Tuesday - November 04, 2008

US elections: Danger lurks in Barack Obama’s comfort zone. (but, he’s been sent by god.)

And |I won’t even post the editorial cartoon illustration in todays paper.  Jeesh ... and for a conservative (?) paper. Well anyway,
Simon Heffer here at least is on the mark if nobody else is.

The remark re. O. sent by God. Yeah. And who says that? Stupid white folks and not the ones on the fringe right either. 

I need a coffee break. First of the morning.

Stay Tuned.

US elections: Danger lurks in Barack Obama’s comfort zone

By Simon Heffer in New York
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 04/11/2008

Two days ago, when the Sunday political talk shows of the US television networks were brimming with pundits announcing a landslide victory for Barack Obama, John McCain was jetting around America making five campaign stops. Yesterday, with the polls still showing him up to seven points behind his rival, he took in another seven. Most men would have wound down in the face of such apparently inevitable defeat. But John McCain, for whom life has never been so rewarding as when fighting against a seemingly intractable problem, is not most men.

What is regarded as the inevitability of defeat has given Mr McCain new energy. Being 72, it is certainly his last chance. He joked as much during Saturday Night Live last weekend, saying Mr Obama was young enough to have more opportunities, and now was his turn. The joke was only so funny because of its element of truth.

It is no reason to elect Mr McCain. His determination and his warrior-like quality never to admit defeat until it is obvious certainly are. There is an even more important point: he is laden with experience relevant to the job. He is not a rock star like his opponent, but no one has yet argued that this would make him a better chief executive of the world’s only superpower. This contest comes at a unique moment in modern American history and Mr McCain, despite the obliviousness of so much of America to the point, is the man for that moment.

The country is not merely at war in two theatres. It is not merely facing threats to its security. It is also trying to come to terms with the worst economic outlook since the 1930s. Add to that the constantly expressed concern about those scores of thousands of fellow Americans “in harm’s way” on foreign battlefields, and the fear of what challenge might be thrown up next, and you have a landscape of extreme uncertainty.

The choice faced by the electorate is clear. It can either vote for reality or for escapism: and John McCain has the greater appreciation of what reality might entail. I have been struck on several visits here this year just how much Americans, worn down by the failures and embarrassments of the Bush years, want something other than reality. That, though, is simply storing up troubles. The landscape of uncertainty requires someone tested in fire to lead people through it: not just for America’s sake but for the sake of that portion of the world that looks to America for leadership.

Mr Obama is a confection; he is an image, a brand, a lifestyle. He has the talents of the thespian, less obviously those of the executive. He has been branded a socialist by Sarah Palin and, because it was Sarah Palin doing the branding, the term was ridiculed by media here who are almost clinically biased against the Republicans. However, when one examines Mr Obama’s rhetoric about “spreading the wealth”, and looks at spending promises made in the past 21 months, socialism is a fair term. He plans, or at least has promised, expensive projects - such as healthcare reforms. Inflicting tax rises on a country where people are losing their jobs, having their homes foreclosed upon and having their businesses driven into bankruptcy is something whose consequences Mr Obama has yet to outline.

Neither candidate sees that the economic policies they have dealt in have been rendered anachronistic by recent events. Mr McCain was all at sea at the height of the crisis and it damaged him badly, perhaps terminally. Mr Obama knew no better: he just had the sense to keep quiet. As president, he would find he can’t keep quiet. At least Mr McCain, with his long?standing message of smaller government, less regulation and reduced spending, has a better chance of adapting to the new circumstances. An Obama presidency, given the dire straits of America’s economy, will quickly and inevitably disappoint once reality kicks in.

The clinching reason why America should vote for McCain over Obama rests, however, in the question of foreign policy and international security. It is to be hoped that America (and therefore the free world) faces no new security challenges in the years ahead and can extract itself from Iraq and assert control in Afghanistan. But these are only hopes. There are unscrupulous and fanatical elements who may take the election of President Obama as an invitation to see how far America can be pushed. One thinks of Iran, or the failure of Pakistan to rein in malevolent elements. Some argue that the advice of the State Department would be the same to President Obama as to President McCain, and that it would have to be followed. I am not so sure. Mr McCain, who understands well how foreign powers and military operations work, would have a much more informed discussion with his advisers. Mr Obama would be starting from a position of near total ignorance, and on a matter of life and death.

That question of international security is fundamental. It is the case for voting McCain. America is famed for its parochialism, even in time of war. That is why so many have found it easy to enter the Obama comfort zone. Whoever wins, being comfortable will not be part of the job of being president. A man with five-and-a-half years in the Hanoi Hilton under his belt would adapt better to that ultimate reality than would his rival.

http://tinyurl.com/5ex3cy

   Monday - November 03, 2008

nothin from me

I’m tapped out here folks. I can’t stomach to make another post about what a leftist clown Obullshit is. By now you’ve heard it all 100 times over. Get out and vote, and vote for McCain/Palin even if you have to hold your nose the whole time. Our very future depends on it.

