that the American economy remains strong — you must read this special report and share it with friends and family.
How Obama's policies could cost more than $850 billion over four years
The dire repercussions of Obama's minimum wage proposal for small businesses and retail outlets
Obama aides' private and very revealing admission about the candidate's economic savvy
The surprising revelation when Barack's own tax returns were reviewed by an expert
The "proof" that Obama will kowtow to organized labor
Obama's Social Security plan: a giant income-redistribution scheme
How Obama's policies could boost some tax rates to 60 percent
Leading economist Arthur Laffer's warning on Obamanomics
Obama's policies point by point on energy, healthcare, regulation, and the housing crisis
Who would lose under Obama's tax proposals — and who would win
How Barack "flunked" an easy question on capital gains
The Democrat's contradictory statements on tax increases
Why Obama's campaign against special interests would backfire
Obama's plan to double America's foreign aid
How Obama's trade policies would damage U.S. multinationals
Obama's embarrassing denial regarding NAFTA
The National Taxpayers Union's Obama rating: just 5 percent
Obama's misguided views on technology's future
How the Democrat would undermine private sector healthcare
Obama's tactics — old left-wing populist, Marxist ploys
Obama Explains National Anthem Stance
Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn't follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171...... During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.
'As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song 'I'd Like to Teach the World to Sing.' If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.'
WHAT? Yes, ladies and gentlemen, this could possibly be our next president!
Black America Tricked by Obama & White Policticians
By Frosty Wooldridge
January 21, 2008
“Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.” – Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Senator Barack Obama voted for the June 2007 immigration amnesty that doubled current immigration levels to two million annually. He voted for complete amnesty for in excess of 20 million illegal aliens. He voted for the Dream Act that took millions of dollars out of the hands of black American college kids’ hands—only to give it to illegal alien students. Fortunately, senators under enormous pressure from American voters defeated both bills.
What’s the problem here? Barack Obama represents the best of African-Americans. Yet, he fails black America miserably! He stands in favor of flooding this country with lower wage labor that destroys any chance for African-Americans to gain a living wage.
What happens from his actions as well as white politicians?
On Friday, January 18, 2008, Rocky Mountain News journalist Tillie Fong reported, “Homeless given shelter from bitter cold” in Denver Colorado. A picture showed 95 percent of the homeless as Black Coloradan Americans on their way to the shelter.
National figures show over 1.1 million homeless on our streets at any one moment in America. Over 13 million American minority children live below the poverty level.
So, why won’t Obama and white politicians address the fact that in many areas of America, 50 percent of Black Americans cannot find a job? More troubling, 40 to 50 percent of black students fail to graduate from high school depending on state to state statistics. As their family units breaks down, 50 percent suffer out-of-wedlock birth rates?
That dilemma drives more black Americans into welfare rolls, soup kitchens and homeless shelters. It places their children into survival mode of drugs, violence and economic dead ends.
Barbara Coe, of www.ccir.net in California, sent me a distressing notice last week concerning African-Americans.
It read, “In many areas of the country, male African-American unemployment hovers around fifty percent. Many black voters, who have the most to lose, support illegal aliens. Many black politicians support massive immigration and amnesty for illegal aliens even though mass unskilled immigration has dramatic impact on their constituents. While many black families live in poverty throughout America, black politicians are eager to import more poor people who will compete head-to-head for jobs at the lower end of the economic scale. African-Americans are getting misled by their own politicians on a grand scale.
”Legal and illegal immigration has undercut blacks from the jobs they once held in meat plants, service industries and on construction crews. In many cases those were union jobs that paid good wages with full benefits. Now those jobs go to illegal aliens who work for pennies above the minimum wage. Yet from black politicians nary a peep is heard. One explanation is that many black politicians are wealthy and couldn’t care less about the working stiff. Having to compete for jobs with 12-30 million illegal aliens is something few black politicians will be faced with but millions of black and low income Americans will.”
Why do George Bush and Congress support 572,000 troops on 700 bases in 120 countries around the world that cost U.S. taxpayers over $1 trillion annually—but neglect American citizens as collateral damage inside our own country? Ask yourself why Bush supported an immigration bill that doubled current immigration from one to two million annually?
Why do our leaders drown this country with millions of low wage workers when our own citizens hang in the balance? Why prop up Iraq with $2 billion spent weekly for a country that doesn’t want us on their soil? Why do we do it without end while our citizens suffer terrific hardship within our own country?
The irony brings me to Dr. Martin Luther King’s quote! “Our lives begin to end the day we become silent about things that matter.”
Why would Obama ignore the most vulnerable Americans? Why do Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson say nothing and do nothing about unrelenting, unending immigration? What about Dingell, Jefferson, Young and other Black leaders twiddling their thumbs while their constituents languish in soup kitchens, homeless shelters or cardboard boxes under bridges as you read this column?
Two great African-Americans stand up where Obama retreats. Talk show host Terry Anderson and political candidate Ted Hayes in Los Angeles, California speak to black Americans on what they face from the Mexican invasion.
For the past several years, Hayes, a 56-year-old lean and lanky activist, tried to inspire blacks against illegal immigration with fiery appearances on national TV, protest marches, civil disobedience and leadership of Choose Black America, an anti-illegal immigration organization launched and financially supported by the Federation for American Immigration Reform.
"Illegal immigration is the greatest threat to blacks since slavery," Hayes declared at a recent Choose Black America meeting in Inglewood. "Immigrants got our jobs, the hospitals, the schools. Black folks can't compete."
If we continue flooding our country with the poor of other countries, we’ll mushroom the juggernaut of poor in our nation. If we continue ignoring poor Americans while we meddle in other countries’ business—we fail the original intent of our founders of this Constitutional Republic.
One last thought! If we continue adding the poor of other countries, at some point, they grow old without any means of supporting themselves—which will create a whole new form of class poverty. It will prove intractable and unsolvable beyond soup kitchens, homeless shelters and boxes under bridges.
Something grows horribly wrong with the United States of America.
BLACK, WHITE, BROWN AND ISLAMIC AMERICA
By Frosty Wooldridge
March 20, 2008
For the past 20 years and today, presidential candidate Barack Obama attended(s) a Chicago church where Pastor Jeremiah Wright rails against our country by stating in his sermons, “Instead of God bless America, I say, God d**** America.”
With the pews packed, Wright’s vitriolic orations ring to the rafters and black American church-goers cheer, clap and sing against their own country. The venom expressed inside those church walls contradicts everything Jesus Christ expressed in his ministry. Jesus called for forgiveness, understanding, respect and love of your fellow man.
Yet, in the United States, a country populated by people from over 100 countries, Wright condemns everything American. He condemns white people as the scourge of the United States. He blames whites for every short-falling of blacks in America. Never once does Wright mention personal responsibility.
For 20 years Obama supported that kind of rhetoric with thousands of dollars, with marrying his wife and baptizing his two children in that church where so much anger spews out on a weekly basis.
In 2008, Obama wants to bring America together. He wants to mend the racial divide. The question jumps up at you: with anger, venom for one’s country and duplicity of Christ’s teachings?
This week, I talked with Chicagoan Jake Jacobsen of http://www.freedomfolks.com/ about events in the ‘Windy City’ that led up to this week’s expose’ of the Grand Canyon-sized racial divide facing that former all American city.
“Because of a massive influx of illegal aliens now numbering over 2.1 million and disenfranchised American blacks,” Jacobsen said, “we have three distinct sections in Chicago—black, white and brown. We have a perfect example of the results of multiculturalism. Nothing will bridge the gap between the races because the single most important ingredient missing is a common culture.”
To place this dilemma in greater perspective, the Washington, DC grapevine floats the idea that Obama will choose Hispanic Governor Bill Richardson (D-NM) as a vice-presidential running mate in order to sew up 99 percent of the black and Chicano vote.
To counter that, old man McCain may invite Colin Powell as a VP running mate to draw blacks back to the Republican side.
To make political intrigues more interesting, Oprah Winfrey may surprise everyone with a political bombshell of her own as she supports Obama.
Ironically, Obama, the result of a Muslim African-Kenyan father who did not enjoy American citizenship and a white mother, lived his first 10 years in Indonesia with a Muslim step-parent. In fact, Obama cannot be called an all American man. Further, much of what Pastor Wright spews during Sunday sermons reeks of Malcolm X and other Muslim anger.
If you look at the growing Muslim presence in Detroit, Michigan, you stand as an eye-witness to another section of non-American separation. As their numbers grow, we Americans may be surprised by ‘sudden jihad syndrome’ that Paris, France; London, England and Madrid, Spain experienced as their Islamic immigrants gained greater numbers. Their cultural anger bombed subways, trains and fire-bombed cities for weeks.
Multiculturalism equates with the same success as Marxism. It can only work with the power that comes out of the barrel of a gun.
We face growing millions of Mexican illegals waving their green, white and red flags while speaking their native language. They demand amnesty and full voting rights. They force their language and culture upon our nation at breakneck speed. We face millions of displaced, jobless American blacks suffering 50 percent high school drop out rates, 50 percent fatherless children and 50 percent without jobs. We face two to three million Muslim Americans, most born outside our country-- with their own kind of anger toward America as we bomb their Muslim brothers in Iraq and Afghanistan. Who knows how many Muslim ministers in those American mosques replicate Pastor Wright’s righteous indignation?
Finally, we see millions of white Americans hanging on by their fingernails as their jobs outsource, insource and offshore at the hands of Congress. We see foreclosures implode the middle class out of its own homes at record breaking rates. Meanwhile, the Iraq War costs that same middle class $12 billion a month with no end in sight while our borders remain wide open to facilitate another 9/11 event.
All the while, millions upon millions of Americans watch their nation swirl the drain with clueless apathy. And into the mix, we add another 2.5 to 3.0 million immigrants annually.
To that I pray, “God help America!”
"To sit back hoping that someday, someway, someone will make things right – is
to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last – but eat
you he will." ~ Ronald Reagan
WHAT TO DO WHEN YOU DON'T LIKE ANY OF THESE CANDIDATES
By Tom DeWeese
Hillary Clinton. John McCain. Barack Obama. Those are our choices for the next president of the United States. Are you happy with that selection? If not, what is your alternative? As the saying goes, “The lesser of two evils is still evil.”
Beyond the presidential race we have congressional candidates, governors, state legislators, county commissioners, mayors, and city council candidates. Are you happy with whom the parties have chosen to offer for election? If not, what’s your alternative?
The real issues of the day are not even being addressed in the campaigns. The falling dollar that will render our money worthless; the rising gas prices that grab the last of our worthless money; the invasion of illegal aliens that are changing our society; the globalization of our economy; assaults on our private property; the loss of American jobs to foreign countries; and now the threat of food shortages.
These are real problems facing every American, yet it is apparently politically incorrect to discuss them. There are no questions concerning these issues during debates, on Sunday morning political talk shows, or anywhere in the news media in relationship to the candidates. It’s not there. Not to be discussed. The powers in charge are picking the issues – no matter how frustrated the electorate is.
Is it any wonder that there are millions of Americans who don’t vote or participate in our nation’s debate because they think it doesn’t matter anyway. The “average voter” increasingly feels that the decisions have been made for them.
College students, just starting out in the world, wide eyed and ready to make a difference, end up just shrugging their shoulders at the selection of candidates and stay home.
Those who hold conservative points of view that our nation should live within the Constitution now believe socialism is inevitable, so why bother going to the polls.
And the poor think they are simply pawns in a vice grip between big money and special interests which control the elections. Why bother? Helplessness now rules the world’s greatest representative democracy. As people stay home or trudge to the polls to unenthusiastically vote to the next lesser of two evils, 93% of incumbents are routinely returned to office – year after year after year.
The instant a candidate is elected and joins the ranks of the incumbents he/she begins the dance. Get the money for the next campaign. How? Special interests groups, corporations and foreign interests flood into their offices to make deals, promote their personal agendas and show the way to fame, fortune and perpetual office – if only the incumbents go along. They have the whole process well in hand. Campaigns become little more than big PR projects, promoted in positive platitudes, specifically designed to assure nothing negative sticks. Just get through it and keep the gravy train running.
Above all, do not talk about controversial subjects like dollar values, global trade or immigration; just stick to issues like health care and the environment – coincidentally, two issues bought and paid for by the special interests. See how it works?
So year after year we officially hold elections and politicians pontificate about how our going to the polls is a revered right; a valued tradition; the underpinning of a free society. And they wonder why there is such division in the nation. How did we end up in such a mess? We voted for these guys. But did we enjoy it? Are we satisfied with the results? Would we like to demand a do over?
Don’t despair. Don’t give up. There is a logical, effective way out of this. But it won’t happen by depending on political parties to lead the way. We have to take things into our own hands. We need an effective, binding form of protest to say NO to bad candidates. There is such a way.
Imagine going into the voting booth and looking down the list of candidates offered. None really appeal. None seem to offer satisfaction as an answer to the issues that concern you. If only there was something else you could do. A write in won’t help. It would take such a difficult, expensive effort. It rarely works.
Then you look further down the ballot. Something new. It says “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” It’s a final choice after the candidates – after the candidates in every category, from president, to congress to city council. What does it mean?
It means you have the power to decide who will hold office – not the power brokers. When the votes are tallied, if “NONE OF THE ABOVE” gets a majority of votes over any of the candidates listed, then “NONE OF THE ABOVE” wins. And that means none of those candidates will win the office. The election will have to be held again and new candidates will have to try to win the public’s support.
Fixing the election process could be that simple. You, the voter, would be completely in the driver’s seat with the power to reject candidates, forcing a new election with new choices. The political parties would be forced to provide candidates the people want -- or face being rejected. They would have to talk about real issues – or face being rejected. Incumbents would have to answer for their actions in office – or face being rejected. “NONE OF THE ABOVE.” Period. The power of labor unions and international corporations would be broken.
Think of the consequences. No longer would voters have to settle for the lesser of two evils. If all the candidates are bad – none would be able to force their way into office. It would mean that powerful special interests could no longer rely on their money to buy elections. They could buy all the ads they wanted, spend millions on “volunteers” going door to door, and sling their dirt, but if the voters aren’t buying, none of it will save their candidate from being rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”
Moreover, the power of entrenched incumbents who have been unbeatable because of their massive war chests and party ties would be broken. Picture Ted Kennedy unable to run for office because he was rejected by “NONE OF THE ABOVE.”
However, in order to work, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” would have to be binding. It would have to have the power of law behind it. It cannot be just a “protest” vote that has no other meaning.
“NONE OF THE ABOVE” is completely non-partisan. There is no way to control its outcome. There is no need for a massive campaign chest to support “NONE OF THE ABOVE,” although it could certainly be done. But the option, once permanently placed on the ballot, would always be there. America’s representative system would be restored.
To get the job done, activists in every state would have to begin a campaign to demand that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” be given a permanent spot on the ballot. It would have to be done state by state. Some states have ballot referendums and initiatives using petition drives to get an issue on the ballot so the people can decide. It’s difficult and expensive to do, but popular ideas have a chance.
In other states, “NONE OF THE ABOVE” advocates would have to find a friendly state representative or senator to introduce the idea before the state legislature and then get enough votes to pass it in both houses and then signed by the governor. And if the effort is successful then every one of those legislators is an incumbent who will have to face “NONE OF THE ABOVE” or the ballot for their re-election. They probably won’t be too excited about the idea.
Of course, one of their main objections to the “NONE OF THE ABOVE” idea would be the requirement for holding a new election should it win. Too expensive, our responsible public servants would say as they dismissed the idea. The fact is, such a need would probably not arise often once political power brokers began to understand that they must offer candidates acceptable to the people rather than to the special interests. That’s all they really have to do. It’s all we want.
The fact is, the idea of “NONE OF THE ABOVE” has been around for a long time. Over the years, most states have had some kind of legislation introduced supporting the concept. Nevada actually has it on the ballot – but it is not binding. It doesn’t force a new election. It is just a measure of protest. That’s not good enough to make it effective.
One of the reasons it has not been successful is because there has never been a serious national drive to promote the idea. However, with the growing dissatisfaction voters are feeling with the quality of candidates running for public office, particularly in the presidential campaign, perhaps there has never been a better time to start a national discussion on the issue.
The best part is that “NONE OF THE ABOVE” isn’t a conservative or liberal idea. It’s not a Republican of Democrat proposal. In fact, Republican leadership might see it as a good way to break the back of big labor’s influence over elections. Equally, Democrats could see it as a way to stop the power and influence of the Republican’s big business money. However they want to look at it, the bottom line is that the voters win.
So as we sigh and moan over the choices of Obama, Hillary and McCain, let’s
start the debate and as Larry the Cable Guy says, “let’s get ‘er
done.” Perhaps by the next election cycle we won’t have to take
it anymore! (See the movie "None of the Above")
This is the simplest, most understandable and truest explanation of the woes of the nation and who caused them, as well as how to cure them. This should be sent to every person in the U.S., including the '545'.
By Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered why, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered why, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does.
You and I don't control monetary policy, The Federal Reserve Bank does.
You and I don't propose war, the President does, then the 545 enacts it and when they do they know they have to provide the funds. They vote for it and then they are against it?
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president and nine Supreme Court justices - 545 human beings out of the 300 million - are directly, legally, morally and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress.
In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered but private central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority.
They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman or a president to do one cotton-picking thing.
I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes.
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount
No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits.
The president can only propose a budget.
He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes.
Who is the speaker of the House?
She is the leader of the majority party.
She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.
If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million can not replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts - of incompetence and irresponsibility.
I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people.
When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red.
If the Marines are in IRAQ, it's because they want them in IRAQ.
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way.
There are no insoluble government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power.
Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like 'the economy,' 'inflation' or 'politics' that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses - provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We should vote all of them out of office and clean up their mess!
“Back from the front, Gen. David Petraeus called on Congress Thursday to begin considering a drawdown of U.S. troops after five years of war. Violence in Iraq has plunged to its lowest levels since 2004, and al-Qaida is a tattered shadow of its former self—key leaders dead, successors weak and recruiting down. ’My sense’ Petraeus said, ‘is I will be able to make a recommendation (in the autumn) for further reductions.’ This is no Saigon-style exit, but a coming victorious end of a long conflict. U.S. forces have pounded al-Qaida into irrelevance.
Using highly disciplined Special Forces strikes, advanced intelligence and communications, and local allies in the right places, 155,000 U.S. troops have been crushing a vicious enemy motivated by no rational forces in a war with no precedent. They are winning against all odds, overcoming not just terrorists, but other obstacles such as a lumbering Pentagon bureaucracy and weak-kneed Western intelligentsia whose media toadies trump every military error and harp on every isolated bad deed. Now proven wrong, these same critics retaliate by ignoring what is a very big story.
Worldwide terror attacks have fallen off 40% since 2001, according to a study by Canada’s Human Security Report Project, and support for al-Qaida in the Arab world has collapsed. The study found terror attacks had been over-counted because Iraq War atrocities distorted the figures. Security gains elsewhere included even sub-Saharan Africa, where the improvement was called ‘extraordinary.’
Just as the conflict in Iraq is coming to a close, two related terror wars—in
Spain and Colombia—are also seeing signs of victory... From the deserts
of Iraq to the villages of Spain to the jungles of Colombia, these victories
against terrorist groups are all linked. They are the result of using proven
tactics, holding together resolutely, cooperating with other nations to share
and deliver intelligence, and fo! rming un ited fronts. When this happens,
terrorists cannot flourish. Recent successes show that these wars are winnable.” —Investor’s
Jay Leno on President Bush (it's the Jay Leno we don't often see...)
As most of you know I am not a President Bush fan, nor have I ever been, but this is not about Bush, it is about us, as Americans, and it seems to hit the mark. 'The other day I was reading Newsweek magazine and came across some poll data I found rather hard to believe. It must be true given the source, right?
The Newsweek poll alleges that 67 percent of Americans are unhappy with the direction the country is headed and 69 percent of the country is unhappy with the performance of the President. In essence 2/3 of the citizenry just ain't happy and want a change. So being the knuckle dragger I am, I started thinking, 'What are we so unhappy about?''
A. Is it that we have electricity and running water 24 hours a day, 7 Days a week?
B. Is our unhappiness the result of having air conditioning in the summer and heating in the winter?
C. Could it be that 95.4 percent of these unhappy folks have a job?
D. Maybe it is the ability to walk into a grocery store at any time and see more food in moments than Darfur has seen in the last year?
E. Maybe it is the ability to drive our cars and trucks from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic Ocean without having to present identification papers as we move through each state?
F. Or possibly the hundreds of clean and safe motels we would find along the way that can provide temporary shelter?
G. I guess having thousands of restaurants with varying cuisine from around the world is just not good enough either.
H. Or could it be that when we wreck our car, emergency workers show up and provide services to help all and even send a helicopter to take you to the hospital.
I. Perhaps you are one of the 70 percent of Americans who own a home.
J. You may be upset with knowing that in the unfortunate case of a fire, a group of trained firefighters will appear in moments and use top notch equipment to extinguish the flames, thus saving you, your family, and your belongings.
K. Or if, while at home watching one of your many flat screen TVs, a burglar or prowler intrudes, an officer equipped with a gun and a bullet-proof vest will come to defend you and your family against attack or loss.
L. This all in the backdrop of a neighborhood free of bombs or militias raping and pillaging the residents. Neighborhoods where 90% of teenagers own cell phones and computers.
M. How about the complete religious, social and political freedoms we enjoy that are the envy of everyone in the world?
Maybe that is what has 67% of you folks unhappy. Fact is, we are the largest group of ungrateful, spoiled brats the world has ever seen.
No wonder the world loves the U.S. , yet has a great disdain for its citizens. They see us for what we are. The most blessed people in the world who do nothing but complain about what we don't have, and what we hate about the country instead of thanking the good Lord we live here.
I know, I know. What about the president who took us into war and has no plan to get us out? The president who has a measly 31 percent approval rating? Is this the same president who guided the nation in the dark days after 9/11? The president that cut taxes to bring an economy out of recession? Could this be the same guy who has been called every name in the book for succeeding in keeping all the spoiled ungrateful brats safe from terrorist attacks? The commander in chief of an all-volunteer army that is out there defending you and me?
Did you hear how bad the President is on the news or talk show? Did this news affect you so much, make you so unhappy you couldn't take a look around for yourself and see all the good things and be glad? Think about it......are you upset at the President because he actually caused you personal pain OR is it because the 'Media' told you he was failing to kiss your sorry ungrateful behind every day. Make no mistake about it.
The troops in Iraq and Afghanistan have volunteered to serve, and in many cases may have died for your freedom. There is currently no draft in this country. They didn't have to go. They are able to refuse to go and end up with either a ''general'' discharge, an 'other than honorable'' discharge or, worst case scenario, a ''dishonorable'' discharge after a few days in the brig.
So why then the flat-out discontentment in the minds of 69 percent of Americans?
Say what you want but I blame it on the media. If it bleeds it leads and they specialize in bad news. Everybody will watch a car crash with blood and guts. How many will watch kids selling lemonade at the corner? The media knows this and media outlets are for-profit corporations. They offer what sells, and when criticized, try to defend their actions by 'justifying' them in one way or another. Just ask why they tried to allow a murderer like O.J. Simpson to write a book about how he didn't kill his wife, but if he did he would have done it this way......Insane! Turn off the TV, burn Newsweek, and use the New York Times for the bottom of your bird cage. Then start being grateful for all we have as country. There is exponentially more good than bad. We are among the most blessed people on Earth and should thank God several times a day, or at least be thankful and appreciative.' 'With hurricanes, tornados, fires out of control, mud slides, flooding, severe thunderstorms tearing up the country from one end to another, and with the threat of bird flu and terrorist attacks, 'Are we sure this is a good time to take God out of the Pledge of Allegiance?'
