An Advocate of the Republic

How Can a Speech on Hope Make Me Abandon all of It?

2009-01-21T11:13:00.000-08:00

Ok, I'm back. Let's get this blog up and running again. Now, I didn't watch the inauguration, but in all fairness, I don't think I've ever watched an inauguration. I knew it would either bore me or piss me off. So keep that in mind as we analyze this thrilling speech that I have heard described as brilliant and terrible. I'm thinking I will lean toward the latter considering my opinion of Barry and the fact that none of his euphoria inducing charisma translates to the written text. However, I will go into this with an open mind.

My fellow citizens: I stand here today humbled by the task before us, grateful for the trust you have bestowed, mindful of the sacrifices borne by our ancestors.

That seems nice. Good start Barry.

I thank President Bush for his service to our nation... as well as the generosity and cooperation he has shown throughout this transition.

I'm sure you do, but at least you sound gracious. Way to keep it classy.

Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath.

Ouch, I'm not going to harp to much on this, we all know there are now 43 men, not 44, but how do your speech writers goof up this far into a speech that was billed to be the most historic grouping of words this side of Lincoln? At least we can all agree that "the One" isn't infallible, unless by saying there are 44 different Presidents he hath made it so, Genesis style. Is the new one Gore? Will that make him shut up?

The words have been spoken during rising tides of prosperity and the still waters of peace. Yet, every so often the oath is taken amidst gathering clouds and raging storms.

What you can't see here is Rahm Emanuel taping his fingers together sinisterly as he eyes someone's Chevy.

At these moments, America has carried on not simply because of the skill or vision of those in high office, but because We the People have remained faithful to the ideals of our forbearers, and true to our founding documents.

Ok, I call bullshit. America hasn't remained faithful to our forbearers or our founding documents. See oh, um, about every single government action since Woodrow Wilson took office. That aside, is this how you intend to govern? By the intentions of the forefathers and the Constitution?

So it has been. So it must be with this generation of Americans.

Joke's on you, liberals. You accidentally elected a libertarian. Sweet.

That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some. . .

Chris Dodd for example.

. . . but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.

What hard choices would those be? Scrapping social programs and instituting a flat tax? I think that's a pretty easy choice Barry, but rational people can disagree.

Homes have been lost, jobs shed, businesses shuttered.

He's being really hard on Chris Dodd.

Our health care is too costly,

You get what you pay for Barry. Ask a Canadian.

our schools fail too many,

Are we going after the NEA? Your a Godsend Barry, I can't believe it took me this long to come around.

and each day brings further evidence that the ways we use energy strengthen our adversaries. . .

We certainly don't want to strengthen Palin. Thank God we buy from Venezuela.

. . . and threaten our planet.

I don't like the direction this is going. What is our planet under threat from this month? I've been out of the loop. Is it global warming? A new ice age? Manbearpig? I need to know, and I need to know how you're going to tax me to stop it.

These are the indicators of crisis, subject to data and statistics. Less measurable, but no less profound, is a sapping of confidence across our land; a nagging fear that America's decline is inevitable, that the next generation must lower its sights.

Uh, aren't you the one that said I can't keep my home at 72 degrees anymore? That I can't drive whatever I want? Our confidence was pretty low in seventies, I believe a peanut farmer created some sort of misery index to catalog our despair. Wouldn't it have kind of pushed our society off the edge if you had told them they all had to drive Gremlins?

Today I say to you that the challenges we face are real, they are serious and they are many. They will not be met easily or in a short span of time. But know this America: They will be met.

Or exacerbated, but don't let me interrupt, please elaborate.

On this day, we gather because we have chosen hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict and discord.

Hope over fear? I'm going to give you the benefit of a doubt and assume you're not taking a veiled shot at W., because that's not the classy guy you are. Anyway, how are these vague, empty phrases going to help America meat these real challenges? Come one Barry. Where's the specific and substance filled guy I new and loved on the campaign trail?