Other than that, I’m having a rotten problem with one of my bowling leagues. I’ve spent the better part of today writing things down, and composing a long letter. The league that I am secretary for has a team, all of whom are, um, “natural” Obama supporters and redistribution beneficiaries I guess you could say, who cause a whole lot of dissension. Even though every one of them is a highly experienced bowler, and every one of them drives at least 50 miles to take part in our dinky little 5 1/2 team bowling league up in the sticks of NJ, they make “innocent” mistakes just about every week that cause the scores to appear better for them than they actually are. And when I bring this to their attention, just letting them know that mistakes were made -no accusations from me- the denial and reverse accusations are instant and thunderous. Our league had a lot of problems last year, and we lost half our membership because of it. Those few who did return have told me many times that this same group caused trouble all of last year too. Maybe I should just refer to them as “Team Sharpton”, but that isn’t at all subtle. True though, just not subtle.

So now I am a lying cheating mother fucker who is out to get them. I’ve been told that right to my face. No witnesses of course. I’ve been accused of stealing points, changing the scores, ripping them off, rigging the rules, etc. To say that I am a bit upset by this projectionist BS is about the largest understatement in the world. I fully understand why people got into duels back in the day. I am doing my best to overcome my reflexively violent reaction and to devise a diplomatic solution. If that does not work, then I will be faced with a no-win decision: I can walk away from this league and it will die, or I can push for adjudication and get this team kicked off the league, in which case this league will die. The only way forward that I can see is for me to suck up my injured honor, ignore these accusations, and create a “we all have to try harder” speech to present to the whole league. I am not a happy camper here. I will try to contact our league president and get some advice, though earlier attempts have been fruitless. He doesn’t want to be bothered. I’ve put together some pages that I want to share with the bowling alley owner too, just to keep him appraised of what’s going on.

I’m not sure what to do here. Maybe the best approach is to accept that some people are whiny little crybabies, that some people feel entitled to push as hard as they can, screw other people’s feelings, to get what they want ... and just let the whole thing slide. Ignore it. Eat the whole shit sandwich and hope it’s the last one that shows up on my plate. Yeah right.

Don’t worry about my league though. When Obama becomes President I’m sure the rules will change so that this team wins automatically just because they show up. Have to give certain folks more opportunity you know.

UPDATE: I’ve been advised that this kind of thing is par for the course. So I will do nothing other than let my league president know about it. Some people are just scum, and reacting to their petty nonsense is beneath my dignity. Like using logic to argue with a liberal, it’s just not worth it.

WELL IT’s DOWN TO THE WIRE AND MINDS ARE MADE UP BY NOW AND MY STOMACH HURTS.

I guess it’s all that anxiety catching up to me. Thought I’d outrun it.

A NEED TO SHARE SOMETHING I HEARD ON RADIO.

I used to wonder, based on things read in the last few years, if I was going to have a country to come back to when the time came.

My old enemy insomnia had me it it’s grip last night and at around 1am I thought oh the heck with it, I am not a toss and turn type and so turned on the bedside light and the radio.  Apparently I hear better when the light’s on. ??

First of all I want to point out that in spite of all I have heard about the BBC being biased in favor of the left, what really very little I’ve listened to doesn’t bear that out.  And when I do listen, it’s generally only BBC-4.  I could be wrong of course as I’m not a radio listener anymore.  Or not much anyway. 

To be honest, yes.  There are news programs and interview shows on topics that cover everything from health and politics to zoos. And yes, no matter what the subject there is ALWAYS going to be one or two people on the panel that are not friends of America or Americans.  And no matter what the subject is, somehow, someway we (USA) always seem to become either a part of the discussion or else a snide aside.  I’ve no idea how they manage it but they seem to do so fairly easily.  Which isn’t to say we don’t have our defenders. We certainly do.  Just not a lot of em.

Quite often it’s maddening to note, there might be a guest on from the states and no surprise, where an audience is present the American (?) will play to the house and make some crack about the dumb cowboy from Texas who is the chief reason for the ruin of the planet. Yadda,yadda.
This of course generates great laughter and applause and thus proves that not all Americans are cave dwelling gun nuts.  As long as you’re anti-Bush and buy the planet warming thing you are a most intelligent and rational fellow.

Well, last night (this morning actually at around 1am) I caught reports from a few Brit reporters covering our election in the states.  They were reporting on what they (said) they have seen so far, and even they concede that while it certainly does appear to be Obama, things are not totally settled just yet.

The press here for the most part is firmly in favor of Obama with a few exceptions and I should tell you that looking at political cartoons,
(no they are not I have been informed. They are “illustrations.” ) if you look at those, the majority I have seen here are not only pro Obama.
They are pretty much very rudely Anti-Bush. 

During that broadcast when they came back to the studio, they had two guests, one I think I heard a member of the Lib/Dems (liberal democrat party) and a lawyer, and the other a conservative.  I didn’t quite catch if he was an MP (Member of Parliament) or a journalist.

It was I have to say interesting listening and very scary as well.  The soft spoken lady lawyer and Lib/Dem member spoke of how urgently the USA needed an Obama victory and she cited among her reasons one of the really frightening aspects of this election.

THE UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT and appointments to same.

Now why in the darn world would some Brit politician be concerned with OUR freeken court ?  That bothered me a lot and it still does.
Why should our court be of any concern to anyone outside our country? But this lady knew her stuff, she is after all a lawyer and a Democrat sweep of the USA bodes ill for the future.

She then went on to say, and you have all heard this already, how much our image would improve by electing the O man.
Oh good.  We should all vote the way folks here would like to see us vote so as to appear what?  Less like racists I guess.  It’s like we have to prove something to Europeans maybe and a victory for Obama will put us all in their good graces again.