A missionary's perspective who knows the Obama family
Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama. We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here. Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence(over 350,000) and I don't know the last count of the dead. Obama under 'friends of Obama' gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country! December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn't win and possibly cause a race war in America.
What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it. Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries. By the way, his true name is Barak Hussein Muhammed Obama. Won't that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!
God Bless you.
Pray for us here in Kenya. We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting: takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets. Here in Kenya, not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive.
Jesus Christ is our peace but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won't be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I've tried to say in a few paragraphs.
Celeste and Loren Davis
About our Father's business!
Choosing Obama Based on Race is Fine
By Selwyn Duke
Today I'm responding to a reader who is quite dismissive about the truth regarding race and Barack Obama. He is A.F. and writes:
Hi Mr. Duke
I know its a little late because this article came out in late March, I was itching to comment on it. After reading it, I was left asking, "Well, what's your point?" when you said that Ferraro's comment on "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position." And?
If George Washington was a black man, he would not be the first President of the United States. If Lincoln was a black man, he would have been a slave. If Ronald Reagan was a black man male, he would not have been in his position. Etc, and so forth. The point is, Obama is in his position because of race, but EVERY OTHER President has also been in their position because of their race!
Race mattered sir, race mattered since the founding, and race still matters today. White men have benefited from their dominant position in society for more than half of this country's existence. If they had not been white men, they would not have benefited in the same way, or at all. They would not have been our Presidents, our politicans, or our businessmen. So to somehow twist this into saying, "Obama is only winning and has gotten this far because he's black," is stating something that is in plain sight yes, but its indirectly missing something else: Every President since the founding of our country has gotten that far and won because they were white.
All affirmative action is doing is being conscious of this fact, and rightly placing people who have been historically invidiously discriminated against for the history of the country to positions that, in a country that truly believed from its founding that "all men are created equal" would have already been occupied by them.
Your email is the very quintessence of speciousness; meaning, it seems to be logical or correct but actually is not so. I strongly suspect that you're missing the nuance I will provide because you're blinded by racial patriotism, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and allow that perhaps you just didn't examine the issue from all sides.
You make two basic mistakes. First, understand what our goal is in this election: To choose the best possible of, admittedly, very lacking candidates. Now, your first error is that you confuse limiting "job applicants" based on race with choosing among them based on race. I'll illustrate the point with an analogy.
Let's say you wanted to find the best -- or at least a highly competent -- basketball player. How would your chances be better, if you limited your pool of candidates to blacks and chose the best among them, or if you included one white guy in the group and then chose him simply because he was a novelty? Obviously, the chances that this one white guy who was chosen based solely on race was a great basketball player would be pretty slim.
Now, let's analyze what would happen if you chose from your pool that was limited to blacks. Sure, it would be entirely possible that the best basketball player in the world was white, in which case it would be impossible to find the best. However, since you would be choosing based on merit from your pool, you would at least be able to get a good player, maybe a great one, and perhaps even the best.
This doesn't mean that you would find this type of discrimination more palatable on an emotional level, but feelings aren't good indicators of reality. And the reality is that such a practice would allow you to achieve your goal, that of getting the best possible of the candidates.
Barack Obama is that novelty, an empty vessel who millions of sheeple are glomming onto simply because of his race. Sure, most of us would like to have a better group of candidates, in the same way that you obviously wish candidates in the days of yore included blacks and maybe women. However, because of our twisted, cultural-affirmative-action mindset, we aren't even choosing based on merit from the lacking viable candidates we do have.
The second mistake you make is more elementary. Even if you were correct in saying that today's practice is the equivalent of what you bemoan about the past, your argument would still be invalid. You would in essence be saying, "Because we made a mistake years ago, we must make the same one today; because we have always had flaws, we must retain them." That would be a very destructive tradition, indeed. It is, quite frankly, stupid. It's to imply that we can never change for the better, can never learn from the past. And, if that is so, then we might as well just throw in the towel right now.
You should bear in mind, A.F., that we're engaged in a serious endeavor here. Namely, electing a person who will shepherd us through increasingly difficult times, an individual who will take the helm of the world's only remaining superpower. We're not deciding who is going to get the extra piece of cake in the lunchroom today. So, let's proceed like mature adults, OK? Applying a quota mentality is destructive and threatens the nation all of us occupy. And if you can't rise to such a challenge, you should do the country (and yourself) a favor and refrain from voting.
As for me, I not only know whom I'm voting for, I know when. I cannot vote for the first president or the tenth, but I can vote in 2008. I exist here and now, and I have a duty to apply the correct standards here and now. I will draw from the wisdom of the past, but not its mistakes. For, if I were going to do the latter, I could justify not only choosing candidates on the wrong basis, but also human sacrifice, cannibalism and slavery.
I will mention one more matter. It's a little silly when people lament
the fact that only white men occupied positions of power in our country's
past. All throughout man's history, from one end of the Earth to the
other, it was common practice for a civilization's racial or ethnic majority
to wield the power. It is simply man's nature for people to support
those with whom they identify. Thus, lament human nature if you wish,
but understand that it's nothing unique to white people's nature. And
it's ridiculous to hold one group's feet to the fire for something common
among all groups. That is, unless you ascribe demigod status to whites,
where you assume that they possess a superiority of character and thus have
an obligation to occupy a higher moral plane than everyone else. If
that is so, then the problem is simply that they don't live up to your lofty
Who Is Obama? Where Is The Press?
By Tony Blankley
June 11, 2008
How would one sneak a left-wing radical into the Oval Office in broad daylight? Perhaps the same way that President George W. Bush got two strong conservatives on the Supreme Court: Find a candidate without a paper trail on the most controversial issues. For those of us who suspect but cannot yet prove that Barack Obama is a genuine radical leftist, his lack of much of a voting record is going to make it difficult to prove what his real values, policies and motives are to be president.
This is particularly the case because the media is so obviously going to give Obama cover not only for his current revelatory gaffes but also for embarrassing bits from his past.
For example, back on June 2, National Review Online ran an extraordinary article by Stanley Kurtz that closely assessed a 1995 article about Obama by Hank De Zutter titled "What Makes Obama Run?" The essence of his thesis is the following:
"De Zutter's article shows us that the full story of Obama's ties to Pfleger and Wright is both more disturbing and more politically relevant than we've realized up to now. On Obama's own account, the rhetoric and vision of Chicago's most politically radical black churches are exactly what he wants to see more of. True, when discussing Louis Farrakhan with De Zutter, Obama makes a point of repudiating anti-white, anti-Semitic, and anti-Asian sermons. Yet having laid down that proviso, Obama seems to relish the radicalism of preachers like Pfleger and Wright. In 1995, Obama didn't want Trinity's political show to stop. His plan was to spread it to other black churches, and harness its power to an alliance of leftist groups and sympathetic elected officials.
"So Obama's political interest in Trinity went far beyond merely gaining a respectable public Christian identity. On his own account, Obama hoped to use the untapped power of the black church to supercharge hard-left politics in Chicago, creating a personal and institutional political base that would be free to part with conventional Democratic politics. By his own testimony, Obama would seem to have allied himself with Wright and Pfleger, not in spite of, but precisely because of their radical left-wing politics. It follows that Obama's ties to Trinity reflect on far more than his judgment and character (although they certainly implicate that). Contrary to common wisdom, then, Obama's religious history has everything to do with his political values and policy positions, since it confirms his affinity for leftist radicalism."
Now, given how much the media has covered both the Pfleger and Wright matters, when a respectable journal, such as National Review, runs an article by a journalist of established credibility, such as Stanley Kurtz, that suggests a different and far more disturbing interpretation of Obama's relationships with Wright and Pfleger, a responsible mainstream media would seek out Obama and, at the minimum, ask him whether the things the 1995 De Sutter article quotes him as saying are, in fact, things he said. They might even ask him to explain himself. Because if the 1995 article is an accurate reflection of what Obama said, then most of what he has said in the past few months about the Wright affair and Trinity United Church of Christ could not continue to be viewed as believable.
A much more recent example of the media not even going through the motions of being responsible is their almost complete avoidance of a recent statement Obama made:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times â€¦ and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
Is there absolutely no curiosity at The Washington Post, The Associated Press or even The New York Times about the assertion by the man who is considered likely to be president of the United States come noon Jan. 20, 2009, that letting Americans eat as much as they want is "not going to happen"? Doesn't that shockingly dictatorial assertion deserve comment and inquiry? Yes, it is true that Obama was saying explicitly that what wasn't going to happen was "other countries (saying) OK" to Americans eating as much as we want. But a fair reading of the whole passage suggests that Obama agrees with those other countries. And as president, what exactly would he try to do regarding Americans who want to eat as much as they want (or drive SUVs or set their own thermostats)?
Dictator or democrat? Radical or liberal? Who in the world is this man?
Where in the world is the responsible media? What's going on?
When I Was a Boy, America Was a Better Place
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
The day the O.J. Simpson verdict was announced, I said to my then-teenage son, "David, please forgive me. I am handing over to you a worse America than my father handed over to me."
Unfortunately, I still feel this way.
With the important exception of racial discrimination -- which was already dying a natural death when I was young -- it is difficult to come up with an important area in which America is significantly better than when I was a boy. But I can think of many in which its quality of life has deteriorated.
When I was a boy, America was a freer society than it is today. If Americans had been told the extent and number of laws that would govern their speech and behavior within one generation, they would have been certain that they were being told about some dictatorship, not the Land of the Free. Today, people at work, to cite but one example, are far less free to speak naturally. Every word, gesture and look, even one's illustrated calendar, is now monitored lest a fellow employee feel offended and bring charges of sexual harassment or creating a "hostile work environment" or being racially, religiously or ethnically insensitive, or insensitive to another's sexual orientation.
Meanwhile, all employers in California are now prohibited by law from firing a man who has decided to cross-dress at work. And needless to say, no fellow worker can say to that man, "Hey, Jack, why not wear the dress at home and men's clothes to work?" An employer interviewing a prospective employee is not free to ask the most natural human questions: Are you married? Do you have a child? How old are you? Soon "How are you?" will be banned lest one discriminate on the basis of health.
When I was boy, what people did at home was not their employer's business. Today, companies and city governments refuse to hire, and may fire, workers no matter how competent or healthy, who smoke in their homes. Sarasota, Fla., the latest city to invade people's private lives, would not hire Winston Churchill, Franklin Roosevelt or John F. Kennedy if they applied for a job.
When I was a 7-year-old boy, I flew alone from New York to my aunt and uncle in Miami and did the same thing coming back to New York. I boarded the plane on my own and got off the plane on my own. No papers for my parents to fill out. No extra fee to pay the airline. I was responsible for myself. Had I run away or been kidnapped, no one would have sued the airline. Today, fear of lawsuits is a dominant fact of American life.
When I was a boy, I ran after girls during recess, played dodgeball, climbed monkey bars and sat on seesaws. Today, more and more schools have no recess; have canceled dodgeball lest someone feel bad about being removed from the game; and call the police in to interrogate, even sometimes arrest, elementary school boys who playfully touch a girl. And monkey bars and seesaws are largely gone, for fear of lawsuits should a child be injured.
When I was boy, I was surrounded by adult men. Today, most American boys (and girls, of course) come into contact with no adult man all day every school day. Their teachers and school principals are all likely to be women. And if, as is often the case, there is no father at home (not solely because of divorce but because "family" courts have allowed many divorced mothers to remove fathers from their children's lives), boys almost never come into contact with the most important group of people in a boy's life -- adult men. The contemporary absence of men in boys' lives is not only unprecedented in American history; it is probably unprecedented in recorded history.
When I was a boy, we had in our lives adults who took pride in being adults. To distinguish them from our peers, we called these adults "Mr.," "Mrs." and "Miss," or by their titles, "Doctor," "Pastor," "Rabbi," "Father." It was good for us, and we liked it. Having adults proud of their adulthood, and not acting like they were still kids, gave us security (as well as something to look forward to in growing up). Today, kids are surrounded by peers twice, three, four times their age.
When I was a boy, the purpose of American history textbooks was to teach American history. Today, the purpose of most American history texts is to make minorities and females feel good about themselves. As a result, American kids today are deprived of the opportunity to feel good about being American (not to mention deprived of historical truth). They are encouraged to feel pride about all identities -- African-American, Hispanic, Asian, female, gay -- other than American.
When I was a teenage boy, getting to kiss a girl, let alone to touch her thigh or her breast (even over her clothes) was the thrill of a lifetime. Most of us could only dream of a day later on in life when oral sex would take place (a term most of us had never heard of). But of course, we were not raised by educators or parents who believed that "teenagers will have sex no matter what." Most of us rarely if ever saw a naked female in photos (the "dirty pictures" we got a chance to look at never showed "everything"), let alone in movies or in real life. We were, in short, allowed to be relatively innocent. And even without sex education and condom placement classes, few of us ever got a girl pregnant.
When I was a boy, "I Love Lucy" showed two separate beds in Lucy and Ricky's bedroom -- and they were a married couple. Today, MTV and most TV saturate viewers' lives with sexual imagery and sexual talk, virtually all of which is loveless and, of course, non-marital.
When I was boy, people dressed up to go to baseball games, visit the doctor and travel on airplanes. Today, people don't dress up even for church.
When I was a boy, Time and Newsweek were well written and relied little on pictures and illustrations. Today, those magazines often look like adult comic books by comparison. They are filled with large illustrations and photos, and they dumb down the news with features like "Winners and Losers" and "Who's Up and Who's Down." And when I was a boy, it would have been inconceivable for Time to substitute anything, let alone a tree, for the flag planted by the marines on Iwo Jima.
One might argue that these are the same laments that every previous older generation has expressed -- "Ah, when I was young" But in America, that has not been the case. In America, the older generations tended to say the opposite -- "When I was a kid, things were worse."
Can we return to the America of my youth? No. Can we return to the best
values of that time? Yes. But not if both houses of Congress, the presidency
and the Supreme Court move the country even further leftward. If that happens,
many of the above noted changes will simply be accelerated: More laws restricting "offensive" speech
will be enacted; litigation will increase and trial lawyers will gain more
power; the American military will be less valued; trees will gradually replace
the flag as our most venerated symbol; schools will teach even less as they
concentrate even more on diversity, sexuality and the environment; teenage
sex will be increasingly accepted; American identity will continue to be
replaced by ethnic, racial, gender or "world citizen" identity; and the power
of the state will expand further as the power of the individual inevitably
contracts. It's hard to believe most Americans really want that.
Lessons From the Poor
Tuesday, June 10, 2008
Listening to Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton repeat stories they claim to have been told by the poor and the unemployed, who are unable to pay for food and medicine and feel miserable about it, is enough to make one think we are living in a Third World dictatorship and not the United States of America. But victimhood and a "can't do" spirit is what the Democratic Party has mostly been about since the Great Depression.
A more positive narrative comes from a new book, "Lessons from the Poor: Triumph of the Entrepreneurial Spirit," edited by Alvaro Vargas Llosa and published by the Independent Institute. The book is an optimistic triumph and a lesson about the unlimited capacity of the human spirit, properly inspired and unencumbered.
In the introduction, Llosa writes, "Entrepreneurial ability and energy are present almost everywhere. But in those countries that still languish in backwardness, the labyrinth intervention of the state and the absence of adequate institutions have kept that ability and energy from translating into full development." He writes of nations that used to be poor but are no longer, detailing how their people climbed out of poverty. He blames political, legal (and I would add in some cases, religious) systems for stifling prosperity.
Llosa is about creating wealth and his inspirational stories about real people and how they did it ought to be read in every school and in every home that has accepted inevitable failure.
In 1988, the Ananos family of Ayacucho, Peru - the cradle of the Maoist terrorist organization known as Shining Path - founded the Kola Real Company. Coca Cola and Pepsi had pulled out due to the unstable political situation. In just 20 years the Ananos family has transformed a mom and pop operation into the biggest transnational manufacturer of nonalcoholic beverages in Latin America. They now have subsidiaries in Mexico, Venezuela, Ecuador, four Central American countries and Thailand. By 2005, they had more than 8 million customers and employed 8,000 workers. Their sales totaled US$1 billion.
The Ananos family overcame years of socialist and populist experiments that hurt Peru's economy. They demonstrate what can be done when obstacles are overcome by the power of optimism.
Aquilino Flores is another Peruvian who started out washing cars 40 years ago. He had no capital. Today, Flores is the most important textile businessman in Peru, heading a company called Topy Top with annual sales of more than US$100 million. As Daniel Cordova writes in his contribution to the book, "Šthe story of the Flores family and Topy Top is one of tenacity, determination and intuition." Didn't we used to teach such things in American schools before class warfare, envy and penalizing the successful?
The story behind Nakumatt, Kenya's largest supermarket chain, could have been written in America. Google Nakumatt for details.
In Nigeria, a clothing design industry has been created to produce and sell adire attire, traditional in the Yoruba culture. There are thousands of adire workers, most of them women with little or no education, but they have "an entrepreneurial drive to make a living and create wealth where there was previously only misery," writes Thompson Ayodele in his essay. "These entrepreneurs receive no government aid. In fact, through action or omission, the government has placed and continues to place many obstacles in their way. Yet they have been able to combat poverty much more effectively than foreign aid and official poverty-reduction programs."
Please re-read that last sentence. Government aid impedes success and creates dependence, while entrepreneurs create success and independence.
In countries with far less capital and opportunity than America, people haven't sung songs about overcoming. They have overcome through tenacity, risk-taking and self-reliance.
During the presidential campaign, each time Barack Obama focuses on misery and the need for more government spending, John McCain should trot-out American stories of the formerly poor and let them tell how they made it so that others can too.
Llosa says Spain is "particularly interesting and instructive for those who think that certain nations are doomed forever by virtue of their culture. In the past two decades, Spain, whose culture was once inimical to notions such as self-reliance and individual initiative, has experienced an economic and social transformation."
If Spain and the poor in Peru and Africa can do it, what's stopping America
and poor Americans?
Will Big Media Look at Obama and His Leftwing Influences?
Monday, June 09, 2008
Two weeks ago Cliff Kincaid, president of the conservative group America’s Survival Inc., called a press conference in Washington to challenge the mainstream media to look into the hard-core left-wingers who are known to have influenced Barack Obama -- first as a teenager in Hawaii and later in Chicago. Specifically, Kincaid’s group wants a major news organization to follow up on the investigative work it has done that documents that an elderly black man who mentored Sen. Obama in Hawaii was a lifelong member of the Communist Party USA. Kincaid also would like to see a serious journalistic vetting of Sen. Obama’s relationship with the left-wing radicals in Chicago -- Bill Ayers and others -- who helped Obama launch his political career. I called Kincaid -- whose challenge to the media has yet to be accepted -- on Wednesday, June 4, at his home in southern Maryland.
Q: Can you briefly sum up what you have discovered about Obama’s ideological influences that you say need to be checked out by Big Media?
A: We think all the major candidates should be examined for their ties to foreign and hostile elements. In the case of Obama, he has gotten a very, very favorable press. The media seem reluctant to dig into his background, even though he is relatively new on the political scene. What we discovered, in two different places -- first in Hawaii, where he went to high school, and in Chicago, where he started his political career -- is that he is right in the middle of communist networks. In Hawaii, he was mentored by a member of the Communist Party by the name of Frank Marshall Davis. In Chicago, his career was launched and he was close friends with a number of communists and socialists.
Q: What specifically did your investigation find out about Davis, who Obama calls only “Frank” in his memoir “Dreams from My Father”?
A: What was very disturbing to us was the fact that Barack Obama had covered up the true identity of this “Frank” who played such a role in his life just before he went off to college (in the late 1970s). There are several references in his book to this “Frank.” We discovered that “Frank” was indeed Frank Marshall Davis, who was a member of a Soviet-sponsored communist network on the island of Hawaii. We think Obama should be asked to explain why he didn’t reveal Frank’s true identity in his book. We looked into this and had confirmed by several sources that Frank was indeed Frank Marshall Davis, and that he had a considerable influence on Obama. But we cannot really get a rational explanation of why Obama would cover up the identity of this Stalinist agent.
Q: How do you know for sure Davis was a member of the Communist Party USA?
A: We have several different sources confirming that Frank Marshall Davis was a Communist Party member. We have congressional hearings and investigations. Plus we have those who have written about Davis, including John Edgar Tidwell, who wrote a whole book -- a sympathetic book -- about Davis but discussed his membership in the Communist Party. Davis of course was asked about this when he was called before a Senate committee, but he took the Fifth Amendment rather than discuss it openly. There’s no question that he was a key member of this Moscow-sponsored communist network in Hawaii.
Q: What was the most subversive or most dangerous-to-America thing Davis ever did?
A: Davis was an unrepentant communist. He stayed with the Communist Party even after the Hitler-Stalin pact. That’s why I refer to him as “a Stalinist agent.” Other prominent black Americans who had gotten into the Communist Party had left it. For example, Langston Hughes and Richard Wright got involved in communist activities but then broke with the Communist Party because it had become an apologist for some horrible crimes not only committed by Stalin but by the Soviet system. Yet Frank Marshall Davis stayed with the party and wrote some infamous poems not only defending the Soviet Union but attacking the United States.
Q: Is there anything to lead you to believe that Davis made a concerted effort to indoctrinate Obama?
A: What we know is that Barack Obama’s grandfather introduced Obama to Frank Marshall Davis because Barack Obama needed someone to look up to. Remember, this was a time when Barack Obama’s black father had abandoned his family. Barack Obama’s grandfather thought that Davis would fulfill the role of male role model and mentor -- and that’s the role that he played.
Q: When Barack Obama got to Chicago he came into contact with '60s radicals William Ayers and his wife, Bernardine Dohrn. What is most worrisome about their possible influence on Obama?
A: It really begins even before Obama gets to Chicago because according to his book, when he goes to college -- first Occidental College and later Columbia University -- he picks among his friends Marxist professors. Obama himself admits this. He also admits attending socialist conferences. That would suggest the influence that Davis had on Obama extended into his college and university years.
Now when he gets to Chicago, we find that once again he gravitates and comes into the company of the most extreme anti-American elements, including socialists and communists. Keep in mind that the Weather Underground terrorists, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, were communist terrorists. They were not just '60s radicals. These were people who openly supported the communist enemy killing Americans in Vietnam. Some of the members in this group, including Dohrn, had traveled to Havana, Cuba, to get instructions from the communists about how to wage their campaign in the United States.
Q: What was Obama’s relationship with Ayers and Dohrn and how close was it?
A: The big question is whether there is a connection between the communist network in Hawaii that included Frank Marshall Davis and the communist network in Chicago that would also come to include Barack Obama. We know that according to the public evidence that Obama launches his political career in Chicago at the home of Bernardine Dohrn and Bill Ayers. Other people who were there include then-state Sen. Alice Palmer and a Dr. Quentin Young. Those two people are almost as significant as Ayers and Dohrn.
