The hypocrisy of the Left, part the zillionth

Quote provided by The Patriot Post:

"Barack Obama has made few policy pronouncements since his November election. But he and his wife have made a personal decision that is rich with policy ramifications: the choice of a school for their daughters. During the campaign, Obama said he supports charter schools, which are public schools that are free of some bureaucratic constraints, but that he opposes private school choice, because it doesn't work. Turns out it does work for the Obamas, who determined that no public or charter school in the nation's capital would be the 'best fit' for their daughters. Instead they chose Sidwell Friends, an exclusive private school that counts Chelsea Clinton among its alumni. No one should begrudge the Obamas for choosing the best possible school for their children. But we should begrudge Barack Obama for vowing to deny such choices to low-income parents. As Polly Williams, the state representative who gave birth to Milwaukee's school choice program put it, 'The president shouldn't be the only person who lives in public housing who gets to send his kids to private schools.'" --Hoover Institution research fellow Clint Bolick

Your new god

Seen in an email signature:

"Rosa Parks sat so that Martin Luther King could walk.
Martin Luther King walked so Barack Obama could run.
Barack Obama ran so our children could fly.”
-- Unknown participant in the 2008 Presidential Election

And yet we're told race wasn't an issue. It shouldn't have been, but it clearly was for some people.

Oh the quote is very inspirational on the surface. And I do think there's truth in it. But there is also something else. Look at the last line. The best word I can think of to describe it is worshipful.
The implication is that Obama, through the power of the One True Government™, will enable and help our children to succeed.

Whether they want it to or not.

Love Affair

Ah, how sweet.

It started with the fist bump seen ’round the world. Soon there were stories of rousing family Scrabble battles and date nights, in spite of election mayhem. Then President-elect Barack Obama referred to his wife Michelle as “the love of my life” during his election night victory speech, embracing her tightly and kissing her afterwards, while millions of people worldwide watched.

“They took a moment to face each other, to kiss and hold one another, regardless of the magnitude and spectacle of the night,” said Camille Washington, a Bay Area blogger on Soulbounce.com, a music and culture site. “That says a lot.”

The Obamas represent a welcome change as an openly affectionate and romantic couple for many Americans. Some experts say that the soon-to-be first couple embody the ideal healthy relationship, and that they can stir up love around the country. The New York Daily News even predicted a baby boom attributed to election night friskiness inspired by the Obamas.

John and Cindy McCain love each other as well. But if McCain had won the election, do you think for a minute that anything like this would have been published about them? Of course not. More likely, it would have been some article that purported to discuss what it's like for them to be married but would be a subtle, or not so subtle, criticism of the fact that Cindy brought a lot of wealth to the marriage. It would have glossed over her extensive charity work, assuming it was even mentioned at all.

It continues

I just received this press release from the Second Amendment Foundation.

HOLDER NOMINATION SIGNALS OBAMA’S TRUE ANTI-GUN RIGHTS AGENDA

BELLEVUE, WA – The nomination of Eric Holder for the post of attorney general of the United States sends an “alarming signal” to gun owners about how the Barack Obama administration will view individual gun rights, as affirmed this year by the Supreme Court, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“Eric Holder signed an amicus brief in the Heller case that supported the District of Columbia’s handgun ban, and also argued that the Second Amendment does not protect an individual right,” noted SAF founder Alan Gottlieb. “He has supported national handgun licensing and mandatory trigger locks. As deputy attorney general under Janet Reno, he lobbied Congress to pass legislation that would have curtailed legitimate gun shows.

“This is not the record of a man who will come to office as the nation’s top law enforcement officer with the rights and concerns of gun owners in mind,” he observed.

Holder’s nomination, like the appointment of anti-gun Illinois Congressman Rahm Emanuel as White House Chief of Staff, tells American gun owners that Obama’s campaign claims supporting the Second Amendment were “empty rhetoric,” Gottlieb stated.

“America’s 85 million gun owners have ample reason to be pessimistic about how their civil rights will fare under the Obama administration,” Gottlieb said. “Mr. Obama will have a Congress with an anti-gun Democrat majority leadership to push his gun control agenda. Gun owners have not forgotten Mr. Obama’s acknowledged opposition to concealed carry rights, nor his support for a ban on handgun ownership when he was running for the Illinois state senate.

“Barack Obama vigorously portrayed himself on the campaign trail as a man who supports gun ownership,” Gottlieb concluded, “but now that he has won the election, he is surrounding himself with people who are avowed gun prohibitionists. What better indication of what to expect from Barack Obama as president than the people he is selecting to lead his administration? This isn’t a roster of devoted public servants. It’s a rogue’s gallery of extremists who have labored to erase the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights.”

Hiatus

Since the election, I've been pretty quiet. I probably will be through the holidays, though I imagine I'll post something every now and then.

Of course, come January, all hell will be breaking loose and I'll be here watching it happen.

More revisionism?

The page on Obama's transition website that I referred to in my last post, the one where he details his Urban Policy that includes gun control measures, has been removed. The URL, http://www.change.gov/agenda/urbanpolicy/, now returns a simple message that the page is not available.

Is the page not available because:

1. It's yet another attempt to flush something down the memory hole?
2. The President-elect has changed his mind?
3. The page is being altered and will return once the changes are complete?

You're guess is as good as mine.

And so it begins

Updated: see below.

The following comes as absolutely no surprise.  I suppose I thought he’d wait a short while but that is not to be.  The Democrats are already drunk with power and they’re moving fast.

Item the first: The disarmament of the American people

On the official transition website of Barack Obama, President-Elect, (http://change.gov) he lays out his Urban Policy.  Among other things is this:

Address Gun Violence in Cities: As president, Barack Obama would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals who shouldn't have them. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent, as such weapons belong on foreign battlefields and not on our streets.

The best analysis of this policy that I've read can be found here. It's not the only one, of course.

This will only be the beginning.  The market is already reacting with sales of guns of all types going through the roof and stocks are being quickly depleted. The steps listed above will be just the first salvo in an all-out effort to render the Second Amendment meaningless. The decision in the Heller case will act as a roadblock but expect any Supreme Court justices nominated to be amenable to overturning it if not eager to do so.

Item the second: The new conscription

I now point to the America Serves page at Obama's transition website (http://change.gov/americaserves/) containing the overview for the new plan for "service". Before I continue, though, a funny thing has happened. The page has been changed since it was first brought to my attention.

Of course, this isn't the first time that the Obama website has been changed. See here and here. Welcome to the new revisionism, and remember that it's a favored tactic of Communism. Yes, I went there. I'm sure I will again.

The GeekWithA.45 has the original text which I reproduce here with his emphasis intact:

America Serves

"When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream."

The Obama Administration will call on Americans to serve in order to meet the nation’s challenges. President-Elect Obama will expand national service programs like AmeriCorps and Peace Corps and will create a new Classroom Corps to help teachers in underserved schools, as well as a new Health Corps, Clean Energy Corps, and Veterans Corps. Obama will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to

require

50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

He also notes the irony of the situation in the face of the Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. I expect that, though the text has changed, the plan has not.

The ever-irascible Kim du Toit has something to say about it:

Wow. If I didn’t know better, I’d have called those things by their proper names: Obamajugend, Arbeitsdienst and Volkssturm.

As one of those “over age 55” types, allow me to make this suggestion to Comrade Urkel: you want me to work; you pay me. Otherwise, go fuck yourself.

And that goes for my kids, too. If they want to work in soup kitchens or for church charities, they’ll do that. If they don’t want to, you’re not going to force them. Or you’ll have to force them over my dead body, and over those of several of your Gruppenfuehrers.

The GeekWithA.45 is much more to the point:

You. Shall. Not. Teach. My. Children. To. Be. Slaves.

Ever.

Mark my words: This is just the beginning.

Update: Item the third: The biggest heist in history

Of course, in the end, it's always about the money:

Democrats in the U.S. House have been conducting hearings on proposals to confiscate workers’ personal retirement accounts — including 401(k)s and IRAs — and convert them to accounts managed by the Social Security Administration.

This comes via Nicki at The Liberty Zone who has some rather choice comments:

Confiscate. Appropriate by the government. Deprive of property. Steal.