On this day, we come to proclaim an end to the petty grievances and false promises, the recriminations and worn-out dogmas that for far too long have strangled our politics.

I kind of thought progressive liberalism was a worn out dogma filled with false promises and built upon petty grievances. However, I'll give you a pass because, while I didn't watch the speech, I going to assume he's riding a horse and waving sword before the assembled men of Gondor.

We remain a young nation, but in the words of Scripture, the time has come to set aside childish things.

Couldn't agree more. Let's get rid of the Nanny State.

The time has come to reaffirm our enduring spirit; to choose our better history; to carry forward that precious gift, that noble idea, passed on from generation to generation: the God-given promise that all are equal, all are free, and all deserve a chance to pursue their full measure of happiness.

I wasn't aware you had read the Declaration of Independence. Is Barry serious about adhering to the founding documents?

In reaffirming the greatness of our nation, we understand that greatness is never a given. It must be earned. Our journey has never been one of shortcuts or settling for less.

I will settle for nothing less than an Escalade that intentionally leaks gas.

It has not been the path for the faint-hearted, for those who prefer leisure over work, or seek only the pleasures of riches and fame. Rather, it has been the risk-takers, the doers, the makers of things -- some celebrated, but more often men and women obscure in their labor -- who have carried us up the long, rugged path towards prosperity and freedom.

Surely we wouldn't want to punish the risk-takers, doers, and makers of things by taxing the prosperity they create? We don't want to reward undeserved people with the earnings of men and women obscure in their labor, right?

For us, they packed up their few worldly possessions and traveled across oceans in search of a new life. For us, they toiled in sweatshops and settled the West, endured the lash of the whip and plowed the hard earth.

I'm pretty sure they did it for themselves (except for those under the whip, they did it for the guy with the whip). You see Barry, when people have a reasonable expection of reward, they work and innovate. Its actually selfishness that drives prosperity. Hence the sad history of utopian socialist distopias.

For us, they fought and died in places Concord and Gettysburg; Normandy and Khe Sahn.

Can't argue with that.

Time and again these men and women struggled and sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life.

Yeah, that guy working the land of his Nebraskan homestead in 1866 was doing it for me.

They saw America as bigger than the sum of our individual ambitions; greater than all the differences of birth or wealth or faction.

Huh, I always thought America was nation of rugged individualists. That sounds dangerously like collectivism, Barry. You know who else is bigger than the sum of their individual ambitions? The Borg.

This is the journey we continue today. We remain the most prosperous, powerful nation on Earth.

I await your Defense Budget.

Our workers are no less productive than when this crisis began.

I'm typing this at work

Our minds are no less inventive, our goods and services no less needed than they were last week or last month or last year. Our capacity remains undiminished. But our time of standing pat, of protecting narrow interests. . .

How dare we protect the wealthy's money from everyone else.

. . . and putting off unpleasant decisions -- that time has surely passed.

Again with the unpleasant decisions. Have you ever seen a riot Barry? Looting is a blast. There's nothing unpleasant about it unless you're the lootee. But we're no longer concerned with the "narrow interests" of the lootee.

Starting today, we must pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and begin again the work of remaking America.

Is that like remaking a movie? Because that generally ends badly. It also usually begins and progresses through the middle badly. Burt Reynolds will always be better than Adam Sandler, Barry. Lockean Democracy will always be better than, well, anything else.

Wow, long speech. This seems as good a spot as any for an intermission. We'll continue this tomorrow, or whenever I feel up to having any optimism left in me beaten out by impending doom.

Shouldn't You Be Trying To Nationalize Something?