We have two reports that state Sen. Palmer had been involved in a Communist Party front group called the U.S Peace Council and had actually made a trip to the old Soviet Union. Dr. Quentin Young had been accused of involvement and membership in the Communist Party, and he refused to answer as well when he was called before a committee to explain his financial support for radicals who were behind the riots in Chicago at the Democratic National Convention back in 1968. So we have got four controversial people launching Obama’s political career in Chicago who were involved in socialist or communist activities.
Q: You are not making the claim that Obama is a communist or a “Manchurian Candidate”-type communist or anything else?
A: We are only raising the questions that the media will not look into. We think the media should examine both candidates. But in the case of Obama, who has only been a U.S. senator for a few years, there is more of a responsibility to inform the public about where he had come from. Remember, as president, he will be entitled to see all of our state secrets. And yet, as a candidate, he doesn’t have to undergo a background or security check. That’s why we depend on the media really to vet these candidates, so the American people can know who they are voting for.
On the question about Obama being a communist or a Marxist, of course we never came to any conclusions about that or offered any evidence one way or the other; that wasn’t our purpose. But it’s important to note that when Obama did run for the Senate in 2004, his opponent at the time, Alan Keyes, had charged that Obama was a Marxist. Obama dismissed it. He almost laughed it off. But he certainly has in my view the responsibility and obligation to explain these associations and why it is that he lands right in the middle of two different communist networks -- one in Hawaii, where he is growing up, and one in Chicago, where he’s launching his political career.
It could be that this is all a coincidence -- that it’s just accidental that he seems to get right in the middle with associations with these anti-American characters. But then again, maybe it’s not an accident. He has to answer some of these concerns and our media have to begin by subjecting him to the scrutiny that they apply to somebody like McCain and other candidates.
Q: Dana Milbank of The Washington Post covered your press conference and wrote a sarcastic piece that said you were engaging in “guilt by association.” What’s your response to that?
A: You know, I asked G. Gordon Liddy when I did his radio show about some of these issues that we are raising. Liddy of course used to be an FBI agent, and he said the FBI would always examine somebody’s associations when they looked at somebody to determine if they were suitable for federal employment. They would look for contacts with foreign countries, foreign individuals, hostile governments and hostile intelligence services. They would look at the question of whether this individual is really loyal to the United States.
We’re asking some of these questions about Obama, and we will continue to ask them, because people like Milbank -- who may not really be a serious journalist -- clearly are not interested. He had made it clear in previous columns that he is a big Obama supporter and there are many like him in the major media, which made our news briefing even more important. We not only have issued our two reports and put them on our Web site, usasurvival.org, but we will be putting up video of the whole press conference so that people can take a look and make their own conclusions and not have to rely on the media to filter what we said.
Q: If you could get Tim Russert on “Meet the Press” to ask Sen. Obama a question about these early influences, what would it be?
A: I think the big question would be, “Why, Sen. Obama, did you cover up the identity of Frank Marshall Davis in your book?” If this had been an innocent association -- if this had just been some guy that Obama came across and realized, “Well, look, he’s just some kind of crazy communist. And, yeah, I had some meeting with him and he gave me advice on various things. But he didn’t have any impact on me. And I went off to college and it had no lasting effect.” That would be one thing.
But that’s not how Obama handled it. Instead he talks about “Frank” as
someone who gave him serious advice, including not to believe in the American
way of life and that black people had a right to hate white people. These
were things according to Obama that Frank told him. Rather than deal with
that kind of advice in his book, and analyze the motivations of Frank and
identify him by his full name, Obama covers up his true identity. Why?
It's Not Compassion -- It's Wright-Wing Racism
By Michael Reagan
March 20, 2008
Most of the media and their fellow liberals were positively giddy over Barack Obama's speech Tuesday, all but comparing it to the Sermon on the Mount.
I won't deny it was a masterful piece of oratory -- the man can be spellbinding -- but when you stop to consider what Sen. Obama was really doing up there on the podium, invoking the specter of slavery and Jim Crow and the era of "whites only," it becomes clear that it was a con job designed to make the voters as giddy as he knew his worshippers in the submissive media would be.
The speech was meant to be an explanation and expiation of his guilt for his years of remaining mute in the face of the outrageous anti-Americanism spewed by his pastor and bosom buddy, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
Until Tuesday, Barack Obama (you can't use his middle name, which has now become the "H-word," allegedly a code word for anti-Muslim rhetoric) had steadfastly denied he ever heard his friend and pastor make his hateful remarks. In the speech, however, he just kind of mentioned that... well, yes ... he guesses he was aware of the Reverend Wright's offensive rhetoric after all. Mea Minima Culpa.
He then launched into a defense of his friendship with the man he credited for bringing him to Christianity, and helping to form his social and political philosophy and set him on the path to a life of public service. Admirably, while denouncing Wright's extremism, he refused to denounce the man himself.
Nobody expected him to declare Wright anathema and cast him into the outer darkness where there is weeping and wailing and the gnashing of teeth -- one simply doesn't do to that sort of thing to a longtime friend, benefactor and mentor even if he has been shown to have slipped the rails time after time.
What was not expected was Barack H. Obama's use of a litany of America's past racist offenses to justify not only Wright's blatant hatred of white America but his suggestion that it was a sentiment shared by most African Americans. And that is simply not true.
Nor was it true, as Obama charged, that the Reagan coalition was created out of white resentment for affirmative action or forced busing.
He charged that "anger over welfare and affirmative action helped forge the Reagan coalition. Politicians routinely exploited fears of crime... talk show hosts and conservative commentators built entire careers unmasking bogus claims of racism while dismissing legitimate discussions of racial injustice and inequality as mere political correctness or reverse racism."
Poppycock! These are not only outright falsehoods, but echoes of what Obama learned at the feet of Jeremiah Wright and now preaches as his own beliefs. He learned his lessons well.
When he suggested that my father's coalition was based on anger over affirmative action and welfare he was peddling a blatant falsehood as egregious in its falsity as Wright's charge that whites created AIDS to wipe out the black population.
Everything Obama said was directed at suggesting that while Rev. Wright should not have used such inflammatory language, he was somehow justified because of America's white racism.
Try as he might, Barack Obama cannot claim the innocence of a lamb in his long years of worshipful association with the Reverend Jeremiah Wright. He was either fully aware of the seething racial hatred that motivated Wright, or something of a blithering idiot who can't spot a racist hater when he spends years genuflecting at his feet.
Barack Obama is not an idiot. He is a brilliant orator who exudes charm and arouses near-worship from his host of giddy, hypnotized supporters. He is also a committed socialist and a talented salesman for his brand of Marxist snake oil.
Beware of camels bearing gifts, and politicians promising utopia.
Mike Reagan, the elder son of the late President Ronald Reagan, is heard
on more than 200 talk-radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America
Network. Look for Mike's newest book, "Twice Adopted."
The Speech That Revealed So Much
by Bobby Eberle
It was touted as a "major" speech. Facing criticism over anti-American hate speech from his pastor of twenty years, Barack Obama was forced to the podium to address the comments of Jeremiah Wright. Obama has built his campaign around a message of "coming together" and "moving beyond race." However, his speech did nothing to show that he, the candidate of change, has done any moving at all. In fact, despite specific words in which he denounced some of Wright's comments, the overall message of his speech was that Wright's comments were OK and that we just need to "understand" why he made them. Sorry Barack... you had your chance to move "beyond race," and you blew it.
On many occasions, I have written about race in America. (See A Personal Look at Racial Preferences and Diversity Essay" is Not the Answer to Color Blind Admissions). Those on the liberal left have done more to perpetuate strife between the races than they will ever admit... from racial preferences to "hate" crimes laws, the dream of a color-blind society has been swept away in favor of "give me something just because I'm black" mentality.
Obama's pastor has taken to the pulpit on many occasions and delivered, not a Christian message of "love thy neighbor," but a militant political message of hate. By now, you have likely seen the videos or read the transcripts. Comments such as "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lies." and others such as "We nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye." are common place in Wright's rants.
However, what did Obama say about them in Tuesday's "major" speech? First, he made the following comments regarding Rev. Wright, a person Obama now refers to as his "former pastor":
On one end of the spectrum, we've heard the implication that my candidacy is somehow an exercise in affirmative action; that it's based solely on the desire of wide-eyed liberals to purchase racial reconciliation on the cheap. On the other end, we've heard my former pastor, Reverend Jeremiah Wright, use incendiary language to express views that have the potential not only to widen the racial divide, but views that denigrate both the greatness and the goodness of our nation; that rightly offend white and black alike.
Obama then added, "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy." Rather than strongly come out in his "major" speech and draw a clear line in the sand between himself and Rev. Wright, Obama draped his denunciation around the comments made by others in an attempt to make the Wright comments on par with other statements of race. Nice try, but you failed Senator. Someone's (Geraldine Ferraro) personal comments on whether race had anything to do with your rapid rise in politics is completely different than a pastor's anti-American, anti-white, anti-Jewish, non-Christian rants at the pulpit. Obama should have nothing to do with this person, but he is so political that he is not willing to risk his "ghetto" credentials to say what's right.
Instead of saying that he will not be associated with a church or person who promotes such anti-American views, Obama spent most of the speech trying to defend Rev. Wright. He mentioned all the good things that Wright has done. He then went on to say:
I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother - a woman who helped raise me, a woman who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world, but a woman who once confessed her fear of black men who passed by her on the street, and who on more than one occasion has uttered racial or ethnic stereotypes that made me cringe.
Those are the comments that really made ME cringe. Those statements and others in his speech were not only offensive to me, but were so purely political. Time after time he tried to equate Wright to someone else or to someone else's actions to lessen the effect or to diminish the significance. Wright's comments needed to be addressed for what they are, but instead, Obama embraced Wright as a symbol of the "black community." In addition, equating Wright's comments delivered to a modern-day audience with those of his 86-year-old grandmother is insulting. His grandmother came from a different era and was not at the pulpit or on video delivering hate speech.
Obama goes on to explain the historical injustices perpetrated against blacks. He then adds:
This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. ... This is the reality in which Reverend Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted. What's remarkable is not how many failed in the face of discrimination, but rather how many men and women overcame the odds; how many were able to make a way out of no way for those like me who would come after them.
Obama then said, "In fact, a similar anger exists within segments of the white community." He goes on to give examples, but this is where his failure is complete. Yes, each racial culture in America has members who are angry, who feel cheated by "the man." And in the segments of angry people arise leaders to fan the flames of anger. However, those extremist leaders are denouncing by mainstream America, not embraced. Political leaders do not flock to side of David Duke, but rather they denounce his words and actions, and they separate themselves from everything Duke stands for.
What did Obama do regarding Wright? Well, Obama "can no more disown him" than he can "disown the black community." Wright may have grown up during racially charged times in America, but he is speaking to impressionable youngsters of the present. His words do nothing more than promote racial division.
Yet, we must "come together" and work for a color-blind society. We would be a better America for it. However, those who think Obama is the new leader of that movement need only listen to Tuesday's speech. Obama failed to be anything more than a politician trying to play the race card.
One final note... The really frustrating part of the speech, other than
the words themselves, was some of the analysis that followed. All of the
analysts on FOX News seemed to be like deer caught in the headlights of a "racial
police" Hummer. They seemed afraid to say anything that could be perceived
as offensive. HELLO!!!! The speech was so blatantly political and so easy
to dissect and yet they let it pass. Obama made excuses for Wright and continued
to play the race card. Yet he got a pass. That is pathetic.
Obama's Church of Slurs
By Brent Bozell III
It's Damage Control Time for the liberal press. Count New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof as one in the media masses who have been outraged, just outraged, at the supposed conservative bigotry against Barack Obama. This "most monstrous bigotry" isn't just about race but also religion. Stating his middle name and whispering on the Internet that he's a Muslim "are the religious equivalent of racial slurs."
Kristof concluded his March 9 column by quoting Martin Luther: "I'd rather be ruled by a wise Turk than a foolish Christian."
Through months of outrage over Obama the Supposed Muslim, reporters have largely ignored the church Obama attends in Chicago. The Trinity United Church of Christ claims to be "unashamedly black and unapologetically Christian." It proclaims it's a church of "an African people, who remain 'true to our native land,' the mother continent, the cradle of civilization." You can't tell conservatives that if their church said it was "a European people," committed to the European culture and motherland, that reporters wouldn't smell white supremacy between the lines.
Then there is Obama's minister, Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who in 2007 offered the "Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award" to a man who "truly epitomized greatness," anti-Semite Louis Farrakhan, head of the Nation of Islam. Is Nicholas Kristof wanting us to believe that offering awards to Farrakhan is simply the act of a "foolish Christian"? It gives an entirely new meaning to Kristof's headline, "Obama and the Bigots."
Now some very disturbing Jeremiah Wright sermons are bubbling up, sermons where he screams until he's hoarse against America, so angry he can't resist bursting with profanity from the pulpit. In 2003, he built a grand government conspiracy against blacks: "The government gives them the drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strikes law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America.' No, no, no, God d--- America, that's in the Bible for killing innocent people. God d--- America for treating our citizens as less than human. God d--- America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
Five days after 9/11, Rev. Wright was condemning America as bringing on the al-Qaeda attacks with our own terrorism: "We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki, and we nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye," he yelled. "We have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans, and now we are indignant because the stuff we have done overseas is now brought right back to our own front yards. America's chickens are coming home to roost."
Are we to believe that on the first Sunday after 9/11 -- when many Americans crowded into churches looking to mourn, looking for answers, looking for community -- that Barack Obama decided to skip church?
ABC's Brian Ross found these words and then noted Obama has professed, "I don't think my church is actually particularly controversial." He said Rev. Wright "is like an old uncle who says things I don't always agree with," telling a Jewish group that everyone has someone like that in their family.
How in the world can the same media that roundly condemned George W. Bush in 2000 because he "stood uncritically" at Bob Jones University now accept this crazy-uncle defense? ABC's George Stephanopoulos suggested Bush's standard stump speech there made him a "Kamikaze conservative." That was a single moment on Bush's campaign schedule. Barack Obama's been attending his crazy uncle's church for 20 years; that crazy uncle married him and baptized his children, too.
Once these statements hit the airwaves, Obama repudiated them but then suggested that those mean-spirited conservatives were at it again. "I noticed over the last several weeks that the forces of division have started to raise their ugly heads again," Obama declared. But the "forces of division" were right there within his campaign -- until Obama expelled his minister from his African American religious leadership team.
Barack Obama looks phony either way. Either he missed all of these sermons, meaning his "devout Christian" talk on CBS doesn't match his church attendance record, or he sincerely thinks that hateful, race-baiting, America-bashing sermons are part of a pleasant Sunday worship experience. The press has an obligation to pursue this.
If Obama really meant any of this rhetoric about healing racial divisions
-- in any of his speeches over many months of campaigning -- he would have
quit his hate-spewing minister and his Church of Slurs a long time ago. If
the media ever meant to be fair and balanced instead of a real-life comedy
sketch full of slavish Obama myth-builders, they would have found this story
a long time ago.
The Problem With Obama's -- Not Wright's -- Vision
By Terence Jeffrey
The greatest barrier to Barack Obama becoming a leader who truly advances the cause of justice is not found in the racially polarizing and unpatriotic comments of his longtime pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, but in Obama's own vision of civil rights, which cannot be reconciled with the vision Martin Luther King Jr. used to achieve victory for the civil rights movement.
King's vision was as simple as it was unifying: An unjust law is a law that is not consistent with the natural law and the law of God.
The question King put to Americans was: Is racial discrimination consistent with the natural law and the law of God? The question had only one answer: No.
The reason Americans answered correctly is perhaps best explained by St. Paul, who said in his letter to the Romans that all people have the natural law "written on their hearts."
Whether they like it or not, human beings know the basic rules of right and wrong. Great leaders -- like Martin Luther King Jr. -- achieve positive change by forcing people to confront injustice and appealing to what is already written in their hearts to remedy that injustice.
Obama cannot unabashedly embrace this simple vision for a simple reason: He advocates policies that not only violate the natural law, but do so egregiously because they especially victimize children, who because of their vulnerability especially deserve society's protection.
These policies are legalized abortion, which allows unborn children to be killed, and granting same-sex unions the same legal status as marriage, including the "right" to adopt children, which results in children being denied either a mother or a father by the deliberate policy of the state.
Martin Luther King Jr.'s vision derived its political force from at least three factors: It was rooted in a moral tradition that transcends denominational divisions, it was exactly the same vision articulated in the Declaration of Independence, and it was true.
King, an African American Baptist clergyman, explained his vision in the Letter from Birmingham Jail, where he referenced not only the Declaration of Independence, which was drafted by a Deist, but also the writings of two Catholic saints, one of whom died in 430, the other in 1274.
"I would agree with St. Augustine that 'an unjust law is no law at all,'" wrote King. "Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a manmade code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law."
This is precisely what the Founding Fathers were saying when they cited "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God" and insisted that all men "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
Before the sayings of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright created a national controversy last week, Obama had tipped his hand on where he stood relevant to the Founders' and King's vision of justice.
At a Sunday morning event in Nelsonville, Ohio, earlier this month, for example, he explained why he favors legalized abortion.
He implicitly conceded there is something wrong with abortion, which he said has "a real moral element." But, he concluded, "in the end I think women, in consultation with their pastors, and their doctors, and their family, are in a better position to make these decisions than some bureaucrat in Washington."
That is like saying segregation had a "real moral element" but in end should have been left up to states, local communities and businesses.
On Feb. 28, Obama released an open letter to the "Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender" community. "I support the complete repeal of the Defense of Marriage Act," he said. That would mean states would not be protected from having to recognize same-sex marriages codified in Massachusetts or elsewhere.
"As your president," he said, "I will use the bully pulpit to urge states to treat same-sex couples with full equality in their family and adoption laws."
The people who would be bullied by this policy are children who would be thrown -- by edict of the government -- into same-sex unions in which nature itself would never have placed them.
No matter how persistently Obama invokes the rhetoric of national unity
and reconciliation, the heart of the country will rebel against the very
real consequence that his policies will harm the most vulnerable Americans
Guilting America to the White House
By Kathleen Parker
Barack Obama is a magician.
He could tell me it's raining on a sunny day, and I'd grab an umbrella. He could tell me the moon is the sun, and I'd reach for my shades.
He could even tell me that the Rev. Jeremiah Wright's rants god-damning America and blaming AIDS on a white-man conspiracy were wrong but essentially justified by a racist past ... and I'd have to slap myself before I saddled up a polka-dotted horse and galloped down the Yellow Brick Road.
Obama's speech Tuesday from Philadelphia -- the city of brotherly love -- was eloquent, inspiring and will be read in schools for generations. But between the lines of change and reconciliation were a discomfiting hint of buried fury, a sense of racial righteousness and a tacit approval attached to his expressed disapproval of Wright's now-famous raves that will leave many Americans wondering: Is he with us? Or is he against us?
In a flourish of brilliance, Obama framed his Rev. Wright problem in the context of America's unfinished work toward "a more perfect union," as envisioned by the nation's forefathers. It isn't that Wright is off-the-wall, we were to infer. It is that our country is falling short of its promise.
Which isn't completely false, of course, but not completely true, either. America isn't finished with its business of equality -- and race does still bedevil us -- but our progress since the twin blights of slavery and Jim Crow isn't insignificant.
Ever conscious of his pledge to unity, Obama acknowledged as much, saying that Wright wasn't wrong to talk about racism -- even if it was one-sided. He was wrong to speak "as if our society was static: as if no progress has been made."
But what he didn't acknowledge is that Wright is completely off-the-wall, even if the snippets we've seen are only a fraction of his life's work. Give Wright credit for helping the unfortunate and for leading Obama to his faith. But those accomplishments don't quite neutralize the anti-white message of the man Obama selected as his spiritual mentor.
Like the best politicians, Obama senses our restlessness. One of his many gifts is his ability to lull people with flawless logic and uplifting rhetoric.
Of course he disagrees with some of Wright's controversial statements -- just as most people disagree with some of what their pastors and rabbis say. We're yum-yumming that idea, thinking "Yeah, that's right," when our inner reality-checker kicks in and kills the buzz.
Then we remember that advancing lies and conspiracy theories that pit black against white is not, in fact, defensible. And that what many find offensive in Wright's statements is not comparable to the minor differences they likely have with their own pastors and rabbis.
The question still remains: Why did Obama, future author of racial harmony, stay with a preacher whose black nationalist leanings were no secret?
Obama said he could no more denounce Wright, who is "like family," than he could denounce the black community -- or his white grandmother. Instead, he praised Wright's larger presence and purpose in the black community as outweighing the YouTube replays of a profane man on the verge of paranoiac hysteria.
Moreover, the minister whom Obama first got to know 20 years ago spoke of "our obligations to love one another." But given Wright's racist eruptions, white Americans are justified in wondering whether those charitable thoughts also apply to them.
Finally, Obama suggested that if Wright is occasionally angry, he has a right to be, as does the community he serves. And if white Americans are startled to witness that anger, they haven't been paying attention.
That was a risky message, but one that counted on a reliable well of white guilt. Then Obama took another pre-emptive gamble and implored Americans to look at Wright's anger, rather than avert their gaze, and to embrace that anger as a prompt to change.
In other words, he artfully shifted focus from his still-perplexing relationship with Wright to our own dark hearts. The choice is ours, he said:
We can focus on one ol' crazy uncle who sometimes gets a little carried away -- and in so doing, destroy the audacity of hope -- or, we can keep our nation's date with destiny, fulfill the dream imagined 221 years ago to form a more perfect union -- and elect Barack Obama.
Anyone who fails to embrace the only appealing option -- eschewing cheap spectacle for a dance with destiny to the tune of hope -- begins to feel a little woozy and, oddly, un-American.
The Barack Obama Double Standard
By Doug Patton
March 17, 2008
Imagine in 1999, that a videotape had come to light showing the pastor of Texas Gov. George W. Bush's church making vicious, hateful comments about America and cruel, racist statements about Americans of color.
Suppose this preacher had given a lifetime achievement award to former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke, and had traveled to Europe with Duke to meet with neo-Nazi terrorists.
Now try to envision that the candidate's family had attended this church for more than twenty years, that George and Laura Bush had been married there, by this pastor, and that the Bush daughters had been baptized by him.
Picture George Bush titling his autobiography after a phrase in one of this minister's sermons, writing that the man was his mentor, and then putting him on the presidential campaign staff as a trusted advisor and confidant.
Say it came to light that for several years George W. Bush had been friends with Eric Rudolph, the notorious Olympic Park bomber and anti-abortion terrorist. Furthermore, let's suppose that Bush had remained friends with Rudolph over the years and still considered him a colleague today.
Now imagine Laura Bush, on the campaign trail for her husband, telling supporters and the national media that America is "mean" and that for the first time in her adult life she was proud of her country.
Is there a doubt that Republican officeholders would have run from the Bush campaign like rats from a burning barn, that he would have become the political leper of the 2000 campaign? And what about the media? They virtually crucified candidate Bush that year for daring to give a speech at Bob Jones University, which had once banned interracial dating. I cannot imagine the field day they would have had with something like this.
And yet excuses are made for Barack Obama, who now finds himself in exactly this situation. Obama's pastor of more than two decades - the man who married Barack and Michelle Obama, who christened their daughters, who inspired the title of the candidate's book, "The Audacity of Hope," - is now at the center of a storm that would have destroyed the candidacy of any Republican the day the story broke.