Oh right I almost forgot.  Another reason to vote Democrat she said, was the green issue.  With them in power, America would finally see the light and join Europe in securing the planet and at last join the majority instead of being obstructionists.  I’m not certain she used that exact word but hey, a rose is rose.

Meanwhile, the conservative guest stated that Obama had no real experience and there was reason to question him.  BUT ... there’s always a but isn’t there.  While he does lean toward McCain, he does believe Obama might instill something or bring something new to the USA and honestly I forgot what else he said as it was lost in the statement he made to the effect that he held two passports and could were he in the states vote. And would probably vote Obama.

So ,,, How’s your stomach this day?

Stay Tuned ...

Barack Obama victory will hurt US firms - and world economy. (PLEASE READ ALL OF IT PPL)

This is I know a wordy but worthy editorial and I would urge you all to PLEASE read all of it.  See the link and read some of the comments as well.

I don’t want to make this long and so will post something later that NEEDS sharing with you.

Barack Obama victory will hurt US firms - and world economy

By Janet Daley
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/11/2008

Read comments: 

(by all means folks, do read some of the comments that follow the editorial in the Telegraph. Amazing that so many ppl who really know so damn little about us, now think they can advise us on how and why we NEED to vote Obama. I guess I’m a bit thin skinned when foreigners tell me who to vote for. But there are some very good comments as well. Perhaps not always seeing our side it, but at least thought out and well expressed without always being nasty.)

Well, it’s nearly over - this presidential election campaign that has gone on for so long I can scarcely remember what life was like before it started. So long has it been running that the world has actually gone through two tumultuous transformations of political reality during its span.

First there was the emergence of Russia as a threat to international stability in a form that should not have, but nevertheless did, come as a startling revelation to a complacent free world: a phenomenon which, in cynical partisan terms, played heavily in John McCain’s favour. But that was followed, and almost totally eclipsed, by the economic implosion that brought every earlier assumption about the electorate crashing down with it.

So, in one of those bizarre jokes that history sometimes plays, the United States is apparently about to choose as president the most inexperienced, untried and virtually unknowable (because there is so little to know) candidate who has ever run for that office at a time of unquantifiable international risk and unprecedented economic instability: a candidate who, as Bill Clinton revealed in a wonderfully back-handed “tribute”, responded to the banking collapse by ringing every expert he could find (including Bill) to ask them what he should be saying.

And not only does it seem likely that Barack Obama will be elected president, but that he will arrive in office accompanied by a legion of new Democratic senators and congressmen which will give his party a lock on both the executive and legislative branches of government, thus permitting it to do precisely anything it wants.

A week ago in New York, I talked to senior Republicans who were dividing their time between conference calls to the White House to discuss the economic crisis and exasperated confrontations with the McCain campaign team over the ineffectiveness of its strategy. It is almost impossible to exaggerate the state of dissension and dissatisfaction within the higher ranks of the Republican Party - which is why the Obama claim that a McCain White House would simply be George Bush by other means is so ludicrous and disingenuous.

In truth, McCain’s status as an outlaw within his own party ("maverick" is much too mild a word) has meant that he has had only the most ambivalent relationship with what was once a very professional Republican campaigning machine. Those members of the Bush team who have been involved with the McCain-Palin ticket have been accused of being so out of sympathy with its message and tone as to be positively counter-productive.

Combine this with the fact that McCain has been running against not just a super-financed Obama machine but the most monolithically hostile media barrage in electoral history, which forced him to spend most of his time and energy on defensive fire-fighting, and you get a sense of why the Republican effort has so often seemed at cross-purposes with itself.

This media phenomenon may yet prove double-edged. There is just a possibility (maybe I am clutching at straws here, but we shall see) that the relentless onslaught from the mainstream press and television networks has made support for McCain unsayable rather than impossible and that this is producing seriously skewed opinion-polling results. This could mean, to put it in British historical terms, that this election will be 1992 (complete with premature victory celebrations) rather than 1997. Interestingly, in the 1992 election it was the issue of tax that brought about Labour’s defeat in the face of resounding leads in the polls. And it is tax policy that is Obama’s most dangerous ground. It must be surprising to British observers that his proposal to cut taxes for the 95 per cent of people who earn less than $200,000 a year (down, incidentally, from his initial figure of $250,000) has not straightforwardly won the day in the American national debate.

In Britain, such a promise (if believed) would be an electoral free pass to Downing Street. But in the US, voters are aware that the largest category of people who would be hit by Obama’s higher tax would be those who own small businesses, as Joe the Plumber famously aspired to do and as many, many of his countrymen already do. Ordinary working-class people in America do not automatically expect to be low earners, or even employees, all of their lives: they believe that through hard work and resourcefulness, they are as likely as anyone to rise in the world. And so they do not necessarily take kindly to someone who wants to penalise them as soon as they break through an income ceiling in order, as Obama fatally put it, to “spread the wealth around”.

But there is another facet of Obama taxation with even more serious consequences for the US. In order to pay for his tax cut for 95 per cent of the population (half of whom do not pay income tax and whose “cut” would be in the form of a cash rebate), President Obama and his Democratic Congress would raise the US rate of corporation tax - already the second highest in the world - from 15 to 20 per cent. They also plan to punish through taxation companies that employ people overseas rather than “creating American jobs”. These measures would have the almost immediate effect of driving companies and capital out of the US.