This is no longer a pithy little catchphrase about helping everyone. This is theft, pure and simple. This is YOUR government, whom YOU elected, telling YOU that they will take what YOU earned away from you, take away your freedom of choice as to what to do with your property, give it to an inept government bureaucracy to mishandle and hand out to those who haven't earned it. This isn't funny, and it isn't noble. It's criminal.

Good job guys. I dare you to justify all of these, and all the other infringements on our liberty that are sure to follow. Go on, I'm listening.

This pretty much sums it up

From today's Patriot Post digest:

The Democrats' large majorities no doubt mean America is in for at least two years of full-steam-ahead socialism. Priorities include raising taxes on everyone (not just the wealthy, despite their promises to the contrary), even more severe environmental regulations, a policy of defeat in Iraq and Afghanistan and reviving the so-called "Fairness Doctrine" to stifle conservative objections to any of the above.

On the other hand, Republicans were beaten because they deserved it. Eight years of spending and generally behaving like drunken Democrats convinced Americans to vote for the real thing instead of the imitation. It's safe to say that "compassionate conservatism" was an unmitigated disaster. If Republicans get back to their conservative roots, they will not wander in the political wilderness for another generation.

The One Ring

One of the analogies making the rounds of the Intarwebz is that, with the election of Barack Obama, it feels (there's that word) like "Frodo has finally destroyed the Ring."

Let's hope so, because I fear that a better analogy might be that Faramir did not let Frodo and Sam go in Ithilien. Instead, he carried the Ring to Minas Tirith. There the people of the White City surrendered the Ring to the Witch King of Angmar hoping that Sauron would stop his invasion of the West.

It doesn't take much to imagine how that would turn out.

Reactions

Here's a collection of reactions to yesterday's events.

The GeekWithA.45 realized something yesterday.

Any man's, group's or nation's right to claim that America in an inherently racist nation ceases today, and is lost forever.

The ever-irascible Kim duToit lays out just what kind of Change™ the American people have just voted for.

The inestimable Steven den Beste says it's not the end of the world. He even lists some positives:

1. It is no longer possible for anyone to deny that the MSM is heavily biased. The MSM have been biased for decades but managed an illusion of fairness. That is no longer possible; the MSM have squandered their credibility during this campaign. They'll never get that credibility back again.

2. Since the Democrats got nearly everything they hoped for in this campaign, they'll have no excuses and will have to produce. They'll have to reveal their true agenda -- or else make clear that they don't really have any beyond gaining power.

3. Every few decades the American people have to be reminded that peace only comes with strength. The next four years will be this generation's lesson.

He also has some predictions. Here's a partial list:

1. Obama's "hold out your hand to everyone" foreign policy is going to be a catastrophe. They'll love it in Europe. They're probably laughing their heads off about it in the middle east already.

2. The US hasn't suffered a terrorist attack by al Qaeda since 9/11, but we'll get at least one during Obama's term.

3. We're going to lose in Afghanistan.

4. Iran will get nuclear weapons. There will be nuclear war between Iran and Israel. (This is the only irreversibly terrible thing I see upcoming, and it's very bad indeed.)

The Wall Street Journal, before the results were known, noted that We Could Be In for a Lurch to the Left. It discusses why the Democrats will be much more likely to enact liberal policies now than they were when they enjoyed Congressional majorities under Carter and Clinton:

The most significant change is in the ideological makeup of the Democratic majorities. In the Carter and Clinton eras, there were dozens of moderate and conservative Democrats in Congress, a disproportionate number of them committee chairs. Now the Democratic majorities in both houses are composed almost uniformly of liberals. Those few who aren't, including the tiny but heralded gang of moderates elected to the House in 2006, usually knuckle under on liberal issues. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi bosses them around like hired help.

And it also reminds us that the media has played and will continue to play a large role:

There's still another change in Washington that shouldn't be overlooked: a mainstream media that's become reflexively liberal. It's true the national press corps has been monopolized by liberals for years. The difference now is that the media's liberal tendencies are unleashed and permeate reporting on national affairs.

Finally, the inestimable Bill Whittle notes the Historic nature of the occasion and sums up my thoughts rather well:

When he is inaugurated, President Obama will be my president. He cannot be otherwise. I will disagree with him at just about every turn, likely, and that is my right and duty as an American. However, in an emergency he will have my unqualified support, and I will always wish him wisdom and hope that he may do what is best for this great country of ours. I do not wish – I do not ever wish – to see my country suffer so that I may gain political leverage. If at this same time four years from now, President Obama has acted in such a way to make us more prosperous, more safe and more free, it will be my greatest pleasure to admit I was wrong about the man. I look forward to that day. I hope to see it come to pass.

Regardless of all of that, we have together achieved something noble and magnificent tonight. We have, after a long and hazardous journey, taken the final step in erasing the one real stain on our nations history. That war is not over, but it is won. And we may all take a great deal of pride in that.

Here we go

I could write a long post about why you should vote a certain way, but I won't. I'm too tired. All I'm going to say is may God help us all.

His catastrophic plan

Who do you think of when you read these song lyrics?

Excerpt:

He'll wrap you in his arms,
tell you that you've been a good boy
He'll rekindle all the dreams
it took you a lifetime to destroy
He'll reach deep into the hole,
heal your shrinking soul
Hey buddy, you know you're
never ever coming back
He's a god, he's a man,
he's a ghost, he's a guru
They're whispering his name
through this disappearing land
But hidden in his coat
is a red right hand


You ain't got no money?
He'll get you some
You ain't got no car? He'll get you one
You ain't got no self-respect,
you feel like an insect
Well don't you worry buddy,
cause here he comes
Through the ghettos and the barrio
and the bowery and the slum
A shadow is cast wherever he stands
Stacks of green paper in his
red right hand

And the waters shall recede....

Talk about the cult of personality....



It's rare to see someone so in the grip of religious fervor.

Classic

I wasn't aware of this, but Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske had his Glock 9mm pistol (probably a G17) stolen from his car a while back. The Citizen's Committe for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms just put out this press release.  I couldn't help but laugh and I've included it here in its entirety:

CCRKBA SAYS CHIEF’S MISSING GUN A BIGGER THREAT TO SAFETY THAN MOST FIREARMS

For Immediate Release: October 28, 2008

BELLEVUE, WA – Seattle Police Chief Gil Kerlikowske, quoted by the Seattle Post-Intelligencer today claiming that more guns in the community does not deter crime should remember that his stolen gun is out there posing a greater threat to public safety than firearms belonging to typical law-abiding gun owners.

So said Alan Gottlieb, chairman of the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, a Bellevue-based grassroots civil rights organization. CCRKBA still has a reward for the recovery of Kerlikowske’s stolen 9mm Glock pistol, taken from his city-owned car that was parked on a downtown street almost four years ago.

Kerlikowske, in New York preparing for a gun control debate on National Public Radio, is quoted by the newspaper arguing that research is “clear” that the more guns in the community, “the more that are in circulation for criminals to get their hands on.”

“That’s a subject on which Kerlikowske should be an authority,” Gottlieb observed. “He carelessly left his loaded pistol where someone could steal it, and that gun has never been recovered. How dare this man start preaching about the pratfalls of gun ownership when he can’t even keep track of his own handgun?

“In fact,” he continued, “research by Prof. John Lott and others indicates quite the opposite, that more guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens do have a deterrent effect on violent crime.

“But fact apparently doesn’t matter to the chief, who has been an ardent proponent of restrictive gun laws ever since he arrived in Washington State. Evidently to his dislike, gun ownership is constitutionally protected here,” Gottlieb said. “He has continually lobbied on behalf of Washington CeaseFire, using his position of authority to attack the civil rights of law-abiding gun owners across the Evergreen State. No doubt he will be helping lead the charge to erode Washington’s long-standing state preemption law in Olympia in January, so his boss, anti-gun Mayor Greg Nickels, can push to disarm law-abiding gun owners living in Seattle.

“We have a better idea,” Gottlieb concluded. “Chief Kerlikowske should spend every waking hour looking for his stolen gun, instead of trying to steal the gun rights of the citizens he was hired to serve and protect. Who protects those citizens from the thief who is now armed with Kerlikowske’s gun? Law-abiding armed citizens can take far better care of themselves than Chief ‘Empty Holster’ Kerlikowske.”