Rev. Jeremiah Wright, pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago for the last 36 years, has been caught on tape denouncing the United States and the white race in terms that should shock and disgust every thinking American. Wright and the church swear allegiance to the "mother country" - Africa. (Presumably this includes the Obama family.)
Rather than trying to infuse his congregation with hope and encouragement, Wright poisons them with vitriol about how the U.S. government has tried to commit genocide against the black community using drugs and the AIDS virus as weapons of choice.
"Don't say God bless America," Wright screams in one sermon. "God damn America!"
Wright, representing the church, bestowed a lifetime achievement award on Louis Farrakhan, the racist leader of the Nation of Islam. In the 1980s, Wright traveled to Libya with Farrakhan to meet with Muammar Gaddafi.
If Barack Obama has not been paying attention in church, it is apparent that his wife, Michelle, has. Campaigning for her husband recently, she said that for the first time in her adult life, she is finally proud of her country. In a separate speech, she said America is "a mean country."
Obama is friends with William Ayers, an admitted domestic terrorist with the Weather Underground, which declared war on the United States and claimed responsibility for bombing several government buildings, including the Pentagon and the State Department building, in the 1970s. In an interview with The New York Times, ironically published on the morning of September 11, 2001, Ayers was quoted as saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."
Now a tenured professor at the University of Chicago (only in America!), Ayers met Barack Obama in the 1990s. They have remained friends ever since.
We are judged not just by our words, but by the company we keep. The litmus
test should not be whether or not everyone a candidate knows is ideal. That
is an impossible standard. The true measure of a man is in his ability to
choose friends with which he can be proud to stand shoulder to shoulder,
not those about whom he must equivocate and for whom he must apologize.
Obama's Communist Mentor
By Cliff Kincaid
In his biography of Barack Obama, David Mendell writes about Obama's life as a "secret smoker" and how he "went to great lengths to conceal the habit" -- but what about Obama's secret political life? It turns out that Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a communist.
In his books, Obama admits attending "socialist conferences" and coming into contact with Marxist literature. But he ridicules the charge of being a "hard-core academic Marxist," which was made by his colorful and outspoken 2004 U.S. Senate opponent, Republican Alan Keyes. However, through Frank Marshall Davis, Obama had an admitted relationship with someone who was publicly identified as a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA). The record shows that Obama was in Hawaii from 1971-1979, where, at some point in time, he developed a close relationship, almost like a son, with Davis, listening to his "poetry" and getting advice on his career path. But Obama, in his book, Dreams From My Father, refers to him repeatedly as just "Frank."
The reason is apparent: Davis was a known communist who belonged to a party subservient to the Soviet Union. In fact, the 1951 report of the Commission on Subversive Activities to the Legislature of the Territory of Hawaii identified him as a CPUSA member. What's more, anti-communist congressional committees, including the House Un-American Activities Committee (HUAC), accused Davis of involvement in several communist-front organizations.
Trevor Loudon, (web site) a New Zealand-based libertarian activist, researcher and blogger, noted evidence that "Frank" was Frank Marshall Davis in a posting (web site) in March of 2007.
Obama's communist connection adds to mounting public concern about a candidate who has come out of virtually nowhere, with a brief U.S. Senate legislative record, to become the Democratic Party frontrunner for the U.S. presidency. In the latest Real Clear Politics poll average, (web site) Obama beats Republican John McCain by almost four percentage points.
AIM recently disclosed (web site) that Obama has well-documented socialist connections, which help explain why he sponsored a "Global Poverty Act" (web site) designed to send hundreds of billions of dollars of U.S. foreign aid to the rest of the world, in order to meet U.N. demands. The bill has passed the House and a Senate committee, and awaits full Senate action.
But the Communist Party connection through Davis is even more ominous. Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union.
You won't find any of this discussed in the David Mendell book, Obama: From Promise to Power. It is typical of the superficial biographies of Obama now on the market. Secret smoking seems to be Obama's most controversial activity. At best, Mendell and the liberal media describe Obama as "left-leaning."
But you will find it briefly discussed, sort of, in Obama's own book, Dreams From My Father. He writes about "a poet named Frank," who visited them in Hawaii, read poetry, and was full of "hard-earned knowledge" and advice. Who was Frank? Obama only says that he had "some modest notoriety once," was "a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes during his years in Chicago..." but was now "pushing eighty." He writes about "Frank and his old Black Power dashiki self" giving him advice before he left for Occidental College in 1979 at the age of 18.
This "Frank" is none other than Frank Marshall Davis, the black communist writer now considered by some to be in the same category of prominence as Maya Angelou and Alice Walker. In the summer/fall 2003 issue (web site) of African American Review, James A. Miller of George Washington University reviews a book by John Edgar Tidwell, a professor at the University of Kansas, about Davis's career, and notes, "In Davis's case, his political commitments led him to join the American Communist Party during the middle of World War II - even though he never publicly admitted his Party membership." Tidwell is an expert on the life and writings of Davis.
Is it possible that Obama did not know who Davis was when he wrote his book, Dreams From My Father, first published in 1995? That's not plausible since Obama refers to him as a contemporary of Richard Wright and Langston Hughes and says he saw a book of his black poetry.
The communists knew who "Frank" was, and they know who Obama is. In fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship.
Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March at the reception of the Communist Party USA archives at the Tamiment Library at New York University. The remarks are posted (web site) online under the headline, "Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party."
Horne, a history professor at the University of Houston, noted that Davis, who moved to Honolulu from Kansas in 1948 "at the suggestion of his good friend Paul Robeson," came into contact with Barack Obama and his family and became the young man's mentor, influencing Obama's sense of identity and career moves. Robeson, of course, was the well-known black actor and singer who served as a member of the CPUSA and apologist for the old Soviet Union. Davis had known Robeson from his time in Chicago.
As Horne describes it, Davis "befriended" a "Euro-American family" that had "migrated to Honolulu from Kansas and a young woman from this family eventually had a child with a young student from Kenya East Africa who goes by the name of Barack Obama, who retracing the steps of Davis eventually decamped to Chicago."
It was in Chicago that Obama became a "community organizer" and came into contact with more far-left political forces, including the Democratic Socialists of America, which maintains close ties to European socialist groups and parties through the Socialist International (SI), and two former members of the Students for a Democratic Society (SDS), William Ayers and Carl Davidson.
The SDS laid siege to college campuses across America in the 1960s, mostly in order to protest the Vietnam War, and spawned the terrorist Weather Underground organization. Ayers was a member of the terrorist group and turned himself in to authorities in 1981. He is now a college professor and served with Obama on the board of the Woods Fund of Chicago. Davidson is now a figure in the Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism, an offshoot of the old Moscow-controlled CPUSA, and helped organize the 2002 rally where Obama came out against the Iraq War.
Both communism and socialism trace their roots to Karl Marx, co-author of the Communist Manifesto, who endorsed the first meeting of the Socialist International, then called the "First International." According to Pierre Mauroy, president of the SI from 1992-1996, "It was he [Marx] who formally launched it, gave the inaugural address and devised its structure..."
Apparently unaware that Davis had been publicly named as a CPUSA member, Horne said only that Davis "was certainly in the orbit of the CP [Communist Party]--if not a member..."
In addition to Tidwell's book, Black Moods: Collected Poems of Frank Marshall Davis, confirming Davis's Communist Party membership, another book, The New Red Negro: The Literary Left and African American Poetry, 1930-1946, names Davis as one of several black poets who continued to publish in CPUSA-supported publications after the 1939 Hitler-Stalin non-aggression pact. The author, James Edward Smethurst, associate professor of Afro-American studies at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst, says that Davis, however, would later claim that he was "deeply troubled" by the pact.
While blacks such as Richard Wright left the CPUSA, it is not clear if or when Davis ever left the party.
However, Obama writes in Dreams from My Father that he saw "Frank" only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college "An advanced degree in compromise" and warned Obama not to forget his "people" and not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that shit." Davis also complained about foot problems, the result of "trying to force African feet into European shoes," Obama wrote.
For his part, Horne says that Obama's giving of credit to Davis will be important in history. "At some point in the future, a teacher will add to her syllabus Barack's memoir and instruct her students to read it alongside Frank Marshall Davis' equally affecting memoir, Living the Blues and when that day comes, I'm sure a future student will not only examine critically the Frankenstein monsters that US imperialism created in order to subdue Communist parties but will also be moved to come to this historic and wonderful archive in order to gain insight on what has befallen this complex and intriguing planet on which we reside," he said.
Dr. Kathryn Takara, a professor of Interdisciplinary Studies at the University of Hawaii at Manoa who also confirms that Davis is the "Frank" in Obama's book, did her dissertation on Davis and spent much time with him between 1972 until he passed away in 1987.
In an analysis (web site) posted online, she notes that Davis, who was a columnist for the Honolulu Record, brought "an acute sense of race relations and class struggle throughout America and the world" and that he openly discussed subjects such as American imperialism, colonialism and exploitation. She described him as a "socialist realist" who attacked the work of the House Un-American Activities Committee.
Davis, in his own writings, had said that Robeson and Harry Bridges, the head of the International Longshore and Warehouse Union (ILWU) and a secret member of the CPUSA, had suggested that he take a job as a columnist with the Honolulu Record "and see if I could do something for them." The ILWU was organizing workers there and Robeson's contacts were "passed on" to Davis, Takara writes.
Takara says that Davis "espoused freedom, radicalism, solidarity, labor unions, due process, peace, affirmative action, civil rights, Negro History week, and true Democracy to fight imperialism, colonialism, and white supremacy. He urged coalition politics."
Is "coalition politics" at work in Obama's rise to power?
Trevor Loudon, the New Zealand-based blogger who has been analyzing the political forces behind Obama and specializes in studying the impact of Marxist and leftist political organizations, notes that Frank Chapman, a CPUSA supporter, has written a letter to the party newspaper hailing the Illinois senator's victory in the Iowa caucuses.
"Obama's victory was more than a progressive move; it was a dialectical leap ushering in a qualitatively new era of struggle," Chapman wrote. (web site) "Marx once compared revolutionary struggle with the work of the mole, who sometimes burrows so far beneath the ground that he leaves no trace of his movement on the surface. This is the old revolutionary 'mole,' not only showing his traces on the surface but also breaking through."
Let's challenge the liberal media to report on this. Will they have the
honesty and integrity to do so?
For more information, see:
Marxism, Fascism, Nazism explained and compared
The difference between a Democracy and a Republic
Republic? Democracy? What's the Difference?
A Republic, Not a Democracy
Sorry, Mr. Franklin, “We’re All Democrats Now”
Democracy Is Not Freedom
If We Subsidize Them...
The Coming Econmic Collapse of America
by Ron Paul
For decades we have welcomed new immigrants to our American "melting pot". We respect those who come here peacefully to pursue their American Dream. But Americans have noticed lately that modern problems associated with illegal immigration are at a crisis point. Taxpayers are now suffering the consequences.
Costs of social services for the estimated 21 million illegal immigrants in this country are approaching $400 billion. We educate 4.2 million children of illegals at a cost of $13.8 billion. There have been almost 2 million anchor babies born in this country since 2002, with labor and delivery costs of between $3 and 6 billion. There are currently 360,000 illegals in our prisons and we have spent $1.4 billion to incarcerate them since 2001. In Prince William County near DC, ICE can't deport criminal illegals fast enough and has actually asked its local jails to slow down on referring them. Jurisdiction over illegal immigration lies at the federal level, yet many municipalities are struggling with the compounding problems of mandated costs and tied hands. My office has heard from at least one sheriff in my district considering seeking compensation from the Federal government for the cost of so many illegal immigrant inmates that wouldn't be here if the Federal government was doing its job and protecting our borders. The problems are widespread.
One thing is certain: If we subsidize them, they will come. We have rolled out the social services red carpet, so it is no surprise that many from other countries are eager to come take advantage of our very generous system.
We must return to the American principle of personal responsibility. We must expect those who come here to take care of themselves and respect our laws. Not only is this the right thing to do for our overtaxed citizens, but we simply have no choice. We can't afford these policies anymore. Since we are $60 trillion in debt, there should be no taxpayer-paid benefits for non-citizens. My bill, the Social Security for American Citizens Only Act, stops non-citizens from collecting Social Security Benefits. This bill, by the way, picked up three new cosponsors this week and is gaining momentum. Also, we should not be awarding automatic citizenship to children born here minutes after their mothers illegally cross the border. It just doesn't make sense. The practice of birthright citizenship is an aberration of the original intent of the 14th amendment, the purpose of which was never to allow lawbreakers to bleed taxpayers of welfare benefits. I have introduced HJ Res 46 to address this loophole. Other Western countries such as Australia , France , and England have stopped birth-right citizenship. It is only reasonable that we do the same. We must also empower local and state officials to deal with problems the Federal government can't or won't address. Actions like this are a matter of national security at this point.
Illegal immigration is draining and frustrating the American taxpayer. I
will continue to work for a solution that does not reward those who break
Change Obama can believe in: Socialism?
By Cliff Kincaid, Accuracy in Media
Campaign workers for Senator and presidential candidate Barack Obama are under fire for displaying a flag featuring communist hero Che Guevara.
But Obama has his own controversial connections. He is, in fact, an associate of a Chicago-based socialist group with ties to the Socialist International, access to millions of labor union dollars and connections to expert political consultants, including a convicted swindler.
Obama’s socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat. Later, the Chicago DSA newsletter reported that Obama, as a state senator, showed up to eulogize Saul Mendelson, one of the “champions” of “Chicago’s democratic left” and a long-time socialist activist. Obama’s stint as a “community organizer” in Chicago has gotten some attention, but his relationship with the DSA socialists, who groomed and backed him, has been generally ignored.
Blogger Steve Bartin, who has been following Obama’s career and involvement with the Chicago socialists, has uncovered a fascinating video showing Obama campaigning for openly socialist Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. Interestingly, Sanders, who won his seat in 2006, called Obama “one of the great leaders of the United States Senate,” even though Obama had only been in the body for about two years. In 2007, the National Journal said that Obama had established himself as “the most liberal Senator.” More liberal than Sanders? That is quite a feat. Does this make Obama a socialist, too?
DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called “consultative status” with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body.
The international connection is important and significant because an Obama bill, “The Global Poverty Act,” has just been rushed through the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, with the assistance of Democratic Senator Joe Biden, the chairman, and Republican Senator Richard Lugar. The legislation (S.2433) commits the U.S. to spending hundreds of billions of dollars more in foreign aid on the rest of the world, in order to comply with the “Millennium Goals” established by the United Nations. Conservative members of the committee were largely caught off-guard by the move to pass the Obama bill but are putting a “hold” on it, in order to try to prevent the legislation, which also quickly passed the House, from being quickly brought up for a full Senate vote. But observers think that Senate Democrats may try to pass it quickly anyway, in order to give Obama a precious legislative “victory” that he could run on.
Another group associated with the SI is the Party of European Socialists (PES), which heard from Howard Dean, the chairman of the Democratic National Committee, back in 2006. Dean’s speech is posted on the official Democratic Party website, although the European socialist parties are referred to as “progressive.” Democrats, Dean said, want to be “good citizens of the world community.” He spoke at a session on “Global Challenges for Progressive Politics.”
Following up, in April 2007, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported that European socialists held a meeting “in the Democrats HQ in Washington,” met with officials of the party and Democratic members of Congress, and agreed that “PES activist groups” in various U.S. cities would start working together. The photos of the trip show Rasmussen meeting with such figures as Senator Ben Cardin, Senator Bernie Sanders, officials of the Brookings Institution, Howard Dean, and AFL-CIO President John W. Sweeney, a member of the DSA. The Brookings Institution is headed by former Clinton State Department official Strobe Talbott, a proponent of world government who was recently identified in the book Comrade J as having been a pawn of the Russian intelligence service.
The socialist connections of Obama and the Democratic Party have certainly not been featured in the Washington Post columns of Harold Meyerson, who happens not only to be a member but a vice-chair of the DSA. Meyerson, the subject of our 2005 column, “A Socialist at the Washington Post,” has praised convicted inside-trader George Soros for manipulating campaign finance laws to benefit the far-left elements of the Democratic Party. Obama’s success in the Democratic presidential primaries and caucuses is further evidence of Soros’s success. Indeed, Soros has financially contributed to the Obama campaign.
It is not surprising that the Chicago Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, has endorsed Obama. Schakowsky, who endorsed Howard Dean for president in 2004, was honored in 2000 at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA. Her husband, Robert Creamer, emerged from federal prison in November 2006 after serving five months for financial crimes. He pleaded guilty to ripping off financial institutions while running a non-profit group. Before he was convicted but under indictment, Creamer was hired by the Soros-funded Open Society Policy Center to sabotage John Bolton’s nomination as Ambassador to the U.N.
After his release from prison, Creamer released a book, Listen to Your Mother: Stand up Straight: How Progressives Can Win, described by one blogger as the book that was “penned in the pen.” A blurb for the book declares, “Some people think that in order to win, Democrats need to move to the political center by adopting conservative values and splitting the difference between progressive and conservative positions. History shows they are wrong. To win the next election and to win in the long term, we need to redefine the political center.”
In addition to writing the book, Creamer is back in business, running his firm, Strategic Consulting Group, and advertising himself as “a consultant to the campaigns to end the war in Iraq, pass universal health care, change America’s budget priorities and enact comprehensive immigration reform.” His clients have included the AFL-CIO and MoveOn.org. In fact, his client list is a virtual who’s who of the Democratic Party, organized labor, and Democratic Party constituency groups.
Creamer’s list of testimonials comes from such figures as Democratic Senators Dick Durbin (Ill.) and Sherrod Brown (Ohio), Harold Meyerson, MoveOn.org founder Wes Boyd, and David Axelrod, a “Democratic political consultant.” Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a “Democratic political consultant.” He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign.
Cliff Kincaid of Accuracy in Media appeared on the Glenn Beck show Thursday and detailed Obama's extreme Left connections. So far he's been mouthing celestial platitudes about "change," "hope," etc. As Rush has said regarding his oratory skills, "No one says 'nothing' better." But this vapid oratory conceals a serious threat to America. The only thing worse than having barely any experience at all is having little experience that's all BAD.
Global Poverty Act = Socialist Global Tax
"The Global Poverty Act:
* Declares it official U.S. policy to promote the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of cutting extreme global poverty in half by 2015 -- by increasing taxes and poverty in the U.S.!
* Requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to carry out that policy.
* Includes guidelines for what the strategy should include - from aid, trade, and debt relief, to working with the international community, businesses and NGOs, to ensuring environmental sustainability.
* Requires that the President's strategy include specific and measurable goals, efforts to be undertaken, benchmarks, and timetables.
* Requires the President to report back to Congress on progress made in the implementation of the global poverty strategy."
According to the above source, these are the contents of the Global Poverty Act, sponsored by Barack Obama. The reason this is a conspiracy is that 1) it's been very hard to find any news on this at all from either AP or Reuters or whatever mainstream news source you prefer. All the news about it is on blogs supporting the bill. But the website belonging to Glenn Beck includes the real meat of Senate bill 2433. And 2) what's being left out of this seemingly benign news article is what is included in Beck's coverage:
The Act will commit the US to increasing our taxes significantly (in addition to raises to keep Social Security from going under, and for social services for illegal immigrants) and paying $845 Billion in addition to what is already being spent on foreign aid (that's .7% of the GDP)
The goals of the Act will be declared by the United Nations, not the United States.
The declaration commits the US to ban small arms and weapons, ratify a series of treaties including the International Criminal Court treaty, the Kyoto protocol, and the Convention on Biological Diversity.
This legislation was pushed through the house because no one read it and
is now being pushed through the Senate and no one is talking about it. This
is the type of thing that we're all afraid of. Is this the direction you
want the US to go in? If it is, then call it what it truly is - not Liberalism,
but SOCIALISM/Marxism, and an attempt to fast track a global government.
Obama's Global Plan
February 14, 2008 - 12:45 ET
GLENN: Obama and Hagel's Global Poverty Act that has just passed in the Senate committee.
It's CRAZY!!! The government is giving away even more money!!!
Okay, this is a great sounding bill, it really is. The Global Poverty Act just passed. It was number 4 on the list of things to do today, on Valentine's Day. My heart to you. It is sponsored by Barack Obama. Now, yesterday so you know, Barack Obama said, and I quote, “it's time to stop spending billions of dollars a week trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America back together.” Got it? He wants to put America back together. That's why he proposed $210 billion yesterday to create jobs, $210 billion to create jobs. That, by the way, is a 2, a 1 followed by 10 zeroes. He wants $150 billion to create 5 million green collar jobs to do things for the environment. $150 billion, green collar jobs. Environmentally friendly energy sources will be found. It will be fantastic. He wants $60 billion to go to a national infrastructure reinvestment bank to rebuild highways, bridges, airports and other projects. He says he can create the -- the Government will generate 2 million jobs. It sounds like work projects. My gosh, how great. It sounds just like the new deal. These two million jobs, many of them will be in construction, which has been hit by the housing crisis. So don't worry. We'll fix it as the Government.
So he's proposing $210 billion yesterday and saying it's time to stop spending billions of dollars trying to put Iraq back together and start spending the money on putting America together. At the same time he proposed the Global Poverty Act. It just today passed the Senate. This is great.
Senator Biden trying to rush the Global Poverty Act through his committee, got it done. It now, if it passes -- it already has passed the House mainly because people didn't read it. If it passes now in the Senate, it will commit the United States to spending .7% of our gross national product on foreign aid, which will amount to a phenomenal $845 billion over what we already spend on foreign aid. But here's the great thing. It doesn't commit it to -- we're not committing to ourselves. We're committing to the United Nations. The United Nations will take the .7% of our GDP and -- wait a minute. That kind of sounds like -- a poverty act. That almost sounds like a global tax. A release from Obama's Senate office says the U.S. joined more than 180 countries with the United Nations Millennium Summit and vowed to reduce global poverty by 2015. But we're halfway there and it's time the United States makes this a priority, to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective in promoting the reduction of global poverty.
Now, the bill has defined the term millennium development goals as the goals set out in the declaration given by the United Nations. Just so you know, those Millennials goals not only care about poor starving children, there's other ideas in there as well. For instance, the declaration commits nations to ban small arms and weapons, ratifying a series of treaties including the International Criminal Court treaty, the Kyoto protocol, the Convention on Biological Diversity. The what? The Convention on Biological Diversity? I don't even know what that means. "We would be committed to the ratification of the convention on the elimination of all forms of discrimination against women." Does that mean the United Nations will suddenly fight Islamic extremism with us! No. No, why would that -- uh-uh. That's just diversity. "Also we would ratify the convention on the rights of a child."
Let me give you a little something on the rights of a child. These are the big Progressive thinkers. Remember Hillary Clinton is a -- she's a new Progressive. In the middle of the early 20th century Progressive. You've got to understand what that means. These are crazy people. Example? Rights of a child, if I may quote Dr. Louise Silverstein. She wrote in the American Psychologist that, quote, "Psychologists must refuse to undertake any more research that looks for the negative consequences of 'other than mother' care." It's almost like it's their global consensus. I can't find anything that says putting your kid in day care would be a bad thing. Sheez. Dr. Silverstein is almost saying in the American Psychologist that psychologists must refuse to take on any research that even looks for anything bad that might happen with child care, taking care of anybody else but mom.