2008-12-11T11:38:00.001-08:00

First off, sorry to all 11 of my readers (hi Mom) for the dearth of posts these past couple of weeks. I haven't quit and Chucky Schumer's Fairness Enforcement Squad has yet to discover my undisclosed bunker deep beneath the Blanchette Bridge. Politics have been a bit trying lately with the November election results. I wouldn't say recent events have depressed me, its more of a fatigue. One of my cardinal rules is not to let events outside of my control influence my quality of life, and there's no way I'd let Barry Obama and Barney "Lisp'n 'n Pimp'n" Frank affect my general happiness. So I've taken a bit of a sabbatical from politics the past few weeks. I've gone out of my way to avoid all news and have thus been a bit out of the loop. Since my blog normally depends on me reading/seeing something that interests/enrages me enough to write, I haven't really had anything to say lately (I'm shocked the internet has been able to continue to function in my absence). That said, politics have managed to invade my retreat from the world, and thusly I am forced to address it in my own insignificant way. What, you ask, has politics gotten its swinish, gormandizing hands upon to rouse me? College Football.

Stay with me here, this is, unfortunately, indeed a political post. Many of you may remember before the election, Barry called for a playoff in College Football on two separate occasions. Never mind that I doubt Barry sees the difference between a Nickle Defense and his Military Budget, there's a bigger issue here than Barry's street cred as far as sports goes. Does the President Elect seek to use the power of the Federal government to institute a playoff?

Let me be clear. I desperately want a College Football playoff. In my opinion it would be bigger than the NCAA Basketball Tournament or, dare I say, even the Super Bowl. The fact that BCS Conferences and University Presidents have blocked the playoff movement makes me so violently angry that I have to fight the urge to stab some cute woodland creature. The shear awesomeness of even an 8 team playoff is the stuff of my wet dreams. That said, how College Football chooses to crown its champion is NONE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DAMN BUSINESS.

"But pissed of Midwestern blogger guy," you may ask. "Doesn't Barry have the right to his opinion on a playoff, even if he's going to be Head of State?" Well of course he does. I certainly don't begrudge him his opinion on sports, I happen to wholeheartedly agree with him on this subject (And yes, agreeing with Barry O did take a year off my life just as surely as if you had hooked me up to the torture device from The Princess Bride (Shut up, I'll watch anything with Peter Faulk in it)). My problem is that I don't trust Barry to remain a civilian fan, especially when Congressmen from both sides of the aisle keep proposing that the Federal Government impose a playoff on College Football by law. Seriously.

Just yesterday, 3 Congressmen introduced a Bil l to "prohibit the marketing, promotion and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system." This is a Republican. From Texas. Aren't they supposed to be conservative? I know Texas got screwed out of a birth in the National Championship, but do we really need the Federal f'ing Government to remedy this, thereby getting its dirty, dirty, fingers into College Football? The Representative, Joe Barton, explained his position thusly: "In some years, the sport's national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title. Despite repeated efforts to improve the system, the controversy rages on." So what? In 8th grade I didn't make the boys' basketball team despite nailing the frigging tryout. I didn't demand Federal intervention. Do Republicans even know what conservatism means anymore? Less government. Less! Less! Less! Even when we feel the central government may be able to adequately resolve a problem, we seek to restrain it if to do so it must move beyond its specifically enumerated powers. My beloved Missouri Tigers were screwed out of an Orange Bowl birth last season in favor of the Kansas Jayhawks (who are the embodiment of pure evil, I might add). Did I lobby for Lawrence, Kansas to be deservedly destroyed by a tactical nuclear missile? No. Why? Because I'm a freaking conservative. The Federal Government has no right to decide who plays in what game or how.

What could possibly justify Federal intervention? The Interstate Commerce Clause? I'm not quite sure that fits with the founders' original intent. I must have missed the section of the Federalist Papers where Madison elaborates on the Constitution with regards to Collegiate Sports. True, most members of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision are government institutions, but they are STATE institutions. The libertarian in me can barely tolerate State funded universities, let alone Federal hegemony over their athletics. Don't even get me started on Title IX. If I could at all alter the Constitution, the Interstate Commerce Clause would be the second to be changed, right after the General Welfare clause. "I Should Have Been More Specific" should be inscribed on Madison's tombstone, but I digress.