Recreational drug use

Via Misha comes this story over at SkyNews talking about the recent release of the footage of John McCain being interviewed as a POW. As Misha points out, the article has this amazing paragraph:

The video portrays the Republican as a hero but the message may be tarnished as he is filmed smoking a cigarette.

That has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've read today. He was shot down in October, 1967. In those days, the health risks of smoking, while suspected, were not nearly as well known and understood. Many, if not most, in the military smoked. And, after all, it's not like he did "a little blow" like someone else I could mention.

What the real story *should* be is not that he was smoking, but that he quit. But that doesn't correspond with the agenda. Nor does reporting that Obama only recently quit himself, though not really.

What the media won't report, part the Nth

I know I'm a bit late to this but Joe Biden sure is an entertaining fellow. Here we see him displaying his prodigious skills as a singer and dancer.


Okay, that's no big deal. He's just a guy enjoying himself in the great outdoors and it's okay if he has a couple beers or other adult beverages as long as he drinks responsibly.

However, take a look at this one.


Can you imagine what would happen if Sarah Palin was so clearly sloshed at an official campaign event? It would be on the front page of the New York Times, hell it would be the front page! It would be all over MSNBC, CNN, AP, you name it. It'd even be on Fox News though they might actually play the above video to balance it out.

But have we heard anything about it other than on conservative websites and talk radio? Nope, nada, zip, zero. No surprise, either.

Predictable results?

Almost exactly four years ago, I speculated as to what would happen if Bush won the election:

Should Bush win the election, I believe there will be considerable civil unrest, probably outright rioting. I think it likely there will be blood and almost certainly considerable property damage. This is on top of the flood of lawsuits that will certainly be filed by Democrats and their lawyers in a nationwide effort to overturn the results of the election.

Thankfully it turned out I was wrong, though that may be due in part to the fact that Bush not only received more electoral votes, he also received an outright majority of the popular vote. There were the expected claims of fraud and voter intimidation but they didn't really go anywhere.

But if that election was contentious, it's got nothing on the one we're about to experience. Given the extremely partisan nature of this campaign and, yes, the issue of race, I predict that a McCain victory will result in significant civil unrest and possibly rioting on some scale.

Saying that riots may occur, by the way, is not racist as it is based solely on previous experience with racially charged events. Besides in this case, again based previous experience, I don't think that the rioting will be at all limited to people of any particular ethnicity.

Bad Taste

The subject line pretty accurately describes what Democrats still feel after the 2000 election. Although Al Gore won the popular vote, by a slim margin of one half of one percent, George Bush received the most votes in the Electoral College and, after a contentious series of recounts and a decision by the Supreme Court, was confirmed as President of the United States. Unsurprisingly, many Democrats (and probably some Republicans as well) called for the elimination of the Electoral College and a change to direct election of the President by total national popular vote.

We didn't hear about it as much after the 2004 election because George Bush received an outright majority of the popular vote (something Bill Clinton never did, only receiving a plurality in his election wins). Therefore it wouldn't have made any difference to the outcome.

Once again, as we approach the 2008 Presidential Election, the issue of whether or not the Electoral College has outlived its usefulness is being raised. The article discusses what effect it would have on how candidates would campaign, and some possible negative effects. In the penultimate paragraph, the author states:

If Democratic candidate Barack Obama were to win on Election Day, it might erase the Democrats’ unpleasant memories of 2000 and lessen the momentum for scrapping the Electoral College.

True, especially if it turns out that McCain receives a plurality or majority of the popular vote. If that happens, expect Democrats to praise the foresight of the authors of the Constitution and sing the praises of the Electoral College.

Colin Powell

I'm not really that surprised that Retired General and former Secretary of State Colin Powell has endorsed Barack Obama. Misha sums it up pretty well:

Really. Anybody surprised by Colin Powell’s endorsement of the Obamessiah please raise your hands. Then kindly go to the back of the class and think about it for a bit.

His Majesty never cared for Powell in the first place, apart from his service to his country, of course. He was an inept Sec-of-State and his politics were always, to put it gently, dubious. So what could possibly convince somebody who never really did anything suggesting that he was a conservative in any sense of the word to go ahead and endorse a radical Marxist empty suit with zero experience?

I don't necessarily agree with Misha's conclusion that Powell is either falsely denying that race is not a factor or is an opportunist seeking a position in the Obama administration. I think he genuinely made the decision for the reasons he states.

However, I do think that the reasons he states are questionable.

Selection of Sara Palin: Powell stated that McCain's selection of Palin as running mate made him question McCain's judgment. From the article:

"I don’t believe [Palin] is ready to be president of the United States," Powell said flatly. By contrast, Obama’s running mate, Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, "is ready to be president on day one."

What he has failed to realize is that Palin actually has more experience than Obama himself. She has been a mayor and a governor, both elected executive positions. Obama has not held any elected executive positions, nor been in any executive position at all with the possible exception of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge. And lest we forget, it failed utterly in its stated mission. (Whether its stated mission was its actual mission is another matter entirely.) In fact it could be argued that Palin has more executive experience than McCain and Biden as well.

Republican attacks on Obama: Powell also said that he was disturbed by the "personal" attacks on Obama. Again, from the article:

Powell also told NBC’s Tom Brokaw that he was "troubled" by Republicans' personal attacks on Obama, especially false intimations that Obama was Muslim and the recent focus on Obama’s alleged connections to William Ayers, a co-founder of the radical 60's Weather Underground.

Stressing that Obama was a lifelong Christian, Powell denounced Republican tactics that he said were insulting not only to to Obama but also to Muslims.

When it comes to personal attacks, the Republicans ain't got nothin' on the Democrats. But let's address these particular examples. First of all, in my experience, any intimation that Obama is a Muslim has always been slapped down. In an article at the Huffington Post, Jon Soltz writes:

"Indeed, while John McCain has corrected a woman who directly told him that Obama was "an Arab," the campaign has also given those who believe Obama is a "secret Muslim" a wink and a nod, by continually using phrases like "he doesn't see America like the rest of us," and tying him to "terrorists."

Note that Soltz is not quoting Powell, but expressing his own opinion here.

What I see happening is that it's not the Republicans that are saying he's a Muslim but the Democrats and their supporters who are assuming that's what the Republicans are saying. Contrast this with the much more obvious playing of the race card on the part of Obama and other Democrats. Seems to be a classic case of projection here.

And as far as Obama being a lifelong Christian, Powell appears to have forgotten the nature of the church Obama attended for 20 years until he was forced to disassociate himself from it for political expediency. The form of Christianity that Obama willingly exposed himself and his family to for two decades is not one that I want to be a part of. You don't sit in that pew for that many sermons, coming back Sunday after Sunday, willingly and knowingly listening to the hatred and insanity coming from that pulpit, without it having some effect on your worldview.

And as for the recent focus on Obama's association with Bill Ayers, if McCain had a similar association in his recent past, it would be all over the news and would probably sink his campaign utterly. But Obama gets a pass. The thing is that we don't think Obama is a terrorist, nor that he endorses such activities. What his association with Ayers, and his disingenuous attempts to hide it, does is bring into question Obama's judgment and honesty.

Powell has the right to endorse whatever candidate he chooses. I respect his accomplishments as a military commander and thank him for his service to this country. But that does not mean that I consider him infallible. Despite all his fine qualities, he is capable of error. His endorsement of Obama is notable, but it is, after all, the opinion of one man. If we disagree with his reasons, we can and should say so, and his stature does not mean we are wrong.