In the same “help the little guy” spirit, Obama proposes to raise capital gains tax, thus penalising those whose investment is desperately needed for market recovery. As my economist friends always tell me when I advocate tax cuts for the low-paid: it may seem a morally and politically attractive policy but it doesn’t do a damn thing for economic growth. The tiny amounts that the lower-paid receive in such wide-ranging cuts make little difference as a stimulus and if they are balanced by penalties on business and on the investing classes, they are worse than useless.

So what will happen? For what it is worth, I think it will be a close presidential race with the favourite, Obama, winning by a squeak (which is what happened in 1960 when the then favourite, John Kennedy, was the voice of the “future"). Whoever gets the White House, America will eventually return to being what it must be: the economic engine of the world and the greatest testimony to the power of human initiative in history. On both of those counts, it will once again be resented. But it will take a while longer to reach that point under Barack Obama.

http://tinyurl.com/5cz8uk

   Sunday - November 02, 2008

After a Barack Obama election victory party, a hangover will follow.

And in other comments NOT posted here, a very much conservative Simon Heffer says that “America can’t get rid of Bush fast enough.”
Is President Bush really as despised even by our side as I’m led to believe here?  I know some may think I could keep up more with home (USA) stuff then I do, but my defense can only be you’ve no idea what I have on my plate here.  It really isn’t easy as it may seem.  Though I do read what I can.  Point is however, what I read doesn’t paint quite that picture.  But then , I haven’t been reading the left.  Maybe I should.

Finally, America will elect a new president this week. Many voters believe that if Barack Obama wins, a new day will dawn in American politics.

US presidential election 2008

For his supporters, Mr Obama has become an almost Messianic figure. Many believe an Obama presidency will mean that America withdraws from the wars to which George W. Bush has committed troops.

Many also think he will increase the federal government’s role in the economy, so as to achieve goals such as providing universal health care.

If Mr Obama is elected, there will inevitably be disappointment and frustration, as millions of those who voted for him discover that he is mortal, and cannot achieve the miracles they hoped for.

In the straightened economic circumstances which America will find itself, the new universal health care plan he promises may not be affordable.

Moreover, the new President will find himself confronting so far intractable foreign policy challenges, such as the belligerence of a soon-to-be-nuclear Iran, the difficulties of trying to achieve peace in the Congo, and of securing victory in Afghanistan.

If he does anything at all about those problems, Mr Obama will disappoint those who voted for him in the expectation that he would end America’s use of armed force around the world.

As The Sunday Telegraph reports today, Mr Obama is already preparing to ask Britain to commit an additional 3,000 troops to Afghanistan.

Unlike George W. Bush, Mr Obama enjoys significant popularity in Europe. But after the years of bloody war in Iraq and Afghanistan, even he may struggle to achieve the commitment from European nations he says is essential – especially given the very high level of borrowing that so many countries have already committed themselves to in bailing out their banks.

Still, Barack Obama has a unique opportunity to help revitalise America’s influence on the world as a force for good. If he is elected, we hope he will use that opportunity wisely.

http://tinyurl.com/6mvctp

Don’t be fooled by Hillary on the stump

Bill and Hillary Clinton have been stumping the country this week to do their bit for Mr Obama, the 42nd President himself sharing a platform with the anointed, and associating himself very closely with him and his supposedly impending glory.

Now it looks as though Mr Obama has won, it is a typically shrewd Clinton move to ensure that their dynasty is tarred with the brush of the imminent victory. Do not underestimate the cynicism of these people.

Since Mr Obama might be president until 2016, when Mrs Clinton will be nearly the same age as John McCain, this may look selfless. But we know what Mrs Clinton really thinks: that some madman could well shoot President Obama. Good ol’ Joe Biden would be a comical president.

Hillary would be there in 2012 to restore order, with the added blessing that neither she nor her loathesome husband had done anything to impair the Obama victory.

Think about it: they certainly are.

Another woman with her eye on the prize

It’s not just Hillary who still has one rather tasteless eye on 2012. A group of prominent Republicans is scheduled to meet in Virginia next Wednesday - if John McCain loses, of course - to discuss ways of keeping Sarah Palin in the game until the next election.

Media bias has helped pass over the fact that Mrs Palin is hugely popular in much of middle America: here in the media village of Obamamaniacal New York the quickest way to get a laugh is to mention any sort of regard for her political skills.

http://tinyurl.com/6lg24c

   Friday - October 31, 2008

Double Dipper

Joe Biden is running for Vice President

Joe Biden is running for Senator

Both at the same time




I just heard this on the news. Somehow - I don’t live in Delaware after all - I’ve missed this one. I’m still on my first cup of coffee, so it’s too early for me to go digging through the Constitution and various US Codes to check on the legality of it, but this doesn’t “taste” right. By which I mean that the story is true; Biden is running for both positions at the same time. It just feels unethical to me. Doubling down and covering your bets is an Ok practice at the casino, but it isn’t what I’d call proper behavior for a candidate.

If you are running for one office you should not also be running for another. The news people say he is likely to be re-elected to his Senate position. The other news people talk non-stop about how the polls say Obama-Biden ticket has the Big Ticket all but sewn up. What happens if he wins both? Do we have any actual rules that prohibit him from double dipping? Can he be both Senator and President of the Senate at the same time? One man, two votes? Or would his double win force him to give up one of the jobs, allowing it to be filled by appointment, completely ignoring the will of the people? Neither result is right in my opinion.