Another famous Progressive philosopher and good friend of Hillary Clinton's, Linda Hershman, said that "women cannot be fully realized human beings if they don't make work a bigger priority than mothering." They're not fully realized human beings. Women are made to feel judged or shamed by their choice of day care. "This negativity will be paid forward in the form of brain-warping stress." Who is making them feel less than adequate for not working? Instead working the hardest job, the one at home. Who's making them feel that way? I know I'm not. Sandra Scarr, possibly the most quoted expert on the "Other than mother" care in America and past president of the American Psychological Society says, and I quote, "However desirable or undesirable the ideal of a full-time maternal care may be, it is now completely unrealistic in the world of the late 20th century. We must and need to create, quoting, a new century's new ideal children. These children will need to learn to love everybody like a family member. Quoting: Multiple attachments to others will become the ideal. Shyness and exclusive maternal attachment will seem dysfunctional. Quoting: New treatments will be developed for children with exclusive maternal attachments, end quote.
Can you see the new Progressive world just on the horizon where our kids can have new therapy if they only recognize mom as their mom. Children, when you have the convention on the rights of the child, children are no longer children. They are no longer yours. This is the design of Progressive fascists from the beginning of last century: Take the children and give them to the state, give them rights, make them a member of the global organization. We have seen it this year in Maine. You know the 11 -- yeah, the 11-year-olds getting the birth control pill?
GLENN: Okay, Maine. It is illegal for an 11-year-old to have sex, consensual sex, cannot have from an 11-year-old with another 11-year-old. Cannot happen. They cannot have consensual sex yet the school can now prescribe a prescription drug for the kids (to supposedly reduce risk of a sexually-transmitted disease) without telling the parents. Now wait a minute. Hang on just a sec. So wait a minute. So now we're teaching the kids that we don't have to enforce our own laws and that the school nurse is more trustworthy than the parent. We are now teaching that the school nurse, that the Government is much more of a mom or a dad than mom or dad. You can talk to me but you don't have to talk to your mom and dad.
This is not some little thing that you're like, oh, well, that's just crazy
talk. This is designed, and it is designed to make your child a product of
the state indoctrination. It is a design to make your child a product of
a global government. It is designed to make sure that you do not have any
say in your child's beliefs, education and upbringing.
(From a blog): Our Founders Gave us a Republic not a democracy - Ron Paul Knows the Difference and so should every one else in government, in addition, to every man, women and child in this country.
However, thanks to our dumbed down Old Media and our educational system there are many who believe our form of government is a "democracy." All you have to do to know this is true is to listen to any of the talking heads.
We’ve all heard the words democracy and freedom used countless times, especially in the context of our invasion of Iraq. They are used interchangeably in modern political discourse, yet their true meanings are very different.
George Orwell wrote about “meaningless words” ("Newspeak") that are endlessly repeated in the political arena*. Words like “freedom,” “democracy,” and “justice,” Orwell explained, have been abused so long that their original meanings have been eviscerated. In Orwell’s view, political words were “Often used in a consciously dishonest way.” Without precise meanings behind words, politicians and elites can obscure reality and condition people to reflexively associate certain words with positive or negative perceptions. In other words, unpleasant facts can be hidden behind purposely meaningless language. As a result, Americans have been conditioned to accept the word “democracy” as a synonym for freedom, and thus to believe that democracy is unquestionably good.
The problem is that democracy is not freedom. Democracy is simply “majoritarianism”, which is inherently incompatible with real freedom. Our founding fathers clearly understood this, as evidenced not only by our republican constitutional system, but also by their writings in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere. James Madison cautioned that under a democratic government, “There is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual.” John Adams argued that democracies merely grant revocable rights to citizens depending on the whims of the masses, while a republic exists to secure and protect pre-existing rights. Yet how many Americans know that the word “democracy” is found neither in the Constitution nor the Declaration of Independence, our very founding documents?
A truly democratic election in Iraq, without U.S. interference and U.S. puppet candidates, almost certainly would result in the creation of a Shiite theocracy. Shiite majority rule in Iraq might well mean the complete political, economic, and social subjugation of the minority Kurd and Sunni Arab populations. Such an outcome would be democratic, but would it be free? Would the Kurds and Sunnis consider themselves free? The administration talks about democracy in Iraq, but is it prepared to accept a democratically-elected Iraqi government no matter what its attitude toward the U.S. occupation? Hardly. For all our talk about freedom and democracy, the truth is we have no idea whether Iraqis will be free in the future. They’re certainly not free while a foreign army occupies their country. The real test is not whether Iraq adopts a democratic, pro-western government, but rather whether ordinary Iraqis can lead their personal, religious, social, and business lives without interference from government.
Simply put, freedom is the absence of government coercion. Our Founding Fathers understood this, and created the least coercive government in the history of the world. The Constitution established a very limited, decentralized government to provide national defense and little else. States, not the federal government, were charged with protecting individuals against criminal force and fraud. For the first time, a government was created solely to protect the rights, liberties, and property of its citizens. Any government coercion beyond that necessary to secure those rights was forbidden, both through the Bill of Rights and the doctrine of strictly enumerated powers. This reflected the founders’ belief that democratic government could be as tyrannical as any King.
There's one important piece of the puzzle we're missing... and that is that the real power must remain close to the individual, at the state level.
The minute the federal sphere starts interfering with the states the power starts to shift away from the individual and closer to where external influences live.
The more these external influences impose their will at the Federal level the more the individual becomes alienated and disillusioned.
The more the individual becomes detached from the political process the more the system of government becomes closer to a totalitarian state or a fascist state. Well, this is where we are today!
We must restore the power back to the state level, closer to the individual where it can be better controlled and restrained.
Ron Paul understands this -- one more reason to vote for him.
Congratulations on a wonderfully concise and pointed illustration of the difference between a republic and a democracy. As Benjamin Franklin said, "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner." A Republic has the same two wolves and a sheep, but the sheep have all the guns.
If you want more division in this country be more "democratic": The politicians love a "democracy"! In a Republic every citizen gets the maximum benefit of his / her creator given rights. In a "democracy" we get to "chose" (umm..) or the politicians get to chose. And what usually happens? More and more it seems. That's right! 51% win and 49% lose. Half the country ends up dissatisfied with the results, more campaign money is needed to turn around the results. It stinks, voting for everything just plain stinks. You DON'T need to vote for every damn thing if you have your unalienable rights...
But so many people in this country have been conditioned to believe everything needs to be voted on and the government is to take care of them from cradle to grave.
The federal government was not created by our Founders to play the role it plays in our lives today.
It was mainly created to provide for our National Defense and that was basically it. Everything else was to be decided by each individual state -- even who our Senators were to be. That was until the 17th amendment, which by the way, should be repealed. We should go back to the way our Founders intended Senators to be chosen.
This is what Jefferson had to say about big government: "A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have" -- and that includes our freedom and liberty.
"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take everything you have."
I was taught poorly for sure: I never understood the difference until my late 20s. Why? Am I stupid? I am an engineer after all. Well, first I had no interest as a teen other than getting work out of the way to build hobbies. Second, not one teacher ever put the definitions on the board or elaborated on exactly what the premise of each party is all about....Sure we had debates and mock politics, but we always just argued about issues and not the core philosophy. Then there's economics.....I was fortunate enough to have a forensics class where the teacher had us play a fictitious investment portfolio....fun but still not the discussion of how capitalism should balance free trade and law.
Anyways, my point is that I was thinking about important things, but our core national principles really aren't delved into that much in public school. Now you add taking out the pledge of allegiance and you have a ripe low income world labor source in the making.
Democracy is not a form of government; it is the way people participate in a form of government. There's a lot of misunderstanding about democracy. We need to go back to it's origins in Greece. This country is a Republic!
That's the problem -- most people in this country think democracy is our form of government. The Old Media keeps referring to our nation as being a democracy, so what else are people to think? After all most believe that if it isn't in the news it just isn't so, and "Republic" is rarely if ever mentioned in the news.
The body of Republic democracy is a form not state. Whether you call it ‘democracy’ or a ‘republic’, it’s green communism. Green Communism is the base of the republic of Iran, people republic of communist China; I think republic has been falsified, since Greece had empiricist roots.
Democracy = Senate
Republic = Representatives
See the division.
Right -- and I believe that democracy used to be a potentially valid means of participating in a government-when people associated elected officials with 'public servants', instead of leaders in charge of us....which makes the idea of participatory democracy an illusion at best.
I do think that democratic participation is almost inherent in any group of people collectively consenting to live and interact together - i.e., a family, group of friends, team. Most often it will be that the minority will go along with the majority b/c they would like to be with the rest. [i.e., I am happy to do something b/c my 6 yr old would like to do it, b/c the underlying desire is that I want to be with my son.] Occasionally, the minority will simply do their own thing instead. There is a sacrifice of sovereignty, done voluntarily, in many aspects of life. An exchange in this case takes place.
Democracy is said to be based on the idea of 'popular sovereignty', whereby individuals consent to give up part of their sovereignty in exchange for social order.
This speaks to the idea that democracy has always been intended for social control, not freedom. 'Order out of Chaos', right?
With true freedom, democratic participation in government becomes an oxy-moron.
There should be term limitations at every level to allow equal participation in the representative form we have. Roosevelt was president 16 years: maybe some crusaders would be set straight if right and left wasn't hoarded.
Maybe it would be harder to control things if the two term limits went from presidents to mayors. There was an American student who won public office and was stripped of that title by opponents. Obviously greed is involved.
Our Founders never intended that serving in Congress was to be a career. They felt they were obligated to serve and then go home to whatever their chosen career was (and earn their wages from that, not by picking the pockets of those they govern for their own benefits and political paybacks.)
If "We the People" bombarded Congress like we did over the "comprehensive immigration" bill and demanded that these freeloaders put a cap on what they can earn, and eliminate all gifts and perks such as pension and health coverage, etc., (in addition to prosecuting all those who accept graft, with no opportunity for a plea deal), then maybe if we were to demand these changes, we might get only those who want to serve America, instead of those who want to serve themselves.
And if they don't do as we demand then, it is up to us to implement term limits and we do that with our vote.
I often make the same point in forums - particularly financial forums where words such as "inflation" and "deflation" and "bubble" are bandied about, yet commonly found to have no moorings. Newspeak (Orwell's book, 1984) doesn't require new words when you can misuse an old one and go unchallenged.
The key part of winning this election is waking those who are still "asleep". Without understanding that we are NOT a "democracy" but rather a "republic", the importance of the Constitution is nearly impossible to convey. I use the word "republic" a lot and generally try to either sneak in the definition or ask whether the audience knows the difference. Very few, I've found, know the difference. I don't think that's coincidence.
Paul is branded an "eccentric", "radical", or worse when ALL he is saying is that the US has a "rule of law" called the Constitution and that MOST of the "solutions" be proposed by candidates are simply illegal under the Constitution since the Constitution (specifically the 10th Amendment) makes crystal clear that the scope of Federal authority is severely limited.
The question I like to ask people is "When you recite the Pledge of Allegiance, do you mean it?" They say, "yes!" I point out that the Pledge specifically says "...and to the REPUBLIC for which it Stands". I then explain how the Republic IS the Constitution. I ask "are you for or against the US Constitution?" (If someone says they are against it, I don't waste any further time - what else can I say...there are enemies of the Republic everywhere.) And when you pledge allegiance, do you salute your crotch, like Obama does, or do you place your hand over your heart to show you mean it?
At this point I like to pull out a handy copy of the Constitution plus Bill of Rights. First I point out that the whole thing is *quite* short and written in English so clear that anyone can understand most of it with ease.
In particular I like to flip to the 10th Amendment and read: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
I ask if that is clear enough. I ask if they think a lawyer is necessary to "interpret" the meaning of that Amendment. I point out that the Founding Fathers were smart men and very well educated. That they wrote with great specificity and clarity specifically because they wanted to make sure the Federal government could never grow to become what it has become.
I point out that Ron Paul, and only Ron Paul, speaks clearly, respects the Constitution, and follows the law.
From there the conversation goes where it goes, but that is the framework in which I try to work. I find that once people agree that they support the Constitution and have a copy in their hands, with the 10th right in front of them, that the whole conversation takes on a different demeanor. Either that or I find I am dealing with someone who wants pork at any price ... even if they have to live in a cage in order to get their pork meal, and I disengage.
I love this line: "You can't force people to abandon The Matrix. You can only educate them." Although, I don't believe you can educate them, either -- only expose them to information and ideas.
Peter Schweizer: Liberals Are More Selfish Than Conservatives
Monday, June 2, 2008 1:51 PM
By: Ronald Kessler
Contrary to the image they try to project, liberals are less compassionate and more selfish than conservatives, according to a new book by Peter Schweizer.
Drawing on extensive attitude surveys, Schweizer’s “Makers and Takers: Why Conservatives Work Harder, Feel Happier, Have Closer Families, Take Fewer Drugs, Give More Generously, Value Honesty More, Are Less Materialistic and Envious, Whine Less . . . and Even Hug Their Children More Than Liberals,” which comes out this week, says liberals are much more likely than conservatives to think about themselves first and are less willing to make sacrifices for others. [Editor's Note: Get Peter Schweizer's book.]
Some 71 percent of conservatives say they have an obligation to care for a seriously injured spouse or parent, compared with 46 percent for liberals. Asked if they would endure all things for the one they love, 55 percent of conservatives say yes, compared with 26 percent of liberals.
Equally revealing, liberals are far more likely to say they are depressed and to view the world bleakly. Schweizer attributes that to an attitude that they and those around them are victims and helpless unless the government intervenes.
In answer to a question from Newsmax, Schweizer says that may help explain why liberal politicians and reporters tend to see everything with pessimism, from the economy to the war on terror and the war in Iraq.
Schweizer says the media and liberal professors have successfully obscured these differences by painting a picture of conservatives as mean-spirited. He quotes one professor as saying that conservatives embrace the “unimpeded pursuit of self-interest” to get what they want and that as children, they were insecure and whiny.
Conservatives are selfish, Robert Reich, Bill Clinton’s former labor secretary, has said, and “they pander to the worst of us.”
Sen. Charles Schumer said on Bill Maher’s HBO show “Real Time,” “There are some, you know, there are some anti-Semites in this county, but most of them would vote Republican anyway.”
Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean has said conservatives and Republicans are “evil,” “corrupt,” brain-dead,” and “not very nice people” who have “never made an honest living in their lives.”
If Schweizer’s book is a ground-breaker, it also raises the question of why Schweizer’s findings may come as a surprise even to conservatives. Schweizer cites ample evidence that the media have ignored good news about conservatives and have helped perpetuate the myth that liberals are more compassionate and caring.
Katie Couric has said that during the Reagan era, "greed and materialism was the norm.” Alan Colmes of Fox News’ "Hannity & Colmes" has said that “Jesus was a liberal” because he was much more generous with limited resources than a conservative would be.
Liberals Perpetuate the Myth
“The media have perpetuated these myths about conservatives over the years,” Schweizer tells Newsmax. “And the media were very comfortable passing these things along because they conformed to their world view."
Drawing on hard polling data, Schweizer demonstrates that the truth is quite the opposite. In doing so, he explodes more myths than firecrackers on the Fourth of July.
In fact, Schweizer writes, self-described liberals and Democrats, who profess to be tolerant, are much more likely to embrace stereotypes of Jews than conservatives or Republicans. Some 45 percent of self-described “strong” Democrats or liberals agree with the statement that Jews are inordinately rich and money-driven, compared with 36 percent of strong Republicans and conservatives.
Schweizer cites similar research to show that even when they are in the same income brackets, liberals are far more likely to complain about their jobs, families, neighbors, health, and their relative wealth than conservatives.
Liberals are much more likely to say that money is important to them, according to the surveys Schweizer cites. They are two and a half times more likely to be resentful of others’ success and 50 percent more likely to be jealous of other people’s good luck. Conservatives are much more likely than liberals to spend time with their families, hug their children, and be close to their parents.
Liberals tend to work less hard and are more likely than conservatives to embrace leisure time as desirable. When asked if competition is good, those who defined themselves as very liberal say yes only 14 percent of the time, compared with 43 percent for conservatives.
Liberals are more likely to say that truth is something that is “relative.” When asked if they believe in ghosts, 42 percent of liberals say they do, compared with 25 percent of conservatives. Liberals are more likely to say that’s it’s OK to be dishonest or deceptive, cheat on taxes, keep money that doesn’t belong to them, and sell a used car with a faulty transmission to a family member.
Overall, conservatives are more satisfied with their lives, their professions, and their health compared with liberals of the same age and income level.
Schweizer balances these findings with a few issues where liberals come out ahead. He says liberals are more likely than conservatives to be open to new experiences in travel, art, and music. But Schweizer exposes hypocrisy at the core of liberal beliefs. While liberals claim to be compassionate and to care about the poor, conservatives are much more likely to donate their time and money to charitable causes.
When Reich ran for governor of Massachusetts in 2002, his tax returns revealed income of more than $1 million, but he contributed just $2,714 to charity, or less than 0.3 percent.
Ned Lamont, the anti-war Democrat who ran against Sen. Joe Lieberman in Connecticut, is worth $200 million and made $2.8 million in 2005. He has talked about the need to raise taxes because the wealthy are not doing enough to help those in need. Yet in 2005, he donated only $5,385 to charity, or less than 0.2 percent of his income.
In contrast, George Bush gave 10 percent of his income to charity in 2005. In 2005, Barack Obama made $1.7 million, or 2.5 times what Bush made that year, but gave the same amount to charity as Bush did. That same year, Dick Cheney gave away 77 percent of his income to charity.
While Schweizer does not address attitudes about national security (the subject of his next book), he says liberals are more concerned about what others think than conservatives. When asked what is most important to prepare a child for life, 40 percent of liberals listed “being popular” among them, compared with 24 percent of conservatives.
On the other hand, conservatives were more likely to say one of their main goals in life is to “make my parents proud.” Presumably, those who are more concerned about what others think are more likely to be concerned about criticism of firm national security policies.
Finally, liberals try to paint conservatives as dumb — Clark Clifford called Ronald Reagan an “amiable dunce.” Schweizer shows that while John Kerry scored in the 91st percentile on a military IQ test, George Bush scored in the 95th percentile. Contrary to misrepresentations in the media, Bush also had slightly higher grades at Yale than Kerry.
Schweizer attributes liberals’ bleaker outlook on life to their deep-seated victim mentality.
This feeds a view that they cannot help themselves and encourages them to be passive. They are far more likely to say that luck or fate plays a role in their lives, as opposed to citing the need to take action themselves.
The victim mentality, in turn, makes them more likely to become depressed, suffer from a nervous breakdown, attempt suicide, be chronically angry, throw something in a fit of anger, seek revenge, and have a bleak outlook on life in general.
In one survey, 34 percent of liberals said the problems of life were just too big to cope with, compared with 19 percent of conservatives.
“Liberals often feel overwhelmed by life’s problems because they are waiting for the government to fix them,” Schweizer says. “”When it doesn’t, liberals blame others (and ‘society’) for their misfortune.” Thus, liberalism “often damages its own adherents the most,” Schweitzer says.
“Modern liberal ideas consistently encourage bad habits and destructive behavioral tendencies,” says Schweizer, a research fellow at the Hoover Institution.
Schweizer says liberalism is appealing because it gives lip service to lofty ideals but demands little action. Liberalism considers as noble those who complain about personal difficulties and display anger or denounce our “money-making culture,” but liberalism does not stress taking personal responsibility and action.
Thus, “While liberals tend to be much more fixated on money, they convince themselves that if they hold the belief that our society is too obsessed by money, the money culture doesn’t influence them adversely the way that it does other people,” Schweizer says.
“Modern liberalism is a wonderful tool to kind of avoid having to
make much change in your life,” Schweizer says. “It’s kind
of in my mind the equivalent to carbon offsets. You don’t need to change
anything in your life, you simply have to sort of stamp this document or
pay this minor price, and the problems in your life just sort of go away.”
Leftist host Ken Altshuler from "Mike and Ken on WGAN" leaves Dems
live on air
June 11, 2008 - 12:41 ET
GLENN: You and I were having an interesting conversation today because I couldn't believe this. You are a guy who believes in the socialized world but you are not for Barack Obama, and we actually agree on why. Will you explain it?
Ken Altshuler: I will. Not only am I not for him, I will not vote for him. And I won't vote for him and I won't support him because number one, I don't know who he is. He is absolutely an unknown quantity. He has done very little votes, he has stood for very little positions. He talks in platitudes. He talked in hope and change without substance. So we don't know who he is. In addition to that, we do know some things about who he surrounds himself with. There's a reverend named Reverend Wright who is a racist. This is his spiritual advisor. He has a wife who by my point of view is militant, is angry. And I believe the people running his campaign who will run the government if he's elected have a hidden agenda. I'm not sure what it is but I don't think I like it.
GLENN: I think his wife is frightening. She is really, truly a militant in my point of view. Why do you say that?
ALTSHULER: Well, let's look at what we know about her. She started out talking about such things as this is the first time I'm proud to be an American. That is classic frankly militant African American jargon for saying finally we are getting our day in court, we're getting our day in the spotlight.
GLENN: So wait a minute. Hang on just a second. I just assumed that because you were a liberal, you weren't a racist, but now I understand you're a racist.
ALTSHULER: Oh, that's right. I'm not supposed to criticize any African American. I apologize. How could I be see, and that is the classic. The minute you criticize this man, you are a racist. There's no valid criticism and that's why I am going to tell you if it be President Barack Obama come November 4th.
GLENN: You do believe he is going to win?
ALTSHULER: I believe that John McCain doesn't have a chance because wait, now sit down for this one, Mr. Beck. The liberal media bias will coast him into office because...
GLENN: Wait a minute. You, Sam the socialist is telling me it's the liberal media bias that is going to get Barack Obama elected?
ALTSHULER: The media decided the minute he ran that he was the next President, and they have actively campaigned for him since day one. They absolutely destroyed any chance Hillary Clinton had. She helped (destroy) herself a little bit. They destroyed the campaign, they will do the same thing with John McCain and you can have all the Karl Roves you want, but you can't touch that man.
GLENN: So Ken, how do you how do you put this together in your head? How do you look at this because your world, this is the world that I expected, the liberal media bias, I expected this. I expected the political correctness. I expected radicals. I've been saying this for years: "Democrats, you've got to wake up because you have absolute radicals in your ranks." When you're dealing with people like Michael Moore and you are putting them in a presidential box at the convention with the other radical Jimmy Carter. When they are putting these two people together, the enemy is inside the gates and they have destroyed the Democratic party. I expected this. Did you?
ALTSHULER: I did not and I must say there were hints of it as early as George McGovern in 1972. I actually thought that the Democratic party at some point could become a cohesive unit. Mr. Beck, I am prepared on the show to withdraw from the Democratic party and become an independent because I cannot belong to a party that can't think independently and choose somebody who can lead our country instead of going with this hope and change without any substance.
GLENN: Okay. Go ahead. Let's go ahead. Because in Maine, in Portland, Ken withdrawing from the Democratic party? Go ahead, go ahead.
ALTSHULER: Remember: most good Democrats, and there are some out there, are willows, Mr. Beck. We can bend. We are flexible. We go issue by issue, and there are some issues I agree with, the mainstream...
GLENN: This doesn't sound like you are officially withdrawing from the Democratic party.