Quotes of the day

“If the most productive members of society—those who create the majority of jobs—are taxed we will have fewer jobs. It’s the old rule that if you tax something you get less of it. While Obama is killing jobs by taxing the productive, he proposes to ‘renegotiate’ NAFTA and other trade deals thus putting the one bright corner of our economy, the export sector, in his crosshairs. Obama has a million schemes to redistribute the wealth of the top five percent, (who by the way, already pay more than 50 percent of the taxes in our steeply progressive system). He wants to provide college for ‘anyone who wants to go and agrees to perform community service,’ and community development block grants, and childcare, and universal pre-school, and housing, and retirement and on and on. He seems determined that more people will ride in the wagon than pull it.” —Mona Charen

“Supposedly, under the Obama tax plan, 95 percent of the American people will get a tax cut. You’d think that at this point the natural skepticism of any sentient being other than 6-week-old puppies might kick in, but apparently not. If you’re wondering why Obama didn’t simply announce that under his plan 112 percent of the American people will get a tax cut, well, they ran it past the focus groups who said that that was all very generous but they’d really like it if he could find a way to stick it to Dick Cheney, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove and whatnot. So 95 percent it is...[O]ur Fact Check Unit ran the numbers on the Obama tax-cut plan and the number is correct: ‘95.’ It’s the words ‘percent’ immediately following that are wrong: that’s a typing error accidentally left in from the first draft. It should read: Under the Obama plan, 95 of the American people will get a tax cut. Joe the Plumber expressed his misgivings about the President-in-waiting’s tax inclinations, and the O-Man smoothly reassured him: ‘It’s not that I want to punish your success,’ he told the bloated plutocrat corporate toilet executive. ‘I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they’ve got a chance for success, too. I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.’ In that sentence about you spreading the wealth around, there’s another typing error: that ‘you’ should read ‘I, Barack.’ ‘You’ will have no say in it.” —Mark Steyn

Editor's note: Considering that far fewer than 95% of Americans actually pay taxes, saying that 95% will receive a tax cut actually means that a considerable percentage will actually be receiving checks. This is known as income redistribution, one of the cornerstones of socialism.

Also, keep in mind that the President doesn't make tax law, Congress does. Still, if Obama is elected and has a compliant Democrat-controlled Congress, especially if they should achieve the magic number of 60 Senate seats, well I for one will have no choice but to welcome our new Socialist Overlords.

Quote of the day

In comments to this post by The GeekWithA.45, one commenter had this to say:

He (Obama) is, as we say in Texas, a post turtle. If you see a turtle balanced on top of a fence post near some country road, you know the following: he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, he doesn't know what to do while he is up there, and you just wonder what kind of a dumb ass put him up there to begin with.

The "right" to health care

The GeekWithA.45 links to and comments on the latest video from Bill Whittle wherein he talks about whether or not we as Americans have a right to health care. Bill also expands on the content of the video and the response to it at his website, and provides a link to the text version at NRO for those who are unable to watch the video or prefer reading it.

After reading through the comments to Bill's post, I understood that simply saying we don't have a right to health care, or many other things, isn't quite accurate. We actually do have a right to health care, shelter, big-screen TV's, etc. We have a right to them in the sense that we cannot be prevented from obtaining them if we want to and are able to.

What we do not have are entitlements to these things. We cannot demand that they be given to us for free. What Barack Obama means when he says health care should be a right is really that it should be an entitlement and must be provided to us either by the government itself, or by other agencies under government mandate. This leads to the The GeekWithA.45's post where he notes, "the right to for you to have something creates the duty for someone else to provide that thing." If you replace the word "right" with "entitlement" in that sentence, it is entirely correct.

As an analogy, consider the Second Amendment. It says we have the right to keep and bear arms. This means that we have the right to obtain and possess weapons such as firearms, knives, swords, etc. (Just how powerful a weapon we have the right to possess is beyond the scope of this discussion.) But the Second Amendment does not mean that anyone, whether it be the government or someone else, is required to provide us with such weapons. We must still obtain them ourselves. We have the right to bear arms, but we are not entitled to have them given to us.

Rights are inherent in our existence, or as Bill notes, they are birthrights. Rights impose no obligation on any other people except that they cannot prevent us from exercising them. They do not require that anyone facilitate such exercise. Bill notes in his video:

[T]here’s a word for someone who has their food, housing and care provided for them… for people who owe their existence to someone else.

And that word is “slaves.”

This is equally true of people who are required to work for the benefit of others, to provide goods and/or services without being compensated for their time and effort. In Barack Obama's America, both kinds will exist, and government will be the master.

Follow the money, if you can

Well, here's something interesting. The McCain campaign is disclosing the names of all donors, regardless of donation size, online. The Obama campaign, however, is not.

FEC rules state that a campaign must disclose the name of any donor whose aggregate donations total over $200. Indications are that the Obama campaign is exploiting this as a loophole to disguise the sources of nearly half of the amount he has raised so far.

Surprisingly, the great majority of Obama donors never break the $200 threshold.

“Contributions that come under $200 aggregated per person are not listed,” said Bob Biersack, a spokesman for the FEC. “They don’t appear anywhere, so there’s no way of knowing who they are.”

The FEC breakdown of the Obama campaign has identified a staggering $222.7 million as coming from contributions of $200 or less. Only $39.6 million of that amount comes from donors the Obama campaign has identified.

It is the largest pool of unidentified money that has ever flooded into the U.S. election system, before or after the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reforms of 2002.

Read the whole thing to learn about the donations of such well-known citizens as Good Will and Doodad Pro.

But that's just the beginning. It turns out that the Obama campaign has received a considerable amount in foreign donations whose sources are questionable.

The FEC has compiled a separate database of potentially questionable overseas donations that contains more than 11,500 contributions totaling $33.8 million. More than 520 listed their “state” as “IR,” often an abbreviation for Iran. Another 63 listed it as “UK,” the United Kingdom.

More than 1,400 of the overseas entries clearly were U.S. diplomats or military personnel, who gave an APO address overseas. Their total contributions came to just $201,680.

But others came from places as far afield as Abu Dhabi, Addis Ababa, Beijing, Fallujah, Florence, Italy, and a wide selection of towns and cities in France.

Now it's possible that most or all of these donations are legitimate. But somehow I don't think so. I call on the Obama campaign to emulate the McCain campaign and reveal the names of all donors. Of course should that actually happen, a certain red-skinned, horned, and tailed ruler of a very low-elevation domain will be required to put traction tires on his vehicle to drive to work.

Hmmmm....

My Representative to Congress, Democrat Jay Inslee, has done a couple of things recently that I find interesting.

1. He voted against the big financial bailout package in its defeat yesterday in the House.  He was the only Democrat from Washington to vote against it.  All three Republicans from Washington also voted against it.
2. He sponsored a bill, "that would greenlight an anticipated agreement between Webcasters and SoundExchange, a nonprofit that collects royalties on behalf of recording copyright owners and artists from Internet radio stations and other digital radio services."  The bill just passed the House unanimously.
   
   

   Inslee's bill would enable the two sides to continue negotiations through Feb. 15 and make any deal struck while Congress is in recess legally binding. The bill would provide congressional approval for any agreements that SoundExchange reaches with Webcasters represented by the Digital Media Association, a trade group made up of companies that operate in the online audio and video market, and with other types of Webcasters, such as National Public Radio and college or religious Webcasters.

I've never voted for the guy, and I expect that on most issues I'd disagree with him, but these two actions are prompting me to take a closer look at his views and his record.

Party of the rich, and braver people than me

On the way to work I saw an older Ford Thunderbird sporting a McCain - Palin sticker on the trunk lid above the license plate.  The car had obviously been in an accident at some point because, while the car was white, the front bumper, hood, and right-front fender panel were not.  And yet this working woman, who doesn't make enough money to afford a nicer car and still feed her family, had put this sticker on her car.  I guess she figured the car was already cosmetically-challenged enough that the risk of it being scratched or otherwise vandalized was not that big a deal.

But then, she's obviously one of those people who consistently vote "against their best interests" so maybe she's just not smart enough to realize the risk she's taking.

Shortly after that, I saw a recent Chrysler 300 sporting small McCain and Rossi stickers on the rear window.  As I passed I did a double-take when I looked at the driver.  There is only one possible explanation for his hairstyle:  He's an Elvis impersonator, specifically the overweight jumpsuited Vegas Elvis of the 70's.

Respect for opposing viewpoints

Which is something you won't find in one Seattle neighborhood.

Ray Till lives in Seattle's Crown Hill neighborhood.  He says his home was vandalized Saturday after he placed McCain campaign signs in his front yard.
Till says; "I found my McCain sign over there on the front porch with dog feces all over it."

During the 2004 campaign, someone had put up a large Bush sign up in a location that was visible from the freeway as I drove to work.  On at least two occasions, the sign was broken up or knocked over.  I don't take that route anymore so I don't know if there's a McCain sign.  I should drive by there one day before the election and see.

I've yet to see any vandalism directed at a sign supporting a Democrat candidate.  That's because Republicans and conservatives have a little something called respect for other people's property and respect for other people's opinions, even if we disagree with them.