My sense of right and wrong tells me that it is also wrong for any of these candidates to hold onto their elected positions while campaigning for another office. McCain, Obama are Senators. So is Clinton. So was Kerry. And so on. Palin is a state Governor. How much Senating or Governoring are these people doing right now? And considering that this election season has gone on for a full two years now, and the previous one was nearly as long? I think the people in their states are being ripped off. If they aren’t, then their absence from their paying jobs shows just how unnecessary those elected jobs really are.

But what about incumbents? Well, let them run for re-election. As long as they put in 32 hours a week or more - the basic definition of a full time job - on their elected position, they can campaign all they want. Give them a time card or something.

When you reach for the gold ring on the merry-go-round of life you have to lean out. That means taking a bit of risk. Running for two positions at the same time isn’t leaning out. It’s making sure a brass ring is also within easy reach. This is not a bold and daring move I would expect a prospective leader would take. It feels like cheating.

They’re Worried

I’ve been telling people for weeks that the election is not over and The One does not have the gigantic lead that he appears to have.  Steve over at WizBang! has been doing excellent work looking at the poll numbers and why they are not necessarily as bad as they seem.

Kim DuToit has been saying “7 states” for weeks now, believing that “Urkle” will get only seven states when it is all said and done.

I believe him.  In fact, I bet someone breakfast on it this week.

Over at Jim Treacher’s place, I found a link to this NY Times hit piece:

Growing Doubts on Palin Take a Toll, Poll Finds

I agree with Jim, if they weren’t scared out of their minds, the tone of the left would be much, much different than it is right now. 

Keep talking to your friends and co-workers.  Keep up the pressure.  Keep telling the truth. 

We will win.

   Thursday - October 30, 2008

Limping Back into the Game

Hey folks, a voice from the past emerges from the darkness.  I’m going to try and post a little something here and there to amuse you.  This was created by a friend of mine today.  We should have had the bumper stickers made weeks ago.

Another letter to the left

Dear Abbey Useful Idiots Plain Old Idiots Obama Voters

Another letter to Obama voters

Blogger BlackisWhite over at Taxes, Stupidity, and Death writes a great little essay that shows why Obavoting is pretty stupid.

I added the paragraph headers.

I got ya reparations, right here

For white people who have this feeling that they are somehow responsible for slavery and subsequent injustices, I assure you, you are not. The last 40 years brought an end to Jim Crow, segregation, and inequality of opportunity. Good people, black and white, sacrificed, and in some cases died, to bring these promises to fruition. Not only was opportunity opened to all, remediation was imposed in education, admission to colleges and universities, and the job market in the form of lowered standards, quotas, and affirmative action, and today’s trendy belief, diversity. Add these to the blood shed in the Civil War, and the debt is paid.



But that’s racist!

The years since the Civil Rights Movement have not seen all the promise that everyone might have hoped. The good news is that this can be fixed. The bad news is that you have to decide to step up and claim your birthright as an AMERICAN, and reject your victim rights as African-Americans. The doors were opened to you, but by and large, you decided to continue to select leaders who put their best interests first, and their lip service to your needs as the bones they will toss to you. Many of you chose the slavery of the attitude that the government owes this or that, and when members of your own community step outside of that mindset and build success, and then tell you that you can do the same, you berate them and belittle them as sellouts ...



Stand up next Tuesday and cast a vote for your own choices. You can choose to continue to choose, or you can choose to surrender all rights and responsibilities and settle for what the government chooses to give to you. It really shouldn’t be a difficult decision.

There’s a lot more at the link. Good job!

Via the Rott

2001 radio interview revisited

Just because the internet was all over Obama’s 2001 radio interview the other day doesn’t mean that the rest of the nation is even aware of it yet. Keep spreading the word! A day or two spent focusing on this is NOT enough. And sometimes it takes a day or two for some authors to work up a good essay on the subject. That’s Ok by me.

Very simply, our Constitution was written to limit the power of government. That’s the whole concept behind America: We The People have the power and the rights; government of all forms should be minimal. That’s why the Constitution writes about “negative liberties” as B. Hussein Obama put it in that interview. That’s all that should be there when talking about the powers of the government. He just doesn’t get it. Constitutional Professor, my pustulant posterior.

Laura Hollis writes a good one in today’s Town Hall. It’s worth a read, if only to help fine tune your own talking points around the water cooler.

Just as he tried to prove to everyone that his patriotism was demonstrated by the lack of symbols of the United States, so he is now arguing that his passion for the Constitution is demonstrated by his commitment to shredding it.

In a radio interview given in 2001, Obama reveals yet again about what he means by ‘equality,’ when he says, “…the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.”

Bad?  Sure.  Because now it’s not just “spread the wealth” a little bit (antithetical as that already is to American notions of hard work and prosperity).  It’s that “redistribution of wealth” is part and parcel of Obama’s vision of what is “political and economic justice” in this society.

But it is much worse.  Because this Harvard-educated lawyer then announces that the United States Supreme Court when headed by Chief Justice Earl Warren, was “not radical enough,” in its pursuit of civil liberties, because “it didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution.”

If this has not stopped you dead in your tracks, either you don’t understand, or you’re already dead.

Obama is engaging in dangerous demagoguery when he suggests that we the people of the United States need him – or the government he wants in place – to give us rights we don’t already have.