ALTSHULER: I am officially withdrawing because this party no longer represents me. They have drank the Kool Aid, they are going with what the media tells them will make them feel comfortable. They are feeling they are drinking the Kool Aid of white guilt, which is what's propelling Barack Obama into the presidency. I can't drink that Kool Aid.
GLENN: Now, how much of this is just you're pissed off because your candidate didn't win?
ALTSHULER: Hillary lost the election for a number of reasons. Number one, it was the worst run campaign in the history of American politics. Nobody accounted for the fact that all of a sudden the people were going to hate Bill Clinton. Also, the strategy of going to the big states, ignoring the caucuses, having no campaign strategy, this was a failed strategy. She deserves to lose. However, that being said I could still get behind a candidate who is an independent thinker, who will decide issue by issue and then look at a comprehensive picture of American politics. Barack Obama, I must tell you, may be that man. I just don't know that. He needs to have a proven track record.
GLENN: Is there anything that he could say before the election that would that would make you go, you know what, I'm going to go for Barack Obama?
ALTSHULER: Yes. He could say I've decided I'm not experienced enough; I'm going to stay in the Senate for six more years and then I'll run again and then you'll know who I am and then you can vote for me.
ALTSHULER: All right. That's not going to happen.
ALTSHULER: I know it's not going to happen.
GLENN: It's just like a liberal to come up with some plan like that. By the way, you're in usual company here. Katie Couric said, "However you feel about Hillary Clinton's politics, I feel that Senator Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen."
ALTSHULER: There's no doubt that that's true and I don't know if it's because she's Hillary Clinton and I must tell you I think there was some gender bias involved as well, but I think Hillary self-destructed and I think there's nobody to blame but herself.
GLENN: Ken, look: this came as a surprise to you guys. Can you talk to somebody here? As a guy who this didn't come as a surprise to that the media is like this, may I explain it to you?
GLENN: Here's what happened. There's no gender bias here. The people in the media are so uber left, they pick their candidate and then it doesn't matter what the truth is. It doesn't matter who the person is running. It doesn't matter. They will throw anybody under the bus. They will do whatever they have to do to get their guy elected. That's the way it is. So it doesn't matter that it was Hillary Clinton. Doesn't matter. Could have been a guy.
Look what they did to Mitt Romney -- all of a sudden his religion was such a big deal. Why was it such a big deal? How come Mike Huckabee's religion wasn't a big deal? How come the religion of Barack Obama is not such a big deal? They did it because they knew that Mitt Romney had to be taken out. They wanted John McCain.
ALTSHULER: Glenn, I can't believe this. For the second time today you are 100% correct.
GLENN: This is you know what? Prepare yourself for the end of the world.
It is coming. Thanks a lot, Ken. That's Ken from the morning show. Mike and
Ken here on WGAN.
The Way to Box In Barack on Iraq
Friday, July 18, 2008
By: Dick Morris and Eileen McGann
The shadow of the Iraq War still hovers over the 2008 presidential race. In deed, though it's the issue that made Barack Obama (giving him his running room to Hillary Clinton's left), it may now become his chief vulnerability.
Weak on national-security issues, untried, inexperienced and (perhaps) naive, Obama can find the Iraq issue hard to handle - if John McCain plays it right.
Obama has long since won the issue of Iraq-past - opposing the war before anyone and voting continuously and solidly against it when others waffled.
Yet McCain is winning Iraq-present: A majority of Americans believe that the surge is working. Casualties are down so far that the pessimistic left has shifted its doom-and-gloom to Afghanistan.
But McCain's key opportunity is to exploit the issue of Iraq-future.
To start, he must ask Obama: "Why won't your troop withdrawal allow al-Qaida and Iran to move into the vacuum, taking over Iraq to use it as a base for terror against us and Israel?"
Obama will hem and haw, but McCain must keep at him - and force his opponent to confront the consequences.
How will Obama answer?
He can't shift his position on his signature issue much more - or he'd get an even worse rap for flip-flopping. So he'll start by stressing the ongoing troop presence that he'll allow in Iraq.
He has said (vaguely) that he'll permit sufficient troops to cover our pullout, protect our embassy and pursue al Qaeda terrorists. Now he'll try to sell the idea that his gradual withdrawal over 16 months and his ongoing troop commitment will hold al Qaeda and Iran at bay.
But who'll believe that? Experience has taught Americans to expect the worst about Iraq. They're inclined to agree that, if we pull out, al-Qaida will move in. It's also self-evident that Iranian influence will grow as ours' declines. (To the extent that we do believe it, Obama will alienate the left and drive voters to Ralph Nader.)
His next dodge will be to talk up diplomacy - that a dialogue with the mullahs can hold Iran at bay. But no negotiations are possible with al-Qaida - and Americans realize that talks with Iran will go nowhere unless we have the leverage of force. His reliance on diplomacy will come off as naive, reinforcing the impression that he's not ready for the job.
Eventually, he'll have to say he's prepared to go back into Iraq if the situation deteriorates. Voters will realize that a nominal troop presence and diplomacy won't do the job.
That's when McCain moves in for the kill: "So, isn't your rigid adherence to withdrawal inviting a third Iraq War?"
He can claim the mantle of the true peace candidate - saying that he'll stay in Iraq, keep control, build up the Iraqi army and keep US casualties down. Obama's pullout, he can warn, would mean an inevitable third Iraq war. Obama is stuck seeming either naive - or just as likely to get us into a war as President Bush was.
The success of the surge has created an ideal situation for McCain. What
had been the chief Democratic argument against the Republicans can now be
their best tool to destroy Obama.
American flag disappears from Obama campaign jet
Candidate's trademark 'O' replaces stars and stripes
Guess what terrorists are doing for Obama on Mideast trip?
'Maybe the Israelis will try something,' hints militant bodyguard
Obama birth certificate 'horrible forgery'
Document forensics expert reaches conclusion with 100% certainty
No Freedom of Speech in U.S. Unless it's a Certain Point-of-View: N.Y. Times rejects McCain editorial
Editor, an ex-Clinton aide, explains it should 'mirror' Obama's
McCain, Obama or 'none of the above' removable bumper sticker
2008 could be historic election of non-participation
President Barack? Just say NObama!
New, removable bumper sticker lets everyone know your thoughts about Democrat
Obama's Centrist Strategy
Monday, July 21, 2008 11:08 AM
By: Paul M. Weyrich
Whatever one thought of President Richard M. Nixon, his political advice was worth considering. One cannot help but think of the late president as one observes the current race for the presidency.
Nixon suggested multiple times that a potential presidential nominee run to the left or right in obtaining the presidential nomination, but upon securing the nomination, the candidate should run to the center, as that is where the majority of the electorate is.
He pointed to Barry M. Goldwater who ran hard to the right to secure the nomination in 1964 but failed to run toward the center and was crushed in the general election. He highlighted George S. McGovern who ran hard to the left to secure the Democratic nomination in 1972 but who continued to run to the left in the general election and was defeated by Nixon.
Those who disagree with Nixon often point to President Ronald W. Reagan who ran to the right to win the nomination in Detroit in 1980 but did not move to the center for the general election and yet crushed the incumbent Jimmy Carter. One can argue Nixon’s advice with case studies.
The fact is that most candidates of either party tend to follow it. And so it is with Sen. Barack H. Obama, D-Ill., who ran to the left of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., to win the Democratic nomination but who has since galloped to the center. Guess what? It is working.
A colleague expressed amazement that more of an issue has not been made of Obama’s move to the center. He expected Obama to lose support from the left over his centrist moves. My favorite local radio talk-show host, 630 WMAL’s Chris Plante, suggested that if Obama maintains his move to the center, he may find himself more in agreement with Obama than with the presumed GOP nominee, Sen. John S. McCain III, who has taken many positions in his career which upset traditional conservatives.
Here is why what Obama has done has helped him. When the first-term senator from Illinois began his run for the presidency, he was an unknown quantity nationally. Even in Illinois, where he had served in the state Senate and where he had won a landslide victory over conservative Alan Keyes, voters knew little about him.
That gave Republicans the opportunity to define who he was before he had a chance to do so himself. They brought up his association with radical leftists such as Pentagon bomber Bill Ayers and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, who damns America, and the fact that National Journal had named him the most liberal senator in Congress. Voters were unsure who the senator was. Was he really a doctrinaire leftist who exceeded Senator Clinton’s liberalism? So voters began to pay more attention to Obama.
By apparently softening his demand for instant withdrawal from Iraq, by supporting the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, which earlier he had vowed he would filibuster, and by rejecting public financing when he had said he would take it, he moved to the center. Republicans thought they had another opportunity to make Obama into a flip-flopper, as they did with the 2004 Democratic nominee, Sen. John F. Kerry, D-Mass. It has not worked. Why? Because the public does not object when a candidate changes his mind so long as the change is in a direction they approve.
Likewise the Obama campaign made a big deal of Sen. McCain’s switch to permit offshore oil and gas drilling and to support tax cuts he originally opposed. The public wants those policies changed, so McCain is not to be faulted for moving in such a direction.
But back to Obama. The public is very fair. When they hear an accusation they do not believe it immediately. They first observe the reaction of the candidate against whom the charge is made. Then they look at the content of the position and whether it is in the direction they like. If it is something with which they agree, the flip-flopping argument does not hold. So here is this brand new senator from Illinois who started out the race for the presidency with a blank slate which tilted left.
Unlike his chief rivals, Clinton and McCain, both of whom had public records, Obama was relatively unknown. Now that the public thinks he is not locked into the left but appears willing to compromise, they have a more favorable opinion of him. He has begun to open a small lead over McCain and in some states, such as Pennsylvania, his lead is a double digit one.
It was the same with Reagan in 1980. In California, Reagan was well known, having been a two-term governor, but nationally he was unknown like Obama. Liberals branded Reagan a B-movie actor who was really a warmonger and might get us into World War III. He wanted to take away Social Security and was just plain dumb and uneducated.
Carter, having survived a primary challenge from Sen. Ted Kennedy, D-Mass., had a steady lead over Reagan until their only debate, less than two weeks before the election. The public tuned into that debate in record numbers.
The public had heard the charges liberals made against Reagan but they did not believe them automatically. When they saw Reagan debate that night, they saw that the description liberals had made of the governor did not match reality. He was well-educated, informed, and non-threatening.
The idea of cowboy Reagan dragging us into war simply did not correspond to what they saw. Immediately after that debate Reagan opened a small but steady lead against Carter which culminated in the former’s landslide victory that November.
It is true that Obama’s friends on the left who helped in the primary elections earlier in the year are angry at the presumed Democratic nominee. That helps Obama. To have the Rev. Jesse Jackson, who represents yesterday’s politics, attack Obama has caused voters who previously supported Clinton to think that the Illinois Senator cannot be that bad. This is right out of the Clinton play book.
It is still a long time before the elections. Anything can happen between
now and then, so we cannot draw any permanent conclusions from what is happening
in campaign 2008 for the moment. Still, Richard Nixon must be smiling as
another presidential candidate benefits from his advice.
Gaffemaster Alert: The Pearl Harbor Bomb by Ed Morrissey
Barack Obama must have gone off script again in West Lafayette, Indiana on Wednesday. When addressing the crowd on national security, Obama mangled the attack on Pearl Harbor. For a Hawaii native, this tops the Young Gaffer list of historical fumbles (via Dean Barnett):
But it is wonderful to be back in Indiana. In a few moments, we’ll open up the discussion. But I want to offer a few comments about some of the emerging threats that we face in the 21st century and offer some ideas about how we can face those threats.
Throughout our history, America’s confronted constantly evolving danger, from the oppression of an empire, to the lawlessness of the frontier, from the bomb that fell on Pearl Harbor, to the threat of nuclear annihilation. Americans have adapted to the threats posed by an ever-changing world.
Just to clarify: a whole lot of bombs fell on Pearl Harbor. And the threat wasn’t the bomb, it was the empire that sent massive waves of planes to drop them on our Pacific Fleet. Those bombs fell because we didn’t adapt to the threat, and in fact we kept telling ourselves that we could talk the Japanese out of their policy of aggression and empire. We came within a few aircraft carriers of losing the Pacific out of our willful blindness to the nature of the Japanese.
The same can be said for the “nuclear annihilation” Obama also mentions. The threat wasn’t nuclear annihilation as such; that was part of the threat, not the entire threat itself. The real threat came from another kind of empire, one that wanted to conquer from within as well as without — and the American Left after 1969 spent most of its time arguing that the threat didn’t really exist, that Soviet Communism wanted peaceful coexistence, and that socialism and Communism were the achievement of Utopia. After Jimmy Carter’s disastrous cheek-kissing with Leonid Brezhnev and the invasion of Afghanistan that followed, America woke up and put adults in charge - and within a decade, the Soviet Union collapsed of its own contradictions and rot.
This gaffe goes beyond placing Auschwitz and Treblinka in western Germany or putting American troops in Poland during World War II. It speaks to a fundamental superficiality of Obama, a man who seizes tropes and themes with little understanding of their significance or their details. Obama reveals himself as a man who doesn’t understand threats at all, and whose instinctive responses would make them far worse.
Update: Here’s the video; the stumble comes in the first moments. Note the long pause as Obama talks about the bomb at Pearl Harbor. It looks like he went off script: (http://hotair.com/archives/2008/07/18/gaffemaster-alert-the-pearl-harbor-bomb/?print=1)
A lot of the most damaging bombs were, I believe, torpedoes. Did torpedoes “fall” on
Kumbaya Falls Flat In Berlin
By Star Parker
July 28, 2008
The headline on the website of German magazine Der Spiegel about Barack Obama's speech in Berlin: "Huge Crowds Left with Mixed Feelings."
Two hundred thousand turned out for the speech, but CNN's Candy Crowley reported an "absence of euphoria" at the event.
As Senator Obama went global with "Yes, we can" and "Change we can believe in" he left at least some of the horde in Berlin scratching their heads. Perhaps these Germans, out to hear what all the excitement was about, were looking for leadership and substance rather than kumbaya.
What they got was the global version of "There is not a White America and a Black America and Latino America and Asian American America -- there is the United States of America."
Obama spoke not just as a "proud citizen of the United States but a fellow citizen of the world."
His message: "The walls between races and tribes, natives and immigrants, Christian and Muslim and Jew cannot stand. These now are the walls we must tear down."
At least some of the Germans listening to Obama surely sensed there was something problematic with what he was saying. His analogy of the tearing down of the Berlin wall to tearing down all lines of distinction between nations and religions was obviously fractured. The Berlin wall was a political wall that divided one people. It separated Germans from other Germans, a far cry from distinctions between nations and religions that Obama apparently wants to obliterate.
The German, French and British each have a strong sense of national history and identity.
Efforts for a European Union constitution that would establish links in Europe going beyond economics and extending to politics have thus far failed.
Perhaps the realities of Europe delivered an unanticipated surprise to the slick marketing machine driving the Obama presidential campaign.
Unlike in the United States, where you drive coast to coast and hear one language, where national culture is at least as influential and pervasive as regional differences, Europe consists of different countries. When you get to national borders, languages and cultures change.
For Obama, differences seem to be what cause the world's problems. We endlessly hear the story of his mixed-race background and his translation of his personal history into a message of the meaninglessness of difference.
It may come as a surprise to Obama, but for Christians, for Muslims, and for Jews, their differences do not amount to barriers to a better world but sources of meaning that define themselves and the world.
They want to be Christians, Muslims, and Jews. They just want protection. They want to be able to be who they are and live peacefully and securely. Those disturbing this security are the problem. Not the differences.
Which gets to Obama's very problematic idea about freedom.
He does not seem to grasp that the beauty of freedom is its respect for differences and creation of conditions, legal and political, which allow them to exist, flourish, and provide benefits to all. In fact, politicians with agendas to "unify," who think they know who and what everyone should be, are invariably those who threaten freedom.
Obama used the occasion of this speech to apologize to Europe about his country. "We've made a lot of mistakes, and there are times when our actions around the world have not lived up to our best intentions." But, covering his bases, he made a point to follow up and assure the crowd that ". . . I know how much I love America."
What every American should demand from Obama is clarification of what, if anything, he sees unique about the America that he claims to loves so much. For a man whose ideal seems to be the global village, with no barriers or differences, is there anything special about the United States that makes it distinct from other nations -- that defines it as uniquely great?
What is the distinction between the "proud citizen of the United States" and
the "fellow citizen of the world." Those in Berlin heard none and many went
home legitimately confused.
Obama's Inappropriate Avoidance of Wounded Troops
Posted By Greg Reeson On July 25, 2008
So Senator Obama and his campaign decided that it would be inappropriate to visit wounded soldiers in Germany while touring Europe as a candidate for the presidency. Senator McCain hit this one right on the head: it is never inappropriate to visit our wounded men and women in uniform. In fact, I don't anything could have been MORE appropriate.
The Obama camp's explanation was that since the Europe trip was funded by his presidential campaign, it wasn't right to schedule a visit with our injured soldiers (and I use that term to mean soldiers, sailors, marines, and members of the Coast Guard) and that the decision was made out of "respect" for the members of our armed forces.
Newsflash: the best way to show "respect" to our wounded is to visit them, spend time with them, love them, and care for them. Each and every one of them is a hero who volunteered to serve his or her country in uniform, and then shed their blood so that the rest of America's citizens could go about their daily lives in ignorant bliss.
I find it hard to accept the campaign's reasoning for the cancellation of the visit. I just don't buy it. What's really going on here? Is it that Senator Obama was worried that he might not be greeted as warmly by the men and women doing the fighting as he was by the Europeans eager for the United States to end the war in Iraq? Was Senator Obama showing us all what his priorities are by making a huge production of his "We are all citizens of the world and I'm going to fix America for you" speech rather than thanking those who left pieces of themselves on Iraq's battlefields? What's the real reason behind this?
I'm not buying the campaign line, and neither should anyone else. As a sitting
United States Senator and serious contender for the presidency of the United
States, I believe that Senator Obama had an OBLIGATION to visit our wounded
men and women in uniform.
Obama Is Hooked On Adoration and Would Govern by the Polls
Posted By Cheri Jacobus On July 24, 2008
Obama is speaking to a crowd of several hundred thousand Germans and proclaiming he "will change the world!" The venue for his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention was changed so that he could speak to tens of thousands more supporters live, in person. He eschews smaller, more intimate town hall meetings where he might actually have to talk with people, preferring to shout at large crowds from the stage like a televangelist promising to heal the sick if you just write one more check. Rarely do we see him having a conversation and engaging in substance with voters who might dare to peel back the veneer to see what he fears will be shown to be a lot of nothing.
In the abstract, it is easy to see how his style of campaigning feels better to him. Adoring crowds, and being cheered by his supporters -- it's gotta make a guy feel pretty good about himself. It's interesting to note, however, that the polls are nearly neck and neck, indicating that John McCain has virtually the same number of supporters. One significant difference between these two men is that Obama needs the adoration and constant affirmation, while John McCain is secure enough in his experience and leadership abilities and credentials to actually talk with voters and, importantly, listen.
John McCain has said many times, even when way behind others in the Republican primary last year, that he would rather win the war in Iraq than win an election. A president in wartime and tough economic times needs to be strong enough and have enough intestinal fortitude to govern in a manner that is best for the nation, even in times when the polls are against him. John McCain has proven he can do this without batting an eye. In contrast, Barack Obama has already shown us all that being the most popular kid in school is what's most important to him. With virtually no experience to prepare him for the presidency, Barack Obama has already shown us he will govern by the polls, regardless of what is best for the nation.
Perhaps we can just crown Obama our national Homecoming Queen and he will
be happy. Because putting this guy in the White House is feeling scarier
By Thomas Sowell
July 29, 2008
Random thoughts on the passing scene:
Government bailouts are like potato chips: You can't stop with just one.
Anyone who is honest with himself and with others knows that there is not a snow ball's chance in hell to have an honest dialogue about race.
I wonder what radical feminists make of the fact that it was men who created the rule of "women and children first" when it came to rescuing people from life-threatening emergencies.
Barack Obama's motto "Change you can believe in" has acquired a new meaning-- changing his positions is the only thing you can believe in. His campaign began with a huge change in the image he projects, compared to what he was doing for 20 years before.
Despite the New York Yankees' awesome record over the years, no one has ever made 3,000 hits in his career as a Yankee, nor has any pitcher ever had 300 lifetime victories with the Yankees. Despite their well-deserved reputation as "the Bronx Bombers," there is only one Yankee among the top ten career homerun hitters.
After getting DVDs of old "Perry Mason" TV programs and old "Law & Order" programs, I found myself watching far more of the "Perry Mason" series. The difference is that too many "Law & Order" programs tried to raise my consciousness on social issues, as if that is their role or their competence.
What is amazing this year is how many people have bought the fundamentally childish notion that, if you don't like the way things are going, the answer is to write a blank check for generic "change," empowering someone chosen not on the basis of any track record but on the basis of his skill with words.
With all the big-name entertainers who have put on shows in prisons, why have so few put on shows for our troops in Iraq?
To me, the phrase "glass ceiling" is an insult to my intelligence. What does the word "glass" mean, in this context, except that you can't see it? Yet I am supposed to believe it without evidence because, otherwise, I will be considered a bad person and called names.
When New York Times writer Linda Greenhouse recently declared the 1987 confirmation hearings for Judge Robert Bork "both fair and profound," it was as close to a declaration of moral bankruptcy as possible. Those hearings were a triumph of character assassination by politicians with no character of their own. The country is still paying the price, as potential judicial nominees decline to be nominated and then smeared on nationwide television.
Some of the most emotionally powerful words are undefined, such as "social justice," "a living wage," "price gouging" or a "fragile" environment, for example. Such terms are especially valuable to politicians during an election year, for these terms can attract the votes of people who mean very different-- and even mutually contradictory-- things when they use these words.
It may not be possible to have machines call balls and strikes in baseball, since the vertical strike zone depends on the height of each batter. But a machine can tell whether any part of the ball passed over any part of the plate, so that umpires won't be able to call their own "wide strikes" any more.
It is hard to get the supporters of Barack Obama to give a coherent reason for their support. The basis for their support seems to be guilt, gullibility or-- in the case of some conservatives-- a hatred of John McCain.
It is heart-warming to see the Williams sisters maturing as people. They made tennis history from the beginning but they had a lot to learn about human relations-- and now they seem to have learned it.
How many in the media have expressed half as much outrage about the beheading of innocent people by terrorists in Iraq as they have about the captured terrorists held at Guantanamo not being treated as nicely as they think they should be?
Although most of the mainstream media are still swooning over Barack Obama,
a few critics are calling the things he advocates "naive." But that assumes
that he is trying to solve the country's problems. If he is trying to solve
his own problem of getting elected, then he is telling the voters just what
they want to hear. That is not naive but shrewd and cynical.
Known Unknowns About Obama
By Richard Cohen
"Just tell me one thing Barack Obama has done that you admire," I asked a prominent Democrat. He paused and then said that he admired Obama's speech to the Democratic convention in 2004. I agreed. It was a hell of a speech, but it was just a speech.
On the other hand, I continued, I could cite four or five actions -- not speeches -- that John McCain has taken that elicit my admiration, even my awe. First, of course, is his decision as a Vietnam War POW to refuse freedom out of concern that he would be exploited for propaganda purposes. To paraphrase what Kipling said about Gunga Din, John McCain is a better man than most.