There's my rant. I will probably take it easy on blogging for a bit longer. I just can't handle my disgust every time I hear the phrase "Team of Rivals" used to describe Barry's cabinet, and since there appears to be an FCC mandate that "journalists" use this phrase whenever speaking about the future administration, I'll probably be avoiding the news a bit longer, if only to avoid nausea and coronary disease. I hope to get back into it after the holidays, refreshed and ready for the inauguration/deification.

Really?

2008-11-20T08:42:00.001-08:00

Take a good, long, look at this ballot and tell me how it is possibly not a vote for Norm Coleman in the Minnesota State Senate race. There's no way. Its not possible for a human being to make this mark in the oval beside Norm Coleman's name without the intention of voting for him. No decent human being could argue otherwise. I know, we are talking about Al Franken here, but he must have some basic (albeit hidden) shred of humanity somewhere within him.

What possible scenarios could explain this ballot's existence in a supposedly good, decent, and well ordered universe if it is not a vote for Norm Coleman? Did the voter have a seizure as he entered the voting booth, pen in hand, yet somehow managed to accidentally submit his ballot to the machine as the poll monitors frantically tried to stop him from swallowing his tongue? Is he a slightly mentally handicapped, schizophrenic, paranoid, psychotic who believes Norm Coleman has been reading his mail, stealing his newspaper, and sodomizing his dog, who upon seeing Norm Coleman's name, shrieked something about the Carlyle Group and the most recent Indiana Jones film as he frantically scribbled x's next to Coleman's name in an effort to emphasize his distaste for the incumbent? Did the voter, being legally retarded, think he was voting for Coleman to be kicked off Survivor?

I suppose no one can really know what this man, woman, or dead ACORN registeree was thinking when they made a mark in the oval next to Norm Coleman's name, but I think the safest assumption would be that they were voting for Coleman. But that's only if we're coming from a position of "ethics" and "faith in Democracy". In a spirit of bipartisanship, I think we should look at it from the Franken campaign's point of view. Put yourself in their shoes. What may seem imbecilic at best to the rest of us makes perfect sense if you're trying to steal an election.

Always Think Ahead

2008-11-20T06:14:00.000-08:00

Franz Reichelt presents an interpretive dance on the Obama economic plan:

Reagan's Response to David Brooks

2008-11-14T06:18:00.000-08:00

Let Them Go Their Way

Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)

March 1, 1975

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.

And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will. . .

I don‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

The rest

Arbeit Macht Frei

2008-11-13T07:19:00.001-08:00

I never thought I'd see the day when the 13th Amendment became less popular than the 2nd among liberals.

All you young voters who cast your ballot for Obama because he's a rad dude who plays basketball and seems like the type of guy who would reduce a possession charge to a small fine, perhaps you should put away the hacky sack next election and take what your Post Modern Feminist Studies professor says with a grain of salt.

Behold the visionary who will put Obama's brand of National Socialism into action: Rahm Emanuel (History has a tremendous sense of irony doesn't it?)

This pretty much speaks for itself. I don't think I have anything really to say.

Wait, yes I do.

I hate to keep beating a dead Prussian, but do any of you misanthropes who voted for Obama understand what's being so cavalierly described here? Forcing every American of military age into a Civilian Defense Corps doesn't set off any alarm bells in your head? This goes far beyond a draft of some fraction of eligible (male) Americans in a time of war. This is every American in times of peace. Who controls these training camps? Who will train these college age Americans? These are the same intellectual giants who believe their Cultural Studies Professor when he tells them that pre colonial stone age North America was vastly superior to modern Western Civilization. They're very stupid and suggestible. If they can't figure out that "The Flintstones" wasn't a documentary series, what BS is Obama going to feed them?

Further more, who will control this army? The President? What power will Congress have? What will this army be doing? Building windmills? Attacking non union shops? Cutting off aid shipments to Kansas because their farmers refused to collectivize? What is the purpose? If another Katrina hits New Orleans, I don't want to be forced by the Federal Government to go help distribute Federal Treasury money to people who A: Live in a coastal city that is below sea level, and B: Are too stupid to evacuate when a hurricane hits.