This deceitful view was echoed when he was introduced by Democratic Congresswoman Marcy Kaptur in Ohio earlier this week, who said that Americans “needed a Second Bill of Rights guaranteeing all Americans a job, health care, homes, an education, and a fair playing field for business and farmers.” This is no “bill of rights,” it is a bill of attainder (look it up).  Those found “guilty” would be anyone wealthier, more successful, or more prosperous than any other.  And the punishment?  The very things Obama and the Democrats are already pushing for: high taxes, and even seizure and redistribution of all American’s private property.

I am stunned beyond belief that these blunt admissions do not give otherwise patriotic Obama supporters (and this describes the vast majority of them) serious pause.

I’m not mocking Ms. Hollis at all, just inserting a few of my own comments. Spend a few minutes reading her essay, then get back out there spreading the word.

Campaign Finance

A little bit of perspective on campaign financing



George Will, writing in today’s Town Hall:

The Center for Responsive Politics calculates that by Election Day $2.4 billion will have been spent on presidential campaigns in the two-year election cycle that began January 2007, and another $2.9 billion will have been spent on 435 House and 35 Senate contests.

This $5.3 billion is a billion less than Americans will spend this year on potato chips.

   Wednesday - October 29, 2008

Twas the Night Before

Continuing the very recent tradition of posting bad poetry here at BMEWS, comes another email from Carol. Ain’t she the greatest?

‘Twas the night before elections
And all through the town
Tempers were flaring
Emotions all up and down!


I, in my bathrobe
With a cat in my lap
Had cut off the TV
No more political crap.

When all of a sudden
There arose such a noise
I peered out of my window
Saw Obama and his boys


They had come for my wallet
They wanted my pay
To give to the others
Who had not worked a day!


He snatched up my money
And quick as a wink
Jumped back on his bandwagon
As I gagged from the stink


He then rallied his henchmen
Who were pulling his cart
I could tell they were out
To tear my country apart!


‘ On Fannie, on Freddie,
On Biden and Ayers!
On Acorn, On Pelosi’
He screamed at the pairs!


They took off for his cause
And as he flew out of sight
I heard him laugh at the nation
Who wouldn’t stand up and fight!


So I leave you to think
On this one final note-
IF YOU DONT WANT SOCIALISM
GET OUT AND VOTE!!!!

Dear Mr. Obama

A guest post by Carol, who sends me emails all the time. Thanks Carol.




Date: Mon, 27 Oct 2008
From: “Dennis”
Subject: A MUST READ… PLEASE OPEN YOUR EYES TO THE TRUTH

To Barack Hussein Obama,



The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, that proved you had a significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers than what you previously admitted.  While the issue of your relationship is of concern,
the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008, that FBI records showed that you had a significantly closer relationship with To NY Rezko than what you previously admitted.  In the interview, you said that you only saw Mr.
Rezko a couple of times a year.  The FBI files showed that you saw him weekly.  While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about it.

Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about ‘race’ contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14 when you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative statements about white America.  While your attendance at Trinity Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on March 14.

In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and North Korea without ‘preparations’ at lower levels ... Joe Biden repeated your words in his debate with Sarah Palin ... While the video tape from your debate last February clearly shows that you answered ‘I would’ to the question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months without ‘any’ preconditions.  While your judgement about meeting with enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.

On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you stated that the surge would not work.  While your judgement about military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the troops was because the bill did not include a time line for withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our troops to be removed immediately ... Not in 16 months after the 2008 election as you now claim.  While your judgement about removing our troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to America about your previous position.

You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican was with Chuck Lugar ... And it failed.  The record shows that you vote 97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most liberal voting record in the Senate.  You joined Republicans only 13% of the time in your votes and those 13% were only after agreement from the Democrat party.  While it is of concern that you fail to include conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the greater concern is that you distorted the truth.

In the primary debates of last February, 2008, you claimed to have talked with a ‘Captain’ of a platoon in Afghanistan ‘the other day’ when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had just been deployed to Afghanistan.  You lied in that debate.

In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a ‘professor of Constitutional law’ when in fact you have never been a professor of Constitutional law.  In this last debate, you were careful to say that you ‘taught a law class’ and never mentioned being a ‘professor of Constitutional law.’ You lied last spring.

You and Joe Biden both claimed that John McCain voted against additional funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially corn ... and he was right
....  corn is too expensive at producing ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food.  You distorted the truth.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and Joe Biden. You lied to America .

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of the votes are procedural.  You are one of the few who has not voted 90% of the time with the president because you have been missing from the Senate since the day you got elected. While your absence from your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you spin the facts.

You did not take an active role in the rescue plan.  You claimed that the Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was because of your close relationships with the executives of Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, Countrywide, and Acorn ... who all helped cause the financial problems of today ... and they all made major contributions to your campaign.  While your relationship with these executives and your protection of them for your
brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

You forgot to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and Acorn. Tony Rezko, an Arab and close friend to you, was convicted of fraud in Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you sponsored as a state senator ... and Acorn has been convicted of voter fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and illegal campaign contributions.  Tony Rezko has contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to your political campaigns.  You personally used your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and Acorn and you used Acorn to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats and you.  While your relationships with Rezko and Acorn are of concern, the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your relationships with them to America.