But I would not stop there. I would include campaign finance reform, which infuriated so many in his own party; opposition to earmarks, which won him no friends; his politically imprudent opposition to the Medicare prescription drug bill (Medicare has about $35 trillion in unfunded obligations); and, last but not least, his very early call for additional troops in Iraq. His was a lonely position, virtually suicidal for an all-but-certain presidential candidate, and no help when his campaign nearly expired last summer. In all these cases, McCain stuck to his guns.
Obama argues that he himself stuck to the biggest gun of all: opposition to the war. He took that position back when the war was enormously popular, the president who initiated it was even more popular, and critics of both were slandered as unpatriotic. But at the time, Obama was a mere Illinois state senator, representing the (very) liberal Hyde Park area of Chicago. He either voiced his conscience or his district's leanings or (lucky fella) both. We will never know.
And we will never know, either, how Obama might have conducted himself had he served in Congress as long as McCain has. Possibly he would have earned a reputation for furious, maybe even sanctimonious, integrity of the sort that often drove McCain's colleagues to dark thoughts of senatorcide, but the record -- scant as it is -- suggests otherwise. Obama is not noted for sticking to a position or a person once it (or he) becomes a political liability. (Names available upon request.)
All politicians change their positions, sometimes even because they have changed their mind. McCain must have suffered excruciating whiplash from totally reversing himself on George Bush's tax cuts. He has denounced preachers he later embraced and then, to his chagrin, has had to denounce them all over again. This plasticity has a label: Pandering. McCain knows how it's done.
But Obama has shown that in this area, youth is no handicap. He has been for and against gun control, against and for the recent domestic surveillance legislation and, in almost a single day, for a united Jerusalem under Israeli control and then, when apprised of U.S. policy and Palestinian chagrin, against it. He is an accomplished pol -- a statement of both admiration and a bit of regret.
Obama is often likened to John F. Kennedy. It makes sense. He has the requisite physical qualities -- handsome, lean, etc. -- plus wit, intelligence, awesome speaking abilities and a literary bent. He also might be compared to Franklin D. Roosevelt for many of those same qualities. Both FDR and JFK were disparaged early on by their contemporaries for, I think, doing the difficult and making it look easy. Eleanor Roosevelt, playing off the title of Kennedy's Pulitzer Prize-winning book, airily dismissed him as more profile than courage. Similarly, it was Walter Lippmann's enduring misfortune to size up FDR and belittle him: Roosevelt, he wrote, was "a pleasant man who, without any important qualifications for office, would very much like to be president." Lippmann later recognized that he had underestimated Roosevelt.
My guess is that Obama will make a fool of anyone who issues such a judgment about him. Still, the record now, while tissue thin, is troubling. The next president will have to be something of a political Superman, a man of steel who can tell the American people that they will have to pay more for less -- higher taxes, lower benefits of all kinds -- and deal in an ugly way when nuclear weapons seize the imagination of madmen.
The question I posed to that prominent Democrat was just my way of thinking
out loud. I know that Barack Obama is a near-perfect political package. I'm
still not sure, though, what's in it.
Obama shortchanged injured troops
By DOUGLASS K. DANIEL
July 28, 2008
WASHINGTON (AP) -- Republican John McCain's campaign on Saturday sharply criticized Democratic rival Barack Obama for canceling a visit to wounded troops in Germany, contending Obama chose foreign leaders and cheering Europeans over "injured American heroes."
Obama's campaign called the accusation "wildly inappropriate." His spokesman has claimed that the visit to a military hospital in Germany was scrapped after the Pentagon raised concerns about political activity on a military base. Earlier, though, the campaign had said Obama decided the visit might be seen as inappropriate politicking. However, the Pentagon said the senator was never told not to visit.
A new McCain ad that began airing Saturday in selected markets also chides Obama as disrespectful for making "time to go to the gym" during his European visit while at the same time canceling the visit with wounded troops.
"Seems the Pentagon wouldn't allow him to bring cameras," according to the ad, which is being televised in Colorado, Pennsylvania and the Washington D.C. area. "John McCain is always there for our troops."
McCain himself joined in the rebuke, saying in an interview to be aired Sunday by ABC's "This Week" that "if I had been told by the Pentagon that I couldn't visit those troops, and I was there and wanted to be there, I guarantee you, there would have been a seismic event."
The McCain campaign's criticism came as it grappled for another day with the intense media attention focused on Obama's tour of the Middle East and Europe. The Arizona Republican had goaded Obama into visiting Iraq and Afghanistan, then watched as Obama's meetings with the leaders of those countries and Jordan, Israel, the Palestinians, Germany, France and Great Britain dominated the political news.
Responding, Obama campaign spokesman Tommy Vietor said Obama and McCain both believed that troops should be honored and noted that the Illinois senator had visited troops in Iraq and Afghanistan last week and had made numerous trips to Washington's Walter Reed Army Medical Center. Obama still didn't want injured soldiers "pulled into the back-and-forth of a political campaign," Vietor said in a statement.
"Senator McCain knows full well that Senator Obama strongly supports and honors our troops, which is what makes this attack so disingenuous. This politicization of our soldiers is exactly what Senator Obama sought to avoid," Vietor said.
Obama was flying from London to Chicago on Saturday when the McCain campaign issued a statement from Joe Repya, a retired Army colonel who said Obama had broken a commitment to visit the wounded Americans.
"Several explanations were offered, none was convincing and each was at odds with the statements of American military leaders," Repya said. "For a young man so apt at playing president, Barack Obama badly misjudged the important demands of the office he seeks."
On Thursday, the day Obama gave an evening address to an estimated 200,000 people in Berlin, his campaign issued two written statements about the canceled trip to Ramstein Air Base and the military hospital in Landstuhl, Germany. In the first, no mention was made of Pentagon misgivings, only that Obama "decided out of respect for these servicemen and women that it would be inappropriate to make a stop to visit troops at a U.S. military facility as part of a trip funded by the campaign." A second statement, by retired general and Obama adviser Scott Gration, mentioned the Pentagon's involvement.
Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs told reporters Friday that a trip from Berlin to Ramstein had been planned for weeks, with Obama expecting to leave most staff and reporters at the airport while he went to the hospital to avoid appearances of a campaign event. After the Pentagon raised concerns within two days of the visit, it was scrapped, he said.
Pentagon spokesman Bryan Whitman said Obama would have been required to
conform to the Defense Department prohibition of political activity, but
that the senator was never told he couldn't visit the hospital.
McCain backs ban on affirmative action in Arizona
By CHRISTOPHER WILLS and KEVIN FREKING
July 28, 2008
CHICAGO (AP) -- Presidential candidate John McCain on Sunday endorsed a proposal to ban affirmative action programs in his home state, a policy that Democratic rival Barack Obama called a disappointing embrace of divisive tactics.
In the past, McCain has criticized such ballot initiatives.
In an interview that aired Sunday, McCain was asked whether he supported an effort to get a referendum on the ballot in Arizona that would do away with race and gender-based preferences, known as affirmative action.
"Yes, I do," said McCain in an interview on ABC's "This Week." The Republican senator quickly added that he had not seen the details of the proposal. "But I've always opposed quotas."
His reversal comes as McCain seeks to tailor his policies and rhetoric to independent-minded voters who will determine the outcome of November election. Both McCain and Obama have accused each other -- with good reason -- of "flip-flopping," a charge that carries weight with voters seeking consistency and authenticity in their political leaders.
Speaking to a conference of minority journalists on Sunday, Obama said he was "disappointed" by McCain's position.
"I think in the past he had been opposed to these kinds of Ward Connerly referenda or initiatives as divisive. And I think he's right," Obama said, referring to a leading critic of affirmative action.
Obama also said he has little interest in an official government apology for slavery or reparations for descendants of slaves. The government's focus, he said, should be on providing jobs, education and health for people still struggling today.
The proposed referendum in Arizona involves a constitutional amendment to bar preferential treatment by public entities on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity or national origin. Supporters say the measure levels the playing field, giving everyone an equal chance at every job.
A decade ago, McCain condemned initiatives aimed at dismantling affirmative action, though he stopped short of directly criticizing a resolution pending in the state legislature at the time.
"Rather than engage in divisive ballot initiatives, we must have a dialogue and cooperation and mutual efforts together to provide for every child in America to fulfill their expectations," McCain told Hispanic business leaders gathered in Washington in 1998.
A spokesman said in a statement that McCain has always opposed hiring quotes based on race. "He believes that regardless of race, ethnicity or gender, the law should be equally applied," the spokesman, Tucker Bounds, said.
Obama said Sunday that affirmative action is not a long-term solution to discrimination, and that it must not ignore the problems of poor whites. But affirmative action does address "some of the hardships and difficulties that communities of color may have experienced."
He also argued ballot initiatives like the one in Arizona rarely help people work together.
"You know, the truth of the matter is, these are not designed to solve a big problem, but they're all too often designed to drive a wedge between people," Obama said.
Obama was asked whether he supports an official government apology for slavery or the country's treatment of American Indians. He replied that he would discuss the idea with Indian leaders but that it is more important to provide services that will help people escape poverty and improve their lives. The same is true of an apology or reparations for slavery, he said.
"I'm much more interested in talking about, how do we get every child to learn? How do we get every person health care? How do we make sure that everybody has a job?" Obama said.
Note: remember that selecting anyone (even of priviledged races) on the
basis of race is racism and discrimination against the other races. The people
who were slaves (and this includes my wife's Asian relatives) and the people
who did it are long dead, and it's about time we got over it! It's much easier
to point our fingers and blame others for our own lack of success than it
is to took a good look in the mirror. Affirmative action (for any race) is
devisive because it treats one race preferentially as compared to the others
-- not the other way around, and McCain knows that.
The Remedial Student
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
WASHINGTON -- Barack Obama, who went to Iraq in search of foreign-policy experience, came home last week sounding a bit more like John McCain.
After being told by a key tribal leader in Ramadi that "you have to keep Marines in our province because we still have problems," the freshman senator said he would leave a large U.S. military force in Iraq but that its size would be "entirely conditions-based."
McCain, happy as a schoolteacher whose remedial student suddenly seemed to be learning his lessons, couldn't have put it any better himself. "Barack Obama is ultimately articulating a position of sustained troop levels in Iraq based on the conditions on the ground and the security of the country. That is the very same position that John McCain has long held," said McCain representative Tucker Bounds.
The neophyte Senate lawmaker, still learning the ropes about war and national security, wouldn't say how large a force he would leave behind (though a chief adviser has proposed a residual army of between 60,000 to 80,000 American soldiers and personnel). But in a series of interviews with news organizations, Obama has spelled out the need for a sizable "counterterrorism strike force" and military troops to train the Iraqi army and police forces "to make them more effective."
How long are these U.S. troops going to be there? Well, Obama said, the Iraqis are "going to need our help for some time to come."
McCain and even some of Obama's top foreign-policy advisers have said it is ridiculous to be talking about the precise timing (within 16 months) and size of U.S. troop withdrawals because no one can foresee what the conditions will be on the ground next year, or the year after that.
Now it seems the man who won the Democratic presidential primaries by promising to end the war and bring the troops home is having some second, third and fourth thoughts about that.
"I do think that's entirely conditions-based," he told Newsweek. "It's hard to anticipate where we may be six months from now, or a year from now, or a year and a half from now."
It was the latest shift in Obama's continually shifting war policy on Iraq. First, he was going to pull all our forces out, then it was just combat forces, then it was most combat forces, with a residual force left behind. Now he is talking about a sizable strike force to deal with al-Qaeda terrorists, plus other U.S. forces for logistical support, intelligence activities, training and reconstruction -- all of whom are going to be there, he said, for a very long time.
Well, you get the picture. It is one of a woefully inexperienced politician who can't seem to make up his mind about what to do in a war that he said we were losing and that we are now winning. So he shifts day-to-day from one strategy to another, sending disturbing signals that he is in over his head and doesn't know what to do next.
McCain, who has led military forces, knows that in a time of war you cannot keep switching signals in the middle of the game. "We welcome this latest shift in Sen. Obama's position, but it is obvious that it was only a lack of experience and judgment that kept him from arriving at this position sooner," said Bound, the Arizona senator's spokesman, as Obama was flying home.
Thus, in the aftermath of his tutorial trip, doubts are growing about his judgment, and the news media is turning on him far more aggressively, questioning and ridiculing some of his stock answers on the war on terrorism. "Mr. Obama's account of his strategic vision remains eccentric," the liberal Washington Post editorialized last week.
He has repeatedly played down Iraq and said that Afghanistan is "the central front" where we had to focus our forces. "But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan ... While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country's strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world's largest oil reserves," the Post said.
The national news media gave boffo reviews to Obama's performance overseas, but America's voters seemed to be paying far more attention to what he said than the way he said it, or the size of the crowds who turned out to see and hear him.
Wary of Obama's chameleonlike positions and his willingness to say whatever pleases his audience, voters may be thinking he has changed his positions one too many times. Was this what he meant by change you can believe in?
Meanwhile, back home, the cash-rich Obama campaign was running nonstop TV ads in the key battleground states, hoping to move his polling numbers upward. But McCain strategists told me that their polls showed that his numbers hadn't budged in his target states. Indeed, Obama's poll numbers had slipped in four of them, according to a Quinnipiac survey of likely voters.
A USA Today/Gallup Poll said Monday that McCain had inched ahead of Obama by 4 points, 49 percent to 45 percent among likely voters. Instead of strengthening his foreign-policy credentials with his Middle East road show, Obama has deepened doubts in the minds of voters about his maturity and judgment.
The emerging choice in this election seems to be perseverance, resolve and
steadiness on the one hand, and bait-and-switch on the other.
Barack's No Reagan
Brent Bozell III
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Newsweek's love for Barack Obama knows no bounds. After Obama's speech in Berlin, Newsweek published a headline that suggests an editor who's spent six days drunk on a merry-go-round: "Obama's Reagan Moment." That deserves the Lloyd Bentsen retort: "I knew Ronald Reagan. Ronald Reagan was a friend of mine. Barack Obama is no Ronald Reagan."
The Newsweek piece sneered that while Obama and John Kennedy spoke to more than 100,000 people, Reagan spoke to a much smaller audience, "only about 20,000," and they were outnumbered by leftist protesters the night before. They recalled, "Even some of Reagan's aides were embarrassed by the 'tear down this wall' line, thinking it was too provocative or grandiose." Newsweek would concede only that "Reagan understood stagecraft," and communism's fall "made his words prescient."
In other words, the Gipper was a showboat who got lucky.
This is nothing more than Newsweek's continuing campaign to rewrite history. Back in 1987, Newsweek was not prescient. They came to bury Reagan's speech as a desperate gesture of a crumbling lame-duck presidency ruined by Iran-contra. Their story on his trip began: "Ronald Reagan wasn't the only lame duck at the economic summit in Venice last week, and he wasn't the only allied leader to nod off when the proceedings turned soporific."
Newsweek chronicled Reagan's woes, then declared how only Mikhail Gorbachev could restore luster to the old man: "It is the ultimate paradox of Reagan's lifelong opposition to all things communist that a U.S.-Soviet arms agreement and a third summit with Gorbachev offer the best, and perhaps last, hope for reinvigorating his presidency." They saw Reagan with a foolish career of "opposition to all things communist" turning to Gorbachev as his savior, and painted Gorbachev as more persuasive and attractive to Europe. The magazine geniuses at the time seemed to adore Gorby as if he were ... Barack Obama.
At least Newsweek in 1987 (but not in 2008) chronicled what Reagan told the pro-Soviet protesters there at the end of his speech: "I wonder if they have ever asked themselves that if they should have the kind of government they apparently seek, no one would ever be able to do what they're doing again."
But Reagan's rhetorical daring in his time marks why Obama's Berlin remarks sounded so phony. He declared: "People of the world -- look at Berlin, where a wall came down, a continent came together, and history proved that there is no challenge too great for a world that stands as one. If we could win a battle of ideas against the communists, we can stand with the vast majority of Muslims who reject the extremism that leads to hate instead of hope."
No adoring anchorman dared to ask: Who, precisely, Sen. Obama, is the "we" who won a battle of ideas against communism? Who was the "we" who dared to insist that liberty was the superior ideal, that "Freedom is the victor," and to demand that the walls of Soviet tyranny should fall? It was not America as a whole. It was certainly not Europe as a whole. To publicly declare such a bold wish for an end to the Soviet empire, to denounce the Berlin Wall as a "scar" across Berlin, and a "gash of barbed wire, concrete, dog runs and guard towers" was seen by the international left, and the Democrats, and the press corps here at home as undiplomatic saber-rattling. It was, to quote the Hillary Clintons of the world, "cowboy diplomacy."
Barack Obama is an arrogant pretender to a throne he has not earned. He wanted to stand at the Brandenburg Gate like Reagan, grasping desperately for a chance to look presidential. But he hasn't in any way demonstrated Reagan's resolve against America's enemies. Instead, this power-hungry newbie has stood in about seven different places in the last four years on the primary controversy of our time.
In 2002, he opposed the Iraq war from the pews of his America-deserved-9/11 church. In 2004, he stood staunchly and very temporarily by John Kerry's vote for war. In 2006, he calculated that the best way to win the Democratic nomination was to play kissy-kissy with Code Pink and channel MoveOn.org's demand that the president acknowledge all was lost in Iraq. Now, having defeated all those Democratic suckers who voted for war, he's developing yet another position, that the success of the surge means that he didn't have to be right about the surge or anything else, that the country is now ready for a rapid withdrawal of forces.
Ronald Reagan was willing to endure an entire career being mocked by the
press and the political intelligentsia for standing firmly in one bunker
of a war of ideas. Barack Obama has demonstrated only one cause, one idea
he consistently believes in. Its name is Barack Obama.
Comment from Blog:
The AJC is no surprise
The state of Georgia, as a state, has been sliding deeper and deeper into a heavily legislated and taxed state with a huge State Bureaucracy as well as county bureaucracies as Georgia ran headlong, beginning in the mid to late 1970's to more and more mimic the Federal Model of Socialism. The larger Atlanta grew, so did it's city and country governments, until it had mimicked New York, Chicago, LA, Philadelphia, Washington D.C. and became the most overtaxed and over-legislated place in the south.
This type of bureaucratic insanity began in earnest in the mid-1960's when LBJ declared his so-called "War on Poverty" and the huge Federal Bureaucracy began to expand exponentially and has ultimately destroyed a work ethic for many and pride, self respect, and family values for many who were wooed into the Entitlement Mentatlity. The states began getting Federal Mandates to mimic the federal model, and government has grown and grown until we now have the current mess in Atlanta, and every other large bureaucratic city and the nation at large. Politicians found that they could get elected over and over, the more poverty programs they expanded and enlisting new welfare recipients who became voters.
To get elected in any Socialist city or state, all you have to do is promise more welfare spending, and voters line up as if in any line where you say, "we are giving more money away." This is the Liberal Democrat strategy and they keep getting elected, especially in large cities where many citizens depend on government for everything such as rent, food, medical care, utility bills, etc,, and get cash to boot to buy cars with flashy wheels, Boom Boxes, Bling, Bling, drugs, alcohol, cigarettes, the latest Nikes, etc. So, it is no wonder none of these folks care to get a real job. They have more disposable CASH than the average worker who has to pay his or her own way as well as pay taxes to Support The Liberal Democrat Give Away Programs.
This is the same Platform Obama is Running on. Better get out and Vote No
to his Tax and Spend Democrat. You think it is bad now, you have no idea
how bad it can get.
A Black Conservative Lament
Thursday, July 31, 2008
Oh, no, not another "blacks in America" news special! One of the cable networks recently put together another one of these "specials" on what it's like to be black in America. The network asked a conservative friend of mine to participate. He sent the following letter; and I wrote back.
OK, Larry, I grew up a bit last night. Those (unflattering descriptive deleted) at that news network on cable used me like a two-dollar whore! I interviewed with them for almost 10 hours, and all that talk was whittled down into five-second sound bites that put me in a rather negative light. Part of our talk was about the crack epidemic. I spoke about the way we are fighting this drug war, which we should approach as a health issue as opposed to a law enforcement problem. I talked about the impact single parenthood has on crime rates. I talked and talked. They edited it all down to, "If you don't want to go to jail, don't sell crack." I am really angry.
The "wretched blackness" slant was so clear. I was on live for the half-hour preceding the beginning of the program. They ran a long segment with a black comedian/actor, talking about how he tells his son each and every day about how to talk to the police and how black men must be wary of cops. They cut to me, and I said that I was certainly in agreement that we need to talk to our children about respecting authority, but I also wondered if the comedian/actor talked to his son about the proper color shirt to wear in case some knuckleheads have a dislike of the color red or blue. The truth is that his son has more to fear from other young black men than he does from the police. I then quoted a homicide statistic: 94 percent of black homicide victims are killed by other black people. It was dismissed by the moderator so we could focus instead on how racist the cops are. Unbelievable.
It should not surprise me, then, that producers and editors would give liberal, hypersensitive blacks room to make their points -- even if they were factually untrue. They spoke to a professor from Columbia, who was droning on about how the legacy of slavery is to account for blacks' out-of-wedlock birthrate. Slavery?! This nonsense was seconded by another panelist. When I corrected them and said that the out-of-wedlock rate was lower during Jim Crow eyes began rolling, and my point was ignored in order to move on. And I was reduced to sound bites.
Had to vent a bit.
My sister-in-law, an almost-recovered victicrat (thanks, at least in part, to me) called me during the show. She asked whether I was watching it, and I said no -- I knew what to expect. BMW -- bitching, moaning and whining.
I asked my sister-in-law why they didn't spend four hours on the "experience" of Chinese-Americans? Americans of Chinese heritage are among our country's most successful -- despite being the first ethnic group to be specifically excluded from legal immigration to America, by laws enacted in 1882, and despite mistreatment and discrimination including many anti-Chinese laws passed in places like San Francisco, which were designed to protect the "native" laundry business.
Why doesn't the cable network, I asked her, do a show on the "experience" of Japanese-Americans, also some of the most prosperous of all Americans -- despite the World War II "relocation" camps and California's anti-Japanese laws, once passed to prevent them from owning farmland?
I don't compare this in kind or in degree to slavery, but it's 2008 -- with a black man possibly on the brink of attaining the presidency of the United States. Can we move on? The problems of the "black community" have to do with the welfare-state-induced breakdown (or, more accurately, non-formation) of the family. This causes a disinterest in education, and leads to poor values, reckless and irresponsible breeding, as well as a lack of the job skills necessary in an information-age society. We also have grievance groups -- black "leaders"; the oh-so-sympathetic media; fear- and guilt-laden whites who refuse to say (as they do to their own children) work hard and play by the rules; and many reluctant blacks who refuse to preach the message of "no excuses, hard work" for fear of being labeled "Uncle Toms."
I told my sister-in-law that nearly half of Harvard's black freshman class consists of blacks from the Caribbean or Africa -- areas less prosperous with far less opportunity. Care to explain that?
I told her that I bet many of the "talking heads" live comfortable middle-class lives or better -- some, no doubt several, tenured college professors who, not so deep down, believe that they were smart enough or worked hard enough to have made it, but the other poor SOBs, well, they need a more compassionate government, a less racist society to pull them through.
So, try to relax. Thanks to editing, they can make anyone sound like Elmer Fudd.