How would this help against terrorism? If we had had a vast Civilian Defense Corps on 9/11, what would that have done? We could have poured the entire United States Army into Manhattan and it wouldn't have done a lick of good after the planes hit. In fact it would have hindered relief efforts by clogging up the infrastructure. We already have more than enough government agencies to help (hinder?) in case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. The only way a Civilian Defense Corps could help is by stopping the attack before it happens. So unless Obama wants to arm us and send us about looking for terrorists, he's just whistling Dixie.

Perhaps all Emanuel and Obama want to do is set this Corps to work building bridges, dams, roads, etc. Taxes will be raised, money will be wasted. Its like the TVA except you have no choice. This is the ultimate form of "community organizing". He has the youth of the whole country to do his bidding. Take a moment to think about this. The President of the United States will have an army at his command to do whatever he wants with, without Constitutional restrictions. Think the 3rd Amendment will apply? These aren't "soldiers", its a "Civilian Defense Corps". Even if Congress has some sort of oversight, do you trust them? Have we as Americans come to the point where we trust the Federal Government with this kind of unrestrained power over our persons?

It will truly be a dark day when draft dodgers who flee to Canada are rightly considered patriots. Oh well, I suppose I'll be able to get a deferment by volunteering for ACORN.

Your Crazy is a Special Kind of Crazy

2008-11-12T06:53:00.000-08:00

Are there any liberals out there who are bothered by the Obama personality cult? Are there any who are intellectually honest and will admit that this type of thing is unhealthy in a Democracy no matter what ideology you subscribe to? I believe Reagan was the greatest President of my lifetime (I was a whole 4 years old when he left office) but I understand that he was a flawed human being just like the rest of us. He beat back liberalism (or at least put it on hold for a decade or two) but I've never thought of him as a messiah. He was a politician. A talented politician who subscribed to the same basic ideology that I do, but still a very human politician. While I would be thrilled if a politician could successfully take up the mantle of conservatism as he did, I would never be reduced to a fawning 16 year old female Beatles fan circa 1964.

There seems to be a religious devotion to Obama among many leftists that frightens me not as a conservative, but as an advocate of Democracy. How much power do we want to give him? If you believe he's infallible, I suppose you'd give him as much as you can, whether he wants it or not. I'm sure there must be Democrats who are unsettled by this, especially the secular left who have no place for religion in the public sphere. Or maybe they just believe they are giving the people their opiate. I don't think half the people who voted for Obama actually desire socialism in America, but if they are distracted by emotional attachment, they may not notice what's being done in the name of "change" until one day they wake up and realize that America is now a part of Scandinavia.

Personality cults have a nasty habit of segueing into tyranny. Give one person all political power and ask him to solve all your problems and you end up with a fairly comfortable life -- provided you suspend all independent thought. As long as you believe in him, I suppose you'll believe him when he tells you things are getting better despite your lying eyes. Unfortunately Democracy doesn't work like that, its based on reason, not faith. Conservatives find themselves in this current mess largely because we had faith that George Bush's second term would be markedly different than his first. That Rove and Bush would steer the nation firmly right, despite what our lying eyes saw during the first term. However, Bush was no personality cult. No one deified him. We merely misplaced our trust. We chose to believe that he would act conservatively because we really had no other choice. Who are you going to vote for Kerry? It made the decision more palatable to believe Rove was the genius people said he was and had a secret conservative plan.