During your campaign, you said: ‘typical white person.’ ‘They cling to their guns and religion.’ ‘They will say that I am black.’ You played the race card.  You tried to label any criticism about you as racist.  You divide America .

You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of America , but you forgot to tell America that those reductions are after you remove the Bush tax reductions.  You have requested close to $1 billion in earmarks and several million for Acorn.  Your social programs will cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in military spending ($100 billion for Iraq ) can pay for it.  While your economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our federal government is of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America.

The drain to America ‘s economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion (less than 1% of GDP).  You voted against any increases to oil exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear facilities.  Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil and more nuclear.  You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you claimed that you ‘changed’ your mind about public financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican PACs in 2004.  The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 2008 spent twice as much as the Republican PACs (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org).  You are lying to America.

Mr. Obama, you have done nothing to stop the actions of the teachers union and college professors in the USA. They eliminated religion from our history.  They teach pro gay agendas and discuss sex with students as young as first grade.  They bring their personal politics into the classrooms.  They disparage conservatives.  They brainwash our children.  They are in it for themselves ..... not America .  Are you reluctant to condemn their actions because teachers/professors and the NEA contribute 25% of all money donated to Democrats and none to Republicans?  You are deceiving America .

Oh, Mr. Obama, Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that we Americans should first look at the character of our leaders before anything else.

Your character looks horrible.  While you make good speeches, motivating speeches, your character does not match your rhetoric.  You talk the talk, but do not walk the walk. 

1.  You lied to America.  You lied many times.  You distorted facts.  You parsed your answers like a lawyer.

2.  You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your advertisements.

3.  You had associations with some very bad people for your personal political gains and then lied about those associations.

4.  You divide America about race and about class.

Now let me compare your record of lies, distortions, race baiting, and associations to John McCain:  War hero.  Annapolis graduate with ‘Country first.’ Operational leadership experience like all 43 previously elected presidents of the USA as a Navy officer for 22 years.  26 years in the Senate.  Straight talk.  Maverick.  54% of the time participated on bills with Democrats.  Never asked for an earmark.  The only blemish on his record is his part in the Keating 5 debacle about 25 years ago.

Mr. Obama, at Harvard Law School, you learned that the end does not justify the means.  You learned that perjury, false witness, dishonesty, distortion of truth are never tolerated.  Yet, your dishonesty is overwhelming.  Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty that caused the impeachment and disbarment of Bill Clinton.  Your dishonesty is tremendously greater than the dishonesty of Scooter Libby. You should be ashamed.

Mr. Obama, it is time for us Americans to put aside our differences on political issues and vote against you because of your dishonest character.  It is time for all of us Americans to put aside our political issues and vote for America first.  It is time for America to vote for honesty.

Any people who vote for you after understanding that you are dishonest should be ashamed of themselves for making their personal political issues more important than character.  Would these same people vote for the anti-Christ if the anti-Christ promised them riches?  Would they make a golden calf while Moses was up the mountain?  Would they hire some one for a job if that someone lied in an interview?  Of course not.  So why do some of these people justify their votes for you even though they know you are dishonest?  Why do they excuse your dishonesty?  Because some of these people are frightened about the future, the economy, and their financial security .... and you are preying on their fears with empty promises ...  and because some (especially our young people) are consumed by your wonderful style and promises for ‘change’ like the Germans who voted for Adolf Hitler in 1932.  The greed/envy by Germans in 1932 kept them from recognizing Hitler for who he was.  They loved his style.  Greed and envy are keeping many Americans from recognizing you ... your style has camouflaged your dishonesty .... but many of us see you for who you really are ... and we will not stop exposing who you are every day, forever if it is necessary.

Mr. Obama, you are dishonest.  Anyone who votes for you is enabling dishonesty.

Mr.  Obama, America cannot trust that you will put America first in your decisions about the future.

Mr. Obama, you are not the ‘change’ that America deserves.  We cannot trust you.

Mr. Obama, You are not ready and not fit to be commander-in-chief.

Mr. Obama, John McCain does not have as much money as your campaign to refute all of your false statements.  And for whatever reasons, the mainstream media will not give adequate coverage or research about your lies, distortions, word parsing, bad associations, race baiting, lack of operational leadership experience, and generally dishonest character.  The media is diverting our attention from your relationships and ignoring the fact that you lied about those relationships.  The fact that you lied is much more important than the relationships themselves .... just like with Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon ... Monica Lewinski and Watergate were not nearly as bad as the fact that those men lied about the events ...  false witness ... perjury ...  your relationships and bad judgements are bad on their own .... but your lies are even worse.

Therefore, by copy of this memo, all who read this memo are asked to send it to everyone else in America before it is too late.  We need to do the job that the media will not do.  We need to expose your dishonesty so that every person in America understands who you really are before election day.

Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve.  And God help America if we deserve you.

Michael Master
McLean, Virginia

Barack Obama is the Busby Berkeley of modern America.  (All show and mirrors)

I felt BMEWS would want to see this and no comments from me. Well, maybe not.

Barack Obama is the Busby Berkeley of modern America

By Simon Heffer in New York
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 28/10/2008

One can find two kinds of voters in this great city in the week before the presidential election; those Democrats who can see no possibility of defeat for Barack Obama next Tuesday, and those who wake with a jolt at 4am imagining he has lost, and feeling in their bowels the fear that something might happen in the next few days to stop the saviour of the United States from fulfilling his mission. I have yet to find a Republican, despite this being the city that returned Rudy Giuliani twice as mayor. But then it is hard to find anyone in the city that gave Hillary Clinton a big victory in February in the New York state primary who will now not admit to being a dyed-in-the-wool Obamamaniac. The fat lady has yet to sing, but, as far as New Yorkers are concerned, the show is over already.

