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.