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.