They may well be right. The McCain camp says that its private polls show the race is far closer than those published by media organisations: but then it would, wouldn’t it? There is much anecdotal evidence that, at the grass roots in states where John McCain is not now campaigning (and even in one or two where he is), the fight has more or less stopped. After a good convention eight weeks ago in St Paul, the Republicans have lost the initiative at every turn. They had a bad financial crisis. Neither Mr McCain nor his running-mate, Sarah Palin, was able to land a killer blow in the televised debates. Things have reached the pass where Mrs Palin is having to protest that the haute couture on which $150,000 was spent to enhance her glamour belongs not to her, but to the Republican National Committee: and that she will now revert to shopping in the factory outlets of Alaska. After one has paused to consider just who on the RNC will be wearing Mrs Palin’s clothes next, one realises just how much this pathetic squabble signals that the game is almost certainly up.

Visiting from Britain, one senses just how like the spring of 1997 it is. Obama supporters often bridle at comparisons with Tony Blair, though why they should mind being lumped with a man who won three elections handsomely, inflicted serious change (for better or worse) on the country he governed, and put his opponents off the map for at least a dozen years is beyond me. Perhaps they are sensitive to the triumph of Mr Obama’s image over his content, to the accusations that his media management, with its brutal threats to journalists who cut up rough, belies the image of integrity that they seek to disseminate, and to the unspoken difficulty that, when and if Mr Obama gets into the White House, the magnificence of his rhetoric and the vast extent of his oratorical skills will do little to help him tackle an economy in the tank and a precarious international situation.

However, the Obama camp need not worry about any of this, because it appears most of the electorate don’t. The voters’ decision appears to have been simple: that George W. Bush, when he becomes history in January, should for the time being take the Republican party with him. Mr McCain has been at pains to distance himself from Mr Bush since before he won the nomination, and has had the facts mostly on his side in doing so.

However, that has failed to penetrate the souls of many voters. Polls in states that returned Mr Bush in 2004 now show Mr Obama far in front. Mr McCain is even at risk of losing Virginia, which is a little like the Tory party being wiped out in Surrey. The evidence that American voters have had enough is becoming more abundant. Mr Obama can capitalise on a lethal cocktail of economic hardship and, among the more outward-looking of his fellow citizens, a deep and pervasive embarrassment at how America is now seen around the world.

(okay wait a minute. how many Americans do know and if they do, give a flip what foreigners who aren’t paying our bills think?)

There is, though, no euphoria about what most of America feels to be his imminent election. It is, rather, a sense of relief at their being about to be shot of a discredited administration and a dismal president. Again, it should remind us of 1997, when Mr Blair surged to power not so much on a national wave of faith in him, but because so many Conservatives stayed at home and declined to shore up his inadequate opponent, the incumbent.

Here, the incumbent party is run ragged, too. It is fashionable to blame Mrs Palin for this, but the truth is that she is by far the more impressive of the two candidates on her ticket. She speaks directly to her audience, has conviction and charisma and is not trying to be something she isn’t. Ever since the convention John McCain has pretended not to be John McCain, and it just hasn’t worked.

In the circumstances of such a poor campaign by the Republicans, Mr Obama has not been pressed to outline how he would govern. All that has mattered is that he is not what has come before, or like what has come before. In these past days there have been attempts by his opponents, and especially by conservatives, to paint him as a socialist because of his talk of “spreading the wealth”. His opponents are correct: he is, by the lights of all his rhetoric, an orthodox Leftist with an ill-formed notion of redistribution of income.

But it no longer matters. The mood here is to get the people who have run America for the past eight years out, and get in someone completely different. The time to discuss what, in their turn, they would do would come once they are there. This is far from ideal, for that is what election campaigns are supposed to be for. But in the unusual predicament of an America that feels weakened, embarrassed and angry, it has become nearly inevitable.

The last time the American economy was on the ropes to the extent it is now a whole industry of escapism grew up, and produced such gems as Gold Diggers of 1933. You might remember that the plot of that charming film was a millionaire putting on a musical that saved countless Broadway hoofers from the soup-kitchen during the Great Depression.

Barack Obama is the Busby Berkeley of modern America. He is ordained as the great choreographer who will spirit America out of its misery, using not his own millions but the billions of the taxpayer to put the country back on course. Having listened all year to his message of “change”, and being entirely unclear what it means, perhaps at last we have the answer. It is The Great Cause Of Cheering Us All Up.

The reverence with which Mr Obama is regarded by most of the American media, and by much of the American elite, is such that, when I see him on television, I look — so far in vain — for the stigmata on his hands. This feeling is entirely appropriate, for what America seems to be preparing to embark upon is the most massive act of faith. Not since 1960, and the election of Jack Kennedy, has so much disbelief been suspended by so many in such a massive cause. If it does indeed translate into an Obama victory on Tuesday, further prayer may well be in order. Not long after Gold Diggers of 1933, I seem to remember, came The Grapes of Wrath.

http://tinyurl.com/6ywjzh

---

---

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2008 Domain Owner