This is not to say that the majority of Democrats and liberals do not.  But it's telling that this effort to repress the free speech of others is so one-sided.

Stifling free speech

Okay, here's the deal. It is entirely legal for people to call a radio station in response to a talk show guest they disagree with. It is their right to do so, protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But if the McCain campaign had done what the Obama campaign has done, they would be excoriated.

Though we must acknowledge their rights, we nevertheless may criticize their method:

Never before had Rosenberg’s show been inundated with hysterical telephone calls and threatening emails aimed at not at debate but at disrupting a legitimate interview. The Obama campaign’s characterization of the Kurtz conversation as “the incoherent rantings” of an “unapologetic smear artist” is particularly absurd.

And we will note the hypocrisy:

During the August fiasco, outraged pro-Obama callers fumed that WGN had offered Kurtz an unchallenged forum, despite the fact that Team Obama had declined an invitation to appear alongside Kurtz for the duration of the program. This time, however, Freddoso was actually paired up with an Obama-supporting counterpart. This wasn’t good enough for the Obama thought police, who blasted out marching orders to shut down the discussion. Once again, the phones melted down. The Obama campaign should be proud.

I have no doubt that Obama would sign legislation re-instating the Fairness Doctrine should it come to his desk as President. But as these events show, fairness, no matter how it is defined, is not the agenda.

Update: Based on additional data, this appears to have been more along the lines of a denial of service attack. The goal was not just to express displeasure, but to clog the phone lines and bring down web servers to prevent the opposing point of view from being expressed. That does indeed cross the line. Perhaps not to the level of a crime, if only because existing law may not cover this situation, but certainly beyond the bounds of what is right.

Fiscal responsibility

I have long considered it likely that the majority of the blame for the current financial crisis does not rest with the Bush administration. I've read a few things to support this, but until today I hadn't seen it laid out so clearly and completely. As it turns out, the Bush administration tried to do something about the impending collapse, with predictable results:

The credit crisis and the lack of oversight over government-subsidized lenders like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac occurred on the watch of George Bush, and many blame his economic team for their lack of oversight in the collapse. Barack Obama has made this point one of his major campaign themes, arguing that John McCain would provide more of the same failures that Bush did. However, what many do not recall is that Bush wanted to tighten oversight with a new regulatory board for Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and other government recipients for the express purpose of addressing bad loan practices — and Democrats blocked it.

So who was responsible for those bad loan practices in the first place? Answer: it's who you think it is:

But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.

Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.

The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."

Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.

(Note: The actual name of the legislation passed in 1977 is the Community Reinvestment Act.) The article goes on to detail Clinton administration mismanagement that further contributed to the mess. I recommend reading all of it.

I included the last paragraph in the above exerpt for the sake of fairness because it points out that Wall Street isn't blameless in this disaster. Regulations to prevent that sort of thing may be in order. I'm not an expert, though, which is why I link to people who are. It is increasingly clear, though, that the Bush administration was at least trying to stave off an impending disaster the seeds of which were planted during past Democrat administrations. Big surprise.

Stalling for power

According to Amir Taheri in this opinion piece for the New York Post, Obama has attempted to usurp the role of the President and the State Department in foreign relations:

While campaigning in public for a speedy withdrawal of US troops from Iraq, Sen. Barack Obama has tried in private to persuade Iraqi leaders to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence.

He also attempted to usurp the President's role as Commander-in-Chief of the US armed forces:

While in Iraq, Obama also tried to persuade the US commanders, including Gen. David Petraeus, to suggest a "realistic withdrawal date." They declined.

Taheri provides his thoughts as to why Obama might have done this. For example:

Iraqi leaders are divided over the US election. Iraqi President Jalal Talabani (whose party is a member of the Socialist International) sees Obama as "a man of the Left" - who, once elected, might change his opposition to Iraq's liberation. Indeed, say Talabani's advisers, a President Obama might be tempted to appropriate the victory that America has already won in Iraq by claiming that his intervention transformed failure into success.

Now I'm going to take this with a grain of salt; this is an opinion piece after all. As Fox News is reporting, the Obama camp has denied the allegations in Taheri's article. But if it's true, my understanding is that it's a violation of Federal law. I'm going to keep my eyes open for any additional information on this.

Selling faith

I heard about this on the Glenn Beck radio show this morning while driving to work. The Obama campaign is now selling "faith merchandise" so that people of faith can show their support. You too can pick up a rally sign or a button at the Obama store. There's also a Believers for Barack Obama website. It doesn't appear to have any links to the merchandise, but it is paid for by the Obama campaign.

As Mr. Beck noted this morning, if the McCain campaign were to sell "Believers for Palin" merchandise, they would be excoriated in the press. But since Obama is the Messiah, it's only natural that "people of faith" would support him. Right?

Guilt by geographic location

The concept of guilt by association is nothing new. But this is something I've never seen before:

It has been years since groups such as the Montana Militia, the Posse Comitatus and the Sagebrush Rebels, and individuals such as Terry Nichols and Ted Kaczynski have made us wonder why so many "angry white men" populated our rural regions. Many of us have forgotten the threat once posed by domestic terrorists and instead have turned our attention to foreign terrorists. But we should never forget that in the late 20th century, ultra-Christian, antistatist and white-supremacist groups flourished in the states of the Pacific Northwest - called by many the "Great White Northwest" - the very region that Sarah Palin and her family call home.

I know a lot of people who live near me in this very same Pacific Northwest who would be rather surprised to know that they're white supremacists. Some of them aren't even white!

In the penultimate paragraph the author, Catherine McNicol Stock, writes:

There is no evidence that Palin was ever affiliated with white-supremacist groups during her years in Idaho or at home in Alaska. On the other hand, the beliefs of ultraconservative, evangelical churches like her family's come dangerously close to those of the Christian Identity movement of those years. Likewise, Palin's husband was a member of a political party whose members favored secession for Alaska, suggesting an affiliation with radical antistatism.

Emphasis is mine. Wow, so lack of evidence to the contrary is now evidence. Say, Ms. Stock, there's no evidence that you're someone who supports taking property away from private individuals and giving it to developers so that property tax revenues can be increased. But the city in which you work, New London, Connecticut, has a history of doing exactly that. To paraphrase the final paragraph in your "article," perhaps somewhere on the record you've voiced condemnation for those actions. But it's hard to know where you stand on issues of property rights and the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Thus it is high time to review the cultural ideals and models of the radical liberals from New England and find out for sure where you stand.

Hat tip Mike.

Flawed analogy

The GeekWithA.45 provides three definitions of what a "community organizer" is.  It's pretty clear which one Barack Obama was.

During times of ordinary peace, follows and promotes the teachings of Saul Alinsky for the purpose of organizing the community into a coherent voting bloc. The minimum objective of this activity is to use this amassed power for the purpose of obtaining financial, regulatory and legal benefit from governmental and private sources. The implicit goals of the activity includes delivering a payload ideological indoctrination to that group, fostering the usual Leftist outcomes of dependency, collectivism, and the downwards spiral that comes with "progress" through wealth redistribution rather than the achievement of financial independence.

This leads me to address the analogy that Democrats and leftists have recently worn out:  "Jesus was a community organizer.  Pilate was a governor."

Well allow me to retort!

I'll start with Pilate.  He was not, in reality, a governor, at least not as we use the word today.  He was the prefect of Judea during the time it was under Roman control.  He was appointed to his post, not elected by the people.  And he didn't actually govern.  His duties were primarily military, and he was also responsible for collecting imperial taxes.  The actual government in charge of civil administration was local.

That brings us to Jesus.  For most of his life, he was a carpenter.  Then, at around 30 years old, he began his ministry.  Depending on your views, he became an itinerant preacher, a prophet, an avatar, or the saviour of mankind.  His actions were those of a teacher, and did not fit any of the definitions of "community organizer" noted in the post linked above.

The analogy fails, though it doesn't surprise me they keep saying it.  Obama is the Messiah after all.

Pigstickin'

Republicans and conservatives, as you might expect, reacted negatively to Obama's comment that, "You know, you can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig." Now I don't know if he was trying to make a subtle, or not so subtle, dig at Sarah Palin. To be honest, I don't really care. No, what struck me was that it sounded like an attempt to sound all folksy and rural and it fell flat. He followed up the comment with, "You know you can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change, it's still going to stink after eight years."