Many Obama supporters aren't even that rational. They literally think he will abolish all their anxieties, outlaw their problems with the stroke of a pen. Life doesn't work like that. There is no utopia. There is no Christ-esque messiah save Christ Himself. Does it matter though? Contrary to what many on my side are saying, I don't believe most of Obama's supporters will abandon him when he fails to deliver. I think they've invested too much in him to allow him to fail in their minds. A Judas will be constructed by the masses with the media's help. Most likely a Republican or combination of Republicans. Obama cannot be allowed to fail because a failure of Obama is a failure of his supporters. The human mind doesn't so readily admit that it is that much of a dupe, that much of a fool. This isn't your fault its someone else's. "What do you mean Obama's a failure? Can't you see he's a spectacular success? Can't you see? Don't you have faith?" Its a sad characteristic of humanity that we can so easily bend reality to fit our expectations. A characteristic I fear we'll see more and more of in the future.

Hope can be a very good thing in the proper circumstances. It can see a person through tremendous adversity. But it can just as easily bind them to a failed policy, a failed idea, a failed leader, and when hope fails to bring the change we just knew it would bring, it turns to desperation. I don't claim to know exactly what the future will bring, but I don't think it will be pretty.

You Don't Haggle Over The Price Of Fruit With Someone Who Is Setting Fire To Your House

2008-11-11T06:53:00.001-08:00

A new chapter is currently being written in the cumbersome tome The Futility of Being Civil To Liberals by John McCain and Nelson Rockefeller, with contributions from Gerald Ford and Lincoln Chafee (ghost written by Neville Chamberlain). Thinking he could finally get a well deserved free trade treaty with Colombia through congress, George Bush in his meeting with Barry Obama offered to support the economic stimulus package that Nancy "Am I smiling? I can't tell" Pelosi has been clamoring for in exchange for the agreement's passage. I know President Bush's intentions are honorable, but he should know by now not to trust a Democrat. Although there were no aides present in what was supposed to be a private conversation between the current and future Presidents, Obama's aides have managed to promptly leak this information to the press.

Its time we stopped treating negotiations with liberals as if they are conducted in good faith. There is always an ulterior motive. These are not honorable people. Its time we stood up and fought them. Else we end up like Gerald Ford, begging Democrats for money while South Vietnam burns.

You'd Think That Amendment Would Be His Favorite. . .

2008-11-10T11:37:00.000-08:00

John Derbyshire at National Review Online points out some scrubbing going on at Obama's policy website change.gov:

I dunno if it was me, but the Obama's Change website has undergone some fast changes of its own.

When I commented on Friday about the pretty-much-compulsory-looking "national service" plan proposed there, the site said this:

… 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 …

It currently says this:

… setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free …

Perhaps someone in the Obama camp glanced at the 13th amendment:

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. . ."

Liberty is Doubleplusungood

2008-11-10T07:44:00.000-08:00

In case anyone of a conservative bent hasn't realized it yet, liberty is fading in America. Progressive liberals are winning and pressing their advantage. Don't pretend to be shocked when you wake up one morning and find that you're in a fascist Nanny State.

The Arizona Supreme Court is on the verge of banning certain terms from all Arizona State courts. What terms, you ask? Surely they must be crude, vulgar terms that have no place in a court of law, correct? Not quite. Here is the list of potentially outlawed words:

Aliens
Illegal aliens
Resident or non-resident aliens
Illegal immigrants
Illegal immigration
Illegals
Immigration epidemic
Immigration crisis
Immigrant invasion
Pro-illegal immigration activists
Open borders advocates
Anchor babies
Proponents for amnesty

Now we can discuss the horrible implications this policy would have for American security if it were adopted broadly, but I think we're facing something much more sinister, and idea that goes beyond the immigration debate. This isn't about winning a debate, this is about stopping a debate. Elements of the liberal movement are literally banning language that is opposed to their ideology. The Newspeak of Orwell's dystopia was largely created by culling the language of politically incorrect words and phrases. How is this any different? If one political group or ideology control the language, how do you argue against them? How do you debate an idea when you're forced to concede the language of your argument at the outset?