The Brangelina-fication of the Obamas
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
You couldn't pass a grocery store line this weekend without seeing the picture-perfect smiles of the Obama family. There were Barack Obama's young daughters (whose privacy their parents so sanctimoniously claim to want to protect) flashing their pearly whites on the cover of People magazine. Malia and Sasha competed for attention right next to Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie's toddler daughter, Shiloh, whose cherubic face was splashed on the cover of another celebrity tabloid. Next to them beamed basket-case starlet Lindsay Lohan and her new lesbian lover -- oh, and that formerly pregnant "man" who just gave birth to a baby girl.
The Obamas blended seamlessly into this Hollyweird pop culture galaxy.
The spread in People, which earlier this year fawned over a photo of the bare-chested Obama in his swimsuit, was supposed to be an "exclusive" first and last look at life at home with the Obamas. Knowing what we know about the Obama we know now, it probably won't be the last.
They've hawked the kids to TV gossip show "Access Hollywood," blabbed about their romance to Us Weekly magazine, and plopped Michelle O -- the purported "civilian" whom the Obamessiah declares immune from public criticism -- in front of the cameras to schmooze effortlessly for "The Colbert Report" and "The View" demographics. They believe their two-faced tabloid strategy (show their true elitist colors behind closed doors, but play the Every Family for the Obamedia sycophants) is working. Given our dumbed-down, celebrity-obsessed culture, they are probably right.
Who cares about Barack's perilous lack of foreign policy experience, his longtime associations with left-wing radicals and domestic terrorists, and his business dealings with Chicago corruptocrats? People magazine brings you the scoop on what really matters in this critical presidential campaign: Michelle hula-hoops with her daughters. They're just like you and me! The kids have slumber parties. They're just like you and me! Barack does laundry, but he doesn't fold it. They're just like you and me! The kids get small allowances. They're just like you and me! The Obamas wear normal clothes while doing normal things.
THEY'RE JUST LIKE YOU AND ME!
There's a popular feature in most gossip magazines that rates celebrities as "normal" vs. "not normal" or "diva" vs. "down to earth." This is supposed to humanize the stars and make celebrity followers feel better about their empty idol worship. Paparazzi catch "normal" famous people in candid moments -- taking out the trash, scarfing down hot dogs, goofing around with their kids at the playground -- and magazine editors compare them to photos of "not normal" celebs in elitist repose -- walking with their umbrella carriers, surrounded by seven bodyguards and three nannies, boarding their Gulfstreams, etc.
The fatal flaw in the tabloids' Obamas-as-next-door-neighbors propaganda, of course, is that unlike the candid shots of normal, down-to-earth celebrities without makeup or entourages, the photos of the Obamas in "normal" mode are all carefully choreographed fauxtographs.
While Snobama complains about "bitter" rural voters who "cling" to their guns and religion and moans about the price of arugula in his candid unscripted moments, JustLikeYou&Me Michelle cunningly brags about buying her sundresses at discount retailer H&M and, with studied casualness, tells reporters that she doesn't mind if the kids' beds aren't perfectly made. Uh-huh.
The Obamas do everything but pick their noses for the cameras to mimic Real People bona fides. The Obamedia stenographers in the celebrity press -- and the mainstream press, for that matter -- eat it up. And so do the American people. Former Star magazine editor Bonnie Fuller, citing a poll showing that more adults would like to invite Obama to a summer barbecue than McCain, hailed the Obamas in Advertising Age as the "Brangelina of the political world."
Obama and his political paparazzi are banking on people's stupidity and his cult of personality to carry him to the White House. Unfortunately, the odds are in his favor. Just try talking to one of the millions of people with their noses buried in People or Us about Obama's relationship with Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, his flip-flops on the Iraq war surge and his reckless naivete regarding Iran, and you'll see what I mean.
The exclamation of a journalist at the UNITY minority news media gathering this weekend sums up the star-struck reverence that fuels the Obama phenomenon: "He touched me!" And yet, he's sooo "down to earth."
Hurtling toward a government of the stupid, by the stupid, for the stupid we go.
[Note: Never underestimate the power of stupidity in large numbers -- particularly
in a country that is governed by the majority, and the majority is stupid
and elects stupid leaders who pass stupid laws! The state of this country
makes a good argument for a government by a council of elders -- or at least
by people who have studied and understand history. Most people have little
knowledge of the principles this country was founded upon -- that we had
a war because we wanted the right to be DIFFERENT than other countries, and
do not even know the hallmarks, advantages, disadvantages of the various
forms of government (such as republics, democracies, communism, socialism,
Marxism, etc.) and either don't know or have totally forgotten the mistakes
of the past -- yet these ignorant people are the ones who elect our ignorant
leaders, who in turn pass laws without even reading most of them, much less
knowing the ramifications of them!]
Obama's War Party
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Barack Obama has joined the party of war.
Since it became clear that he would be the Democratic presidential nominee, Obama has left behind his peacenik rhetoric and seems eager to inform anyone who will listen that as president he would escalate U.S. military intervention -- in Afghanistan.
Last week, immediately after completing his first-ever trip to Afghanistan, Obama made a pronouncement from that most sacred of liberal precincts, the op-ed page of The New York Times.
"As president, I would pursue a new strategy, and begin by providing at least two additional combat brigades to support our effort in Afghanistan," he wrote. "We need more troops, more helicopters, better intelligence-gathering and more nonmilitary assistance to accomplish the mission there."
In other words, Obama would order a surge -- in Afghanistan.
This week, Obama repeated his call for a surge when he appeared on NBC's "Meet the Press."
"It was clear to me that Afghanistan is the central front on terror, that the Taliban and al-Qaida have reconstituted themselves," he said. "We're going to need two additional brigades in Afghanistan, and we've got to work with Pakistan to get serious about these terrorists safe havens."
Not long after Obama spoke, a suspected U.S. missile, suspected to be under orders from President Bush, smashed into the suspected Pakistani house of al-Qaida's suspected chemical-and-biological weapons man, who is now suspected to be posthumously appreciating the realization that his safe haven was not as safe as either he or Obama believed.
What was most revealing about Obama's statement on "Meet the Press," however, was Obama's implicit concession that the United States is in a multi-front war. He did say, after all, that "Afghanistan is the central front on terror." He did not say it was the only front.
So, now that we know Obama will order a surge in Afghanistan, Americans need to ponder what tactics he is likely to employ on other fronts and how likely it is that the sum of these tactics will add up to a strategic U.S. victory.
What is a U.S. victory? Simply this: Stopping Islamic terrorists from ever again perpetrating mass murder on U.S. soil.
This has been President Bush's primary aim ever since Sept. 11, 2001. And no matter what else Bush's critics say about him, there is one thing they cannot say: He allowed Islamic terrorists to hit our homeland again.
In the almost seven years since Sept. 11, 2001, Islamic terrorists have failed to carry out a single attack inside our country.
Bush has achieved this success by unflinching use of multitudinous aggressive tactics. He won congressional authorization for a war in Afghanistan and invaded that country. He won congressional authorization for a war in Iraq and invaded that country, too. He secured passage of the PATRIOT Act and made use of the greater latitude it gave law enforcement to track potential terrorists inside the United States. He ordered warrantless wiretaps of international communications in and out of the United States when a suspected terrorist was a party to the communication. He ordered that terrorists be tried by military tribunals. He ordered captured terrorists held at a prison in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. He ordered the occasional use of aggressive interrogation techniques, including (in a few circumstances) water-boarding.
He drove the surviving leaders of al-Qaida into an uncomfortable corner of Pakistan where each night they must wonder if the next suspected U.S. missile will crash into their "safe haven."
To be sure, Bush has made some mistakes. Invading Iraq in the first place may have been one of them. But the end consequence of Bush's aggressive approach is manifest in a result few would have predicted on Sept. 11, 2001: For seven years, he has kept us, our children and our neighborhoods safe. The essence of Barack Obama's and the Democrats' complaint against Bush is that he did too much in the war on terror -- except in Afghanistan. There, they complain, he did too little.
For Obama and the Democrats, Bush water-boarded too many Khalid Sheikh Mohammads, imprisoned too many in Guantanamo, made too many arguments against granting terrorists access to federal courts, authorized too many warrantless international wiretaps, made too much use of the PATRIOT Act and put too many troops in Iraq.
To prove they are not appeasers, they want more troops in Afghanistan.
But leaving aside Afghanistan, where Obama and the Democrats are now committed to becoming the war party, an all-Democratic government led by Obama can be counted on to use fewer aggressive tactics against Islamic terrorists than President Bush did.
We can only hope they don't end up using one tactic too few.
Regarding Obama and Change: If Obama gets elected, the only thing that will be left in your pockets is change!
He's Not a Muslim -- He's a Marxist!
Obama '08, Osama '09!
New Slogans For Barack Obama
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Barack Obama's messianic tour of Europe is over. And, like Jesus, he has risen again -- in the polls. According to Gallup's daily tracking poll, Obama is now up 8 percent among registered voters. According to Rasmussen, his lead is a whopping three points. (According to USA Today/Gallup, John McCain actually leads Obama among likely voters by 4 percent. But God knows that Jesus' poll numbers are always vacillating, too.)
Obama's return has meant jubilation in the streets. Demure virgins wave palm fronds over the triumphant conqueror as he wanders the highways and byways of the campaign trail. Obama gracefully offers them water bottles when they are overcome -- and they are miraculously healed.
Obama has it all. All except for one thing: a new slogan. Hope and change are all well and good, but they seem tired. After a year and a half, hope and change begin to wear thin, despite the Holy One's profound enunciation of those shallow incantations.
And so I, a humble member of a planet dedicated to the glory and power of Barack Obama, offer the following suggestions:
When Experience, Knowledge and Honor Just Aren't Good Enough. Vote Obama.
Hope. Change. And All That Other BS. Vote Obama.
More Experience Than a Fifth Grader. Vote Obama.
Standing Up For the Power of Horse Manure. Vote Obama.
Talking Big. Doing Nothing. Vote Obama.
This Election Is All About You. Voting for Me. Vote Obama.
Sure, I Remember Voting In the Senate That One Time. Vote Obama.
Kim Jung Il, Hamas and Fidel Castro Can't Be Wrong. Vote Obama.
Pass the Arugula. Vote Obama.
You Say Corrupt Land Deal. I Say Creative Financing. Potaytoe, Potahtoe. Vote Obama.
Like Black People? Vote Obama.
The Man With The Iraq Plan. Yeah, The Plan That Didn't Work. So What, Racist? Vote Obama.
Flag Pins Are Stupid. But I'm Not Unpatriotic. You Racist. Vote Obama.
Don't Like My Pastor? Shut Up, Racist. Still Don't Like Him? I Guess I Don't, Either. Vote Obama.
Watch the Oceans Recede. Watch the World Make Peace. And Watch As I Saw This Woman In Half! Vote Obama.
Fooling All of the People All of the Time. Vote Obama.
Cut Military Funding. Dictators Are Nice. Vote Obama.
Yes We Can. Or Rather, I Can. Vote Obama.
Barack Obama will not adopt any of these slogans any time soon, I admit. But here's the irony -- he could adopt such slogans and still win the election. That's because his followers do not hear a word he says. They watch him wave his arms; they scream and cheer as he fist-bumps his wife; they keel over in the aisles when he coughs, and jump up and down when he sneezes. He's part Neville Chamberlain, part Rolling Stones. His devotees are all moonstruck teenyboppers.
Back in March, Obama spoke in Wisconsin. "People question if words matter," he
thundered. "Words do matter. Words challenge us to reach higher. Words are
a catalyst for change and words motivate us to chase our dreams." Obama was
wrong. When it comes to his campaign, words don't matter in the slightest.
Obama could perform mime, and his followers would applaud wildly. All that
matters is the Obama persona. And that persona doesn't rely on words, ideas
or policies. It relies on stupidity. And where his followers are concerned,
stupidity is in no short supply.
Obama says that lifting the prohibition against offshore drilling
will "merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington
for 30 years."
Now that it costs over $4.00 per gallon for gasoline at the pump, Americans are starting to realize that we are, in actuality, finally starting to pay the price for 30 years of failed energy policies!
For 30 years our own government has PROHIBITED us from drilling for much of our own oil offshore... our own government has PROHIBITED us from drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)... our own government has placed us in the position of having to import oil -- in many cases from countries hostile to the United States.
And now -- as Barack Hussein Obama's longtime friend and pastor Jeremiah Wright would say: "America's chickens are coming home to roost."
When President Bush courageously offered to lift the executive ban on offshore drilling last week, he was, in fact, REVERSING years of "failed energy policies."
So how, in the name of all that is holy, can Barack Hussein Obama declare that REVERSING 30 years of failed liberal energy policies will "merely prolong the failed energy policies we have seen from Washington for 30 years."
It's a little reminiscent of George Orwell's 1984.
"War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength."
Add to that; 'Reversing 30 years of failed energy policies will merely prolong the failed energy policies of 30 years.'
To make matters worse, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi have thus far succeeded in BLOCKING fair up-or-down votes in Congress on releasing legislative prohibitions against offshore drilling.
And then they patted themselves on the back for a job well-done... adjourned Congress... and went on vacation!
It should be clear by now that Pelosi and Reid will continue to BLOCK and OBSTRUCT, hoping that their man, Barack Hussein Obama, makes it to the White House so they can enact even MORE failed energy policies to drive the price of gasoline at the pump up even HIGHER and further ENSLAVE us to foreign oil!
No We Can't!
On the campaign trail, Barack Hussein Obama is fond of chanting "Yes We Can" but when it comes to taking real steps to alleviate the financial suffering of average Americans he's really saying, 'No We Can't!'
Here's what Senator Jon Kyl recently said:
"'Dr. No,' or as we in the Senate are referring to it, as a mantra of 'No, we can't.' No, we can't drill offshore. No, we can't drill the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico. No, we can't do oil shale. Of course, he said he's not a proponent of nuclear [energy], so no, we can't do that. He's even said, 'No, we shouldn't do a reward for the technology improvement for a battery that would allow people to use those kind of vehicles.' It's a very negative approach, which basically says there are no answers to the hurt that Americans are suffering right now."
The McCain campaign was quick to jump on the bandwagon. McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers said:
"It's just very clear at this point that Senator Obama is Dr. No on energy security. Today it was 'no' on the $300 million for a new kind of battery. Before it was 'no' on further exploration or possibility of further exploration of our coasts. It was 'no' on gas tax relief that can help this summer families that are hurting. It's 'no' on expanded nuclear power investments that we can make."
Why is Barack Hussein Obama "Dr. No" when it comes to a real energy policy that will free us from the grip of foreign oil and lower the prices at the pump for all Americans?
And why are Reid and Pelosi frantically OBSTRUCTING and BLOCKING a fair up-or-down vote on offshore drilling?
The answer to that question is simple: If they allowed a vote to actually occur, many Democrats would cave-in and actually vote for the measure!
They don't want that to happen!
But if you put on the pressure, IT WILL!
It's About The Socialism, Stupid!
Meanwhile, some Democrats in Congress have made it abundantly clear what they're really after.
Recently, Congressman Maurice Hinchey called for the "Nationalization" of Oil Refineries:
"Maybe they'd be willing to have these companies owned publicly... owned by the people of the United States."
Congresswoman Maxine Waters recently flubbed a statement on the floor of the House which is being played over and over again on the Internet website YouTube:
"This liberal (talking about herself) will be all about SOCIAL____ (stops and stammers) uhhhh... uhhh... will be about... (stops again) basically taking over and the government running all your companies."
If Hinchey didn't make it clear, Waters did; she had to stop herself from actually saying the word, but it's clear that she's talking about SOCIALISM!
Republican Congressman Adam Putnam also made it abundantly clear when he made reference to Hinchey and Water's comments:
"Last month, one of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's fellow California Democrats said she would be 'all about socializing' and 'taking over' the oil companies. Just two weeks ago, another senior House Democrat said the 'government should own the refineries.'"
"... Socializing, nationalizing and driving small cars. It's enough to make you think they attended the Hugo Chavez School of Capitalism."
And as for Barack Hussein Obama; his views appear to be consistent with the increasingly overt Socialism that seems to be infecting the Democratic Party!
The Wall Street Journal recently wrote:
"He supports punitive new windfall profits taxes on Big Oil, which won't do anything for supply; as well as at least $10 billion a year in new subsidies for 'alternative' energy technologies, which may take years or decades to pan out, if they ever do."
Political analyst Dick Morris recently wrote:
"The [Democratic] Party basically doesn't believe in carbon based energy and, therefore, opposes oil exploration. That's why Obama pushes the windfall profits tax on oil companies - a step that tells them 'you drill, you find oil, and we'll take away your profits.' But Americans have their priorities in order: more oil, more drilling AND alternative energy sources, flex-fuel cars, plug in vehicles and nuclear power."
And let's not forget what else Obama recently said:
"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK.... That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."
Let's recap. Government ownership of private industry... Suffering, sacrifice and depravation for average people... Aggressive new taxes on profits which the government redistributes as it sees fit?
That's SOCIALISM! And SOCIALISM is something the American people don't need!
Exposing the Real Obama Agenda!
When it comes to Obama's real agenda on energy policy, perhaps, Ann Coulter said it best years ago:
"When the free market does the exact thing liberals have been itching to do through taxation, they pretend to be appalled by high gas prices, hoping the public will forget that high gas prices are part of their agenda."
"I would be more interested in what the Democrats had to say about high gas prices if these were not the same people who refused to let us drill for oil in Alaska, imposed massive restrictions on building new refineries, and who shut down the development of nuclear power in this country decades ago."
"But it's too much having to watch Democrats wail about the awful calamity to poor working families of having to pay high gas prices.
"Imposing punitive taxation on gasoline to force people to ride bicycles has been one of the left's main policy goals for years.
"For decades Democrats have been trying to raise the price of gasoline so that the working class will stop their infernal car-driving and start riding on buses where they belong, while liberals ride in Gulfstream jets."
ExposeObama.com is the only nationwide organization at the forefront of the movement to Expose the REAL Barack Hussein Obama to the American people.
We're not backing-down when it comes to taking the fight for the hearts and minds of the American people to Barack Hussein Obama!
But we're not just going to Expose the Farce that is Obama's Energy Policy! We're going to do something to stop it!
Below is a sample email that you are welcome to copy and paste into emails to your federal legislators. If you'd like to use a convenient emailer that looks up your senators and congressmen, lets you paste your message in and sends it to all of them at once, go here and fill in your zip code ("Search by Zip Code"), click "Go", then on the new page, click on "Compose Your Own Message"): http://capwiz.com/atr/home/
Subject: Drill Offshore! Drill Now
President Bush recently announced that he would lift a long-standing executive order banning offshore oil drilling and he challenged Congress to do the same!
Specifically President Bush said: "When Congress lifts the legislative ban, I will lift the executive prohibition... The only thing standing between the American people and these vast oil resources is action from the U.S. Congress. Now the ball is squarely in Congress' court... For years, my administration has been calling on Congress to expand domestic oil production. Unfortunately, Democrats on Capitol Hill have rejected virtually every proposal. And now Americans are paying at the pump."
And what did Congress do with the ball? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi immediately blocked fair up-or-down votes in Congress on releasing legislative prohibitions against offshore drilling. And then -- to add insult to injury -- they adjourned Congress on went on vacation!
Stop the stalls and stop the obstruction. The American people understand that prohibitions against drilling for oil domestically for years have put us in our present situation and with each passing day, the mantra of "we can't drill our way out of this crisis" sounds more and more foolish and obstructionist! Democrats have no excuse to continue the obstruction. The American people are tired of paying for this foolishness and obstruction at the pump! Lift the ban! Make it your first order of business!
Pelosi Blocks Gas Price Relief
By Henry Lamb
July 29, 2008
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told CNN that she would block any vote to allow offshore drilling. This remarkable stance comes in the face of the latest poll that says 73 percent of Americans favor offshore drilling, while only 27 percent oppose it. Nancy Pelosi again displays her contempt for her employer, the American people. Her arrogance and wrong-headed philosophy have led Congress to an approval rating of a staggering 14 percent, the lowest ever.
The arguments she advances in defense of her position are, at best, silly, and at worst, devious. She says she will not allow additional reserves to be drilled because oil companies already hold leases on 68 million acres of federal land that are not being drilled. She ignores the testimony of oil company representatives who tell her that had they found oil under these lands, they would be pumping it. The oil companies need to drill where the oil is.
There is plenty of oil to drill. Known reserves offshore, in Alaska, the Bakken fields of North Dakota and Montana, and elsewhere, can meet the energy demand for at least 100 years. But Pelosi and her colleagues don't want this oil produced. Pelosi says that it will take 10 years for this new oil supply to reach the pump, and then, it would reduce the price by only two-cents per gallon. This price projection is pure fiction.
As an alternative, she says the president should release 70 million barrels of oil from the strategic reserves, which would provide immediate price relief. Is this silly, stupid, or just more of Pelosi's political doublespeak? This alternative would supply less than four days of the U.S. demand, which would not likely even be noticed at the pump. It would do nothing to solve the underlying problem of too little supply.
Pelosi, like Al Gore, wants to end America's reliance on oil, and switch to new, exotic, yet-to-be-developed energy sources such as wind, solar, hydrogen, and in particular, electric cars. America has been investing heavily in research in all these areas for years. Some significant progress has been made. No one in their right mind -- which includes Al Gore -- can think this new technology can be available within the next ten years, with enough distribution to make hydrogen filling stations and recharging for electric cars viable options. It is certain, however, that by developing known oil reserves, the U.S. energy demand can be met in 10 years, or less.
There is a big disconnect between the rush to convert automobiles to batteries, and the reality that the electricity to recharge those batteries would require a massive new generating capacity. The same flawed excuse of "protecting the environment," has also blocked the expansion of electricity generating capacity. If the self-appointed gods of environmental protection won't allow the expansion of electricity generation, how are the batteries of all these new electric vehicles going to be recharged every night?
Another major disconnect between the rush to replace oil with renewable sources such as wind and solar is the negative environmental impact of these renewable technologies. For example, to replace a single 50-megawatt coal-fired generating plant, which may occupy as much as 20 acres of land, approximately 3,000 acres of land would have to be occupied by wind turbines. To produce 50-megawatts of electricity from solar panels would virtually cover even more land. How can these protectors of the environment justify blanketing the land with whirling bird-killers and solar panels that block the sun from all forms of life beneath them?
Some environmental purists genuinely want America and the world to return to the stone-age. Nancy Pelosi is no environmental purist. She is a political creature, which is a person so intoxicated by power that the instinct to retain and expand it overwhelms common sense, logic, ethics, morality, or anything else that might get in the way.
By her refusal to even allow debate on proposals to expand oil development -- where oil is known to exist -- she stands like a barricade between thirsty consumers and a new mountain stream. She apparently sees herself as a self-appointed savior; she is, in truth, acting as judge and jury, condemning a nation desperate for more energy to spiraling energy costs for possibly another generation.
This is not a new posture for Democrat leadership. Democrats in the House, the Senate, and the White House have blocked expansion of oil supplies for more than a decade. Had Bill Clinton not vetoed the bill that would have opened the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge more than a decade ago, gas prices would not be as high as they are today. Millions of jobs would have been created, and every American could have saved the money needlessly paid to foreign sources for oil, simply because one man played God and defied the express will of the people.
Nancy Pelosi is now playing God, standing where Bill Clinton stood more than a decade ago, defying the expressed will of the people by blocking access to the known oil reserves that are so desperately needed by the entire nation.