It doesn't come across on the screen but, if you listen to audio of his remarks, it's clear he's struggling with the metaphors. He's from Chicago, he's from an urban environment and culture. It sounds to me like he was trying to come off as something he isn't. And it didn't work.

Is Scalzi losing it?

One of my favorite science fiction authors of recent years, John Scalzi, has a few words for Democrat and liberal commenters on his weblog.

John, you're a great author, and I love your books, but you really need to stick with what you're good at.

Did you really not know that coming out of the GOP convention, the GOP candidate might have a poll bounce? Likewise, were you somehow surprised that the GOP might try very hard to make this campaign about something other than actual issues?

Just like the Democrats. Hope and Change are hardly issues.

The GOP picks a woman VP 24 years after you do, for the same goddamn reason you did (a contentless call to shore up a shrinking base), and you act like you’ve never seen this movie before?

Watch it John. If a Republican said that, he or she would be labeled a sexist so fast the words would emit Cherenkov radiation.

For God’s sake, she’s scandal-plagued Atwater spawn from a state with the population of Fort Worth, Texas, whose job it will be to work the lights of the Naval Observatory for four years. She’s a walking, taking advertisement for how easily placated religious conservatives are at this moment in history.

Here you have a prime example of elitism, folks. It doesn't get any plainer than that. Scalzi has only made it big as an author in the last few years which goes to show that elitism doesn't require one to be among the elite.

Please accept that the GOP will feast on every single fucking instance in which you show even the slightest hint of entitlement to the presidency.

You damn betcha. And well they should.

Please accept that the GOP SOP is to win by any means necessary, and that they’ve cultivated an entire generation of political strategists and media lackeys who can’t think in any other way, and whose allegiance to the party is reflexive and far stronger than their interest in things like facts.

Only differences are that the Republicans know it, and the Democrats enjoy support from far more and more prominent "media lackeys."

The GOP will crush you — again — if you keep doing it. For fuck’s sake, they’ve played you exactly the same way since the 2000 election. Will you please exhibit a learning curve. You’ve been here before.

Stupidity should hurt. Insanity has been defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Well, if Republicans have a winning strategy, and use it again, who are the crazy ones?

I notice that you're only calling out Democrats and liberals, John.. Think there might be a reason for that?

It's interesting. I've met various science fiction authors in my time and to be honest, many of them struck me as being of average overall intelligence. Not that they were stupid or anything, and as writers they definitely had a good command of language. But I guess this is just further proof that writing good science fiction doesn't require one to be a genius.

Unfriendly work environment

A coworker of mine has a small Obama poster in her cubicle. It's the one evocative of Communist propaganda that says "HOPE" at the bottom. Now, of course, I don't have a problem with that. I gotta wonder, though: What would happen if I put a McCain-Pain sticker or sign up in my cube? Would someone tell me I need to take it down because it makes somebody "uncomfortable?" Would it suddenly just disappear one day?

No, probably not. I'm certain my coworker wouldn't do anything, but I'm not entirely certain that nothing would happen.

Quote of the day

Remember: Standards are good. Double standards are twice as good.

Ignore this man

After all, he's just a dumb soldier who didn't have any other option, or who was duped into it by a duplicitous recruiter.

Memo to Chris Gregoire

You're running against Dino Rossi, not George Bush. Just thought you'd like to know....

The Aristocrats

No, I'm not talking about that rather famous joke. I'm talking about the characterization of Cindy McCain as aristocratic. For example, it has been noted that during her speech in which she referred to Barack Obama as "elitist" she was wearing earrings worth an estimated $280,000 (assuming that her earrings were real three-carat diamonds).  As has also been noted, there is a difference between "wealthy" and "elitist."  Whether or not Obama deserves such characterization I'll leave for you to decide.  However, I would like to bring up some interesting information which I think pertains to whether or not Cindy McCain is truly "aristocratic" and a comparison between the McCains and Obamas when it comes to helping out their fellow citizens, especially those less fortunate than themselves.  After all, that's what the Democrats say they're all about, and what they accuse Republicans of not caring about at all.

First up, we have a description of the charitable giving from John and Cindy McCain:

In 2007, the Arizona senator reported $405,409 in total income and contributed $105,467, or 26 percent of his total income, to charity.

In 2006, Mr. McCain said he had $358,414 in total income and donated $64,695, or 18 percent of his total income, to charity.

...

Mrs. McCain has donated the same amount to charity as her husband — a total of $170,162 for each of them — over the past two years, his campaign said.

...

Mr. McCain’s campaign said he donates his royalties from his books to charities and that “this sum has totaled over $1,800,000 since 1998 when he signed his first book deal.” The campaign said his book income added up to $256,898 for 2006 and 2007.

The senator’s campaign also said that Mr. McCain has donated to charity a total of $450,000 since 1991— money he received from increases in his Senate salary — “because he opposed the Congressional pay increase at that time and pledged not to accept the pay raises.”

Next up, a rather complete rundown of Cindy McCain's charitable activities:

But beyond the designer clothing and the perfect blond hair is a Cindy McCain few have ever seen, one who contrasts sharply with the smiling, glossy image she projects alongside the senator on the campaign trail.

This Cindy McCain harbors a ruggedness and fearlessness befitting her war-hero husband.

She has waded through minefields in Cambodia. Slept out in the bush in tents in Angola. Comforted children under the broiling sun in Morocco.

But the 53-year-old's extensive charity work has been largely overlooked.

This is just a taste so read the whole article.

Now how about Barack and Michelle Obama?  Let's take a look, shall we?

On their just-filed 2006 tax return, Obama and his wife, a hospital administrator, reported taxable income of $983,626 and claimed deductions for $60,307 in charitable donations. In 2005 they earned a combined $1.65 million and gave away about $77,300.

In 2002, the year before Obama launched his campaign for U.S. Senate, the Obamas reported income of $259,394, ranking them in the top 2 percent of U.S. households, according to Census Bureau statistics. That year the Obamas claimed $1,050 in deductions for gifts to charity, or 0.4 percent of their income. The average U.S. household totaled $1,872 in gifts to charity in 2002, according to the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University.

...

From 1997 through 2002, the Obamas reported devoting less than 1 percent of their household income to charity. In 2005, as the book-deal money poured in, they reported $1.65 million in combined income, with $77,315, or 4.7 percent, going to charity.

Only a few of the tax returns released by Obama detail the recipients of his charity. In 1998, when the Obamas reported a combined household income of $191,146 and $1,100 in cash donations to charity, the biggest gift went to Trinity. It totaled $400, about 0.2 percent of their combined income.

In 2005 they gave the church $5,000 and in 2006 it received $22,500. Over the past two years, the Obamas have claimed charitable deductions for $45,000 in gifts to reading programs; $31,000 to CARE, an international aid group; $13,107 to the Congressional Black Caucus Foundation; and $5,000 to the Muntu Dance Theatre. Michelle Obama serves on the board of directors of the South Side dance troupe.

And this is from the Chicago Tribune, his hometown newspaper.

Now I know the Obamas have done some charity work besides donations. However, there doesn't seem to be much information on what it might be. I did find this, but it's pretty thin.

Obama has dedicated time to neighborhood projects in poor communities.

He spoke at an event for K.I.D.S., a charity supporting disadvantaged children.

...

Obama spoke at a charity event for girls in Omaha, helping to raise $154,000 for the group.

In 2007, Obama created a “doodle” which netted nearly $7,000 in an auction for NF, Inc.

If anyone knows of anything else, please let me know.  I want to be as fair as possible on this issue.

Now whether or not wearing such expensive clothing and jewelry during her speech was particularly wise is a matter for debate.  I think the Republicans should have known she'd become the target of such criticism and had her tone it down, especially after Michelle Obama's speech the previous week where she was rather understated in how she dressed.  But to take base such a broad characterization on that one event, without doing any research like I've presented here, is irresponsible at best.

Regardless, how the candidate's spouse is dressed during the speech is not an indicator of how qualified he is to hold office.  Characterizing the Obamas as "elitist" is based on their words and deeds, not how they dress.  But to the left, impressions and feelings are as important as logic, perhaps even more so.

O'Reilly on Obama

As I noted earlier, Barack Obama was interviewed yesterday by Bill O'Reilly.  As a followup, O'Reilly devoted his latest column to his thoughts about the interview.  A couple of things stood out:

As far as philosophy goes, Senator Obama is convinced that the federal government should be in control of income distribution and, to some extent, should regulate the free marketplace. That is a classic liberal position, and Obama promotes it well.

Nothing surprising there, but it sums up pretty concisely Obama's very liberal views.  It's not new at all.  It is, as Bill says, classically liberal.

On the foreign policy front, Obama has convinced me that he is tough but cautious. He rose up quickly because he vehemently opposed the Iraq war. But now I see a man who understands the victory that has taken place in Iraq. I don't believe he wants to screw that up. I could be wrong.

Okay, I can accept that.  However, I still think he should admit that he was wrong about the surge and that John McCain was right.  He won't, though, as it's not good politics and would likely offend his base.

After going mano-a-mano with Obama on television, I am also persuaded that he is a sincere guy—that he wants the best for all Americans. He's an ideologue, but not a blind one. He understands that his story is incredible, and, I have come to believe, he is grateful to the American system for allowing it happen.

I've never said that Obama didn't want what was best for America and its people.  Though I disagree strenuously and passionately with his political positions and intentions, and question his judgment, I don't think he intends to do evil.  I think his policies will be destructive but I do believe he thinks they will be beneficial and he feels strongly enough about them that he's willing to fight for the power to implement them.

That doesn't mean I'm going to take it any easier on him, though.  And I will certainly call him on it when his methods, or those used by his supporters, cross the line as they so often have, especially with regards to Governor Palin.

Update:  And I reserve the right to change my mind should new facts become available, or should Obama say or do something that belies the above conclusions.

Flyin'

In the comments to Bill Whittle's latest post, a commenter going by the handle Richard R wrote the following:

Something I found out last night.

We all know John McCain was a fighter (actually, light bomber) pilot.

Cindy's a Pilot too, she has a Cirrus.

Sara Palin is a pilot. Todd Palin is a pilot. They own a Supercub on floats.

I've poked around and it looks like it's all true.

Now I'm a private pilot myself so I know what it takes to get your license. It's not the most difficult thing in the world but it takes dedication, intelligence, and the ability to keep track of several different things at once. It also requires that you keep calm in stressful situations.

But perhaps the most important thing is that the federal regulation of pilots is one of the few areas of government where the emphasis is on personal responsibility. As the pilot in command, I am responsible for the conduct of my flight. If something goes wrong, it's on my head with few exceptions (such as a maintenance error that I wouldn't be expected to discover). It's perfectly legal for me to take someone flying who is not a licensed pilot and hand over control of the aircraft. I can even let that person operate the aircraft through the entire flight including takeoff and landing. However, if that person crashes the plane, or otherwise screws up, it's my fault and I'm the one that will have my license suspended or revoked, or even harsher penalties applied.

Knowing that both McCain and his running mate are pilots tells me that they understand the concept of responsibility and that they're capable of handling themselves in sticky situations. That their spouses are pilots is an added bonus.

If you want peace...

The saying goes, Si vis pacem, para bellum. Translated from Latin, it means "If you want peace, prepare for war." Its simple wisdom is as applicable today as it was in ancient Rome. Yet there are those that believe that preparation for war only serves to make it more likely.

The world will have peace when the whole world wants peace. As long as there exist people who desire war, those who desire peace must be ready and able to defeat them when their desires are made manifest.

It takes a big man to admit he's wrong

However, Barack Obama has done nothing of the kind.

Yesterday, Obama sat down with Bill O'Reilly for an interview. Regarding the troop surge which has had such dramatic success, he had some comments:

As recently as July, the Democratic presidential candidate declined to rate the surge a success, but said it had helped reduce violence in the country. On Thursday, Obama acknowledged the 2007 increase in U.S. troops has benefited the Iraqi people.

“I think that the surge has succeeded in ways that nobody anticipated,” Obama said while refusing to retract his initial opposition to the surge. “I’ve already said it’s succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.” (Emphasis mine -RR)

At least he's admitting that it has worked, though to say that nobody anticipated that it would ignores George Bush, Obama's opponent John McCain, and a host of commentators and bloggers who all supported the decision to send more troops over and get the job done right once and for all.

However, he added, the country has not had enough “political reconciliation” and Iraqis still have not taken responsibility for their country.

It's still a work in progress, true, but progress is being made as demonstrated by the U.S. military turning control of the Anbar Provice over to the Iraqis.

We're winning in Iraq. It's time to accept and support it.

Hanson does it again

In his piece, Target Palin, VDH takes on several of the issues that have evolved since the announcement of Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as John McCain's running mate.

On the contrast between Palin and Biden:

When Palin talks about her present life it sounds as authentic as Biden’s showy populism came off as false. Enraged feminists are apparently the gatekeepers for less well-educated American women, who are supposed to have 0-1.5 children not 5! Their husbands must be professors, lawyers, CEOs, editors—not snowmobile champions, union members, oil workers, and fishermen—or, worse, all in one! And unlike a Pelosi, Quinn, or Clinton, Palin, God forbid, did not rely on a powerful, wealthy husband or father to energize her career. Worse still, she took no women’s studies class, never attended the Ivy League, and shoots moose. The danger is not just that Sarah Palin could win McCain the election, but she could expose the entire flimsy structure of doctrinaire liberalism as the hypocrisy—and chauvinism—it has become.

On the double standard propagated by the Left and the media that is now more obvious than ever:

Obama’s violation of drug laws with a “little blow” was youthful exuberance; Palin’s husband’s DUI was more proof of a working-class messy family.
...
Criticizing Clinton’s engaging in sex in the oval office and lying about it to the American people were once “the politics of personal destruction”; lying that Sarah Palin might not have been the mother of her 5th child is the mere overreach of the blogs caused by the improper vetting of the McCain campaign.

Not to mention lying about it under oath which is the crime for which he was actually impeached.

The immediate ferocity of the reaction by the Left and the mainstream media to Palin's nomination is unprecedented. The unfounded attacks on Palin and her family, particularly her daughter, and the flat out lies that have been told about them are truly disgusting.

It serves to demonstrate how scared they really are and it's going to backfire, at least to a degree. It may even outrage enough people that the media is finally truly called to the carpet for their obvious but unadmitted bias. At least I can hope.

The non-existent bit-bucket

Mike tips us off to a post at LGF documenting continued efforts to hide the fact that the Democrats' staunchest supporters include raving lunatics of the type mentioned in my previous post. It seems the Kostards haven't figured out that once something's on the Web, it's forever. All we have to do is pay out the rope, folks. Then, once they've tied the knot and slipped the noose around their collective neck, just pull the lever, sit back, and watch them dance.

Oh, by the way, the reference to hanging in the previous paragraph should not be taken as a racist comment referring to the practice of lynching. But I'm sure it will anyway. I'm white, after all, and can't help myself.

The Dogs of (Political) War

The 2008 Presidential campaign has already turned pretty nasty.  The attacks from the left have already begun in earnest; in particular on two different but related fronts.

The first is that of the direct, physical assault.  Yesterday during the first day of the Republican National Convention, some enterprising radicals thought it would be a good idea to harass arriving delegates and even commit vitriolage.  In some cases, they didn’t even wait for the buses to arrive before committing their assaults.

You will note that there were no “conservative protesters” (an oxymoron, really) at the DNC last week, let alone anybody doing anything like this. If there had been, you can bet whatever amount you like that it would have been all over the news in lurid headlines and breathless prose.

The second front is the more “respectable” one, if no less repugnant.  Since the announcement that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin will be John McCain’s running mate, the Democrats and their supporters have been pulling out all the stops in the effort to smear her in any way they can, regardless of how baseless and ridiculous their allegations.  They are descending far below the level to which they in their fevered imaginations can even contemplate the Republicans sinking.  It has the air of desperation about it, which means that they’re truly concerned even though they’ll never admit it.

Of course, since they’re right, dammit! anything and everything is justified.  Any target, from Palin to her husband to her children and even her unborn grandchild is fair game.

Palin and her family are going to be put under a media microscope the likes of which has never before been seen.  I hope they’re up to it.  Unlike Obama, they don’t have the luxury of declaring topics “off limits” if they’re inconvenient.

All class, all the time.

First up, we have Michael Moore, prevaricator extraordinaire and hero to those that the Democrat party should be ignoring, but that instead appears to be their base:

“I was just thinking, this Gustav is proof that there is a God in heaven,” Moore said, laughing. “To have it planned at the same time – that it would actually be on its way to New Orleans for day one of the Republican Convention, up in the Twin Cities – at the top of the Mississippi River.”

After that comment, Moore backed off a bit and did say he hoped nobody got hurt and he hoped everybody is taking cover. However, he failed to make note of the $43.625 billion in damage the last hurricane to strike New Orleans caused – Hurricane Katrina in 2005 – and the billions of dollars the storm cost taxpayers.

Now frankly I'm not surprised that Moore said this. Disgusted, yes, but I've been disgusted with him for years.

On the other hand, somewhat surprised (but only somewhat) to hear the same sentiment from National Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Don Fowler during an in-flight conversation with Congressman John Spratt of South Carolina. Video below, commentary at RedState.



So New Orleans is going to get pasted again. People may die and who knows how much property damage will be done. Fuel costs will rise again because of all the refining capacity that's in danger and the economy will suffer, affecting the poor the most. But it's all okay, you see, because it will help Democrats gain power. Ha ha ha. Sickening.

Contrast this with what the Republicans are doing:

John McCain tore up the script for his Republican National Convention on Sunday, ordering the cancellation of all but essential opening-day activities as Hurricane Gustav churned toward New Orleans.

“This is a time when we have to do away with our party politics and we have to act as Americans,” he said as fellow Republicans converged on their convention city to nominate him for the White House.

The President is also ordering his priorities correctly:

President Bush is skipping the Republican National Convention on Monday and will travel instead to Texas to meet with emergency workers and evacuees as Hurricane Gustav bears down on the Gulf Coast.

Maybe it's just me, but I think there's just a slight bit of difference.

Gustav approaches the Big Easy

There's a good chance that Hurricane Gustav will strike New Orleans, at least indirectly. This time, things are going to be a bit different than they were three years ago when Hurricane Katrina hit the city.

Police with bullhorns plan to go street to street with a tough message about getting out ahead of Hurricane Gustav: This time there will be no shelter of last resort. The doors to the Superdome will be locked. Those who stay will be on their own.

Authorities issued the warning Friday as new forecasts made it increasingly clear that New Orleans will get some kind of hit — direct or indirect — as early as Monday.

And those among New Orleans' 310,000 residents who ignore orders to leave accept "all responsibility for themselves and their loved ones," said the city's emergency preparedness director, Jerry Sneed.

I sense that MSNBC is emphasizing the "you're on your own" aspect for a reason but I'll let that slide for now. There is also an extensive plan to evacuate those who can't get out on their own. Hopefully things will go better than they did three years ago, and hopefully the levees will hold and the city won't flood. Still, when a hurricane hits a major city like New Orleans, there are usually at least a few casualties. My thoughts are with the people of the Gulf Coast and I hope things turn out as well as they can.

Whatever happens, however many are injured or die, whatever the property damage ends up being, one thing's for sure. George Bush will be blamed.

Freedom for me, but not for thee

We hear all the time from the outraged Left about how Bush and the Republicans are stifling dissent and squelching free speech, all the while proving that their allegations are factually false because they're still talking.

Well now freedom of speech really is under attack, but it's not a Republican that's threatening it:

You can expect hardball in a presidential campaign, especially one in a country as divided as ours seems to be. But the kind of hardballs being pitched is an indication of the people and policies that an incoming administration will be employing.

That is why it’s particularly troubling that the Obama campaign has filed a criminal complaint against the people behind an ad being run that links Obama to avowed terrorist William Ayers.

The link in the excerpt is to Ben Smith's Blog where he notes that it isn't just Republicans and conservatives who have come under attack. Obama's general counsel, Bob Bauer is an equal opportunity assaulter:

It's worth noting that this isn't the first time Bauer has called for criminal investigations and prosecutions into the donors to independent groups critical of Obama, including one supporting John Edwards and another supporting Hillary Rodham Clinton. His words did have the effect of scaring their donors and consultants, but haven't yet appeared to result in any prosecution.

Chilling, and a foreshadowing of what's to come under an Obama administration. Additional commentary can be found at The DC Examiner. Hat tip to Mike at Cold Fury for bringing this to my attention.

Democrats have long held themselves up as the champions of free speech and all the other rights and freedoms (with one exception, of course) enumerated in the Constitution or elsewhere. While many, if not most Democrats really do support these rights, that support isn't universal among the Left. I've brought up the Fairness Doctrine before and my fear that it will be revived even worse than before under an Obama administration. This just confirms that my fears are justified. John Hinderaker at Powerline is equally concerned:

Obama's suggestion that it is illegal for a 501(c)(4) entity to fund issue ads that are negative toward him appears ludicrous. Here's the real question, though: if Obama is elected President, will he appoint an Attorney General who will carry out politically-motivated prosecutions like the one he is now demanding? I suppose we can't know for sure, but why wouldn't he? If he demands criminal prosecution of free speech that opposes his political interests when he's a candidate, why wouldn't he order it as President?

Answer: No reason at all.

Funny money

I live in Snohomish County, Washington. One of the larger local fairs is happening now and somebody thought it would be funny to sell fake 3$ bills "depicting Barack Obama wearing Arab headgear and featuring a camel" at the booth for the Snohomish County Republican Party.

Naturally, Obama supporters are all up in arms about this despite, as noted in the article:

"I don't think it's funny," said [Snohomish County Republican chairwoman Geri] Modrell, who said she ordered the bills removed as soon as she learned about them. "They were offensive. The volunteers are being told very clearly they must not do these sorts of things."

Now I personally don't condone these fake bills either. It reflects poorly on the Republican party and distracts from the real issues that I have with Obama, namely that he's a full-blown socialist. Even so, the reaction of some people is overblown:

Susan Ronken, a volunteer at the nearby Democratic Party booth at the fair, also saw the bills, which were present at the booth for at least two days this week.

"It was an absolute hate crime," said Ronken, who lives in Stanwood.

Give me a break. Satire yes, slander at worst, but a hate crime? Yet another example of someone claiming victim status in order to obtain power over those she disagrees with and shut them up.

Something else that piqued my interest was this:

The bills offended some passers-by at the fair, including Ronnie Thibault, a Monroe woman who said Republicans at the booth threatened to call security on her after she complained.

"My first reaction was, 'Are you kidding me? Really?' " said Thibault. "Even if a person is a Muslim, so what, but he [Obama] is not."

Thibault, who describes herself as a "hard-core Democrat," said she would have been just as offended if the Democratic booth at the fair had sold offensive depictions of Republican John McCain, who is expected to be nominated as the GOP presidential candidate next week in St. Paul, Minn.

This is pure speculation on my part but I suspect she did more than just complain which is what prompted the people manning the booth to consider calling security. She is, in her own words, a "hard-core Democrat" which implies that she is, shall we say, passionate about her views and her opinions of those who oppose them. As far as her claim that she'd be equally offended by an offensive description of John McCain, well I'll go ahead and give her the benefit of the doubt on that one, though it wouldn't surprise me if she expressed her offense somewhat less vehemently.

Never let the facts get in the way

During the run-up to last Tuesday's primary election here in Washington State, I had been hearing radio ads paid for by the campaign of Christine Gregoire attacking her most likely opponent (since confirmed by the primary vote) Dino Rossi. As you might recall, Rossi initially won the gubernatorial election in 2004 but ultimately lost by a very, very slim margin after the Democrat Party paid for a manual recount that overturned the results of the machine recount.

One of the ads, as noted in this article at the Seattle Times, said that "Rossi voted to increase the state gas tax in 2003 and that he once supported the largest cut in transportation funding in state history." The article is referring to television ads but the radio ads I heard were basically the same content.

Of course, as I suspected and as the article confirms, "The ad accurately reports Rossi's votes, but omits important context surrounding the issues." Covering that context would entail excerpting a significant portion of the article so instead I'll just ask you to read it for yourself.

Interestingly, the radio ads were airing on the local conservative talk radio station. I guess if they want to pay the money, the station will take it, even though the ads will be mostly ignored by the station's listeners.