Americans and conservatives in particular need to come to a realization and fast: An increasing proportion of the American left are becoming openly fascistic. "Fascist" itself has been coopted by the left. No longer does fascist refer to a Statist who sees totalitarian limits on freedom of speech, the press, and association, among other civil liberties, as preferable in a well run progressive/socialist state. Now days, of course, "fascist" refers to any conservative who happens to have drawn the ire of liberalism. I'm pained to admit that most Americans don't realize that fascism is an offshoot of progressivism, and it doesn't always come with jack boots and patriotic songs. It does however, come with less freedom and more State control over as many aspects of a citizen's life as possible. Controls, for example, like words you may or may not use to refer to undocumented persons who have broken Federal law to enter this country and the issues related to them.

The right had better wake up and prepare for a fight. Otherwise one day when they do choose to stand and fight, they'll find that words have literally no meaning to the left or the American public we'll need to persuade.

Hatchet, Ax, and Saw

2008-11-07T06:36:00.000-08:00

Our future as told through Canadian rock:

God Must Have A Sense Of Humor

2008-11-06T10:38:00.001-08:00

i⋅ro⋅ny [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.
1: Indianapolis - Lines were long and tempers flared Wednesday not to vote but to get paid for canvassing for Barack Obama. Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown to control the crowd.

The line was long and the crowd was angry at times.

"I want my money today! It's my money. I want it right now!" yelled one former campaign worker. . .

Eventually people did start getting paid, but some said they were missing hours and told to fill in paperwork making their claim and that eventually they would get a check in the mail . . .

"It should have been $480. It's $230," said Imani Sankofa.

"They gave us $10 an hour. So we added it. I added up all the hours so it was supposed to be at least $120. All I get is $90," said Charles Martin.

"I worked nine hours a day for 4 days and got paid half of what I should have earned," said Randall Waldon.

Some people weren't satisfied with filling out a claim form for money they felt was still due to them. . .

No Collaboration

2008-11-06T09:27:00.000-08:00

The opening shots of the war for the soul of the Republican Party have been fired. . . by the moderates. Not two days after the election, McCain aides are viciously attacking Sarah Palin in a move that seems to me very preconceived, as if this was their contingency plan all along if they lost. Regardless of the validity of their claims (I am skeptical) these attacks have nothing to do with Palin's shopping habits or her intelligence. These attacks are coming this quickly because she's a right wing conservative. The moderates are panicked. They need a scape goat other than McCain in order to keep their grip on the party going into Obama's administration. Palin is an up and coming conservative star ripe for the targeting. If the moderates can succeed in painting the election as a referendum on Palin, they can deflect blame for the plight of the Republican Party.

This is where 2012 starts for us. Conservatives have to win back this party. We cannot let the moderates create a narrative that destroys Sarah Palin and whitewashes their own complicity in our ignoble defeat. If the moderates succeed in reaffirming their grip on the GOP, the consequences would be devastating. Already Democrats are conspiring with Republican moderates to have McCain lead the "opposition" in the Senate. This is what I mean when I say McCain should be nowhere near party leadership in the Senate. This ugliness serves to remind me why I never liked John McCain and why it pained me so much to vote for him. He is no conservative and no friend to conservatives. He is self serving and will destroy party unity to serve his own ends (see the gang of 14). This new found congeniality between McCain and Democrats is telling:

"Before resting from the grueling presidential race, John McCain began discussing with senior aides what role he will play in the Senate now that he has promised to work with the man who defeated him for president."

Hmm. . . I wonder what he discussed with his senior aides?

"The attacks on Ms Palin are set to intensify, with McCain aides keen to dish the dirt on their boss's running mate. One aide estimated Ms Palin had spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $US150,000. . . Another aide offered the "Wasilla hillbillies" comparison and said the truth would eventually come out."

This is the real, nasty, John McCain. The one who has hated conservatives at least since the 2000 campaign This is the John McCain that I didn't know if I could vote for. This is the John McCain we're now getting. Let me say it one more time: NO. WHERE. NEAR. PARTY. LEADERSHIP. McCain's quasi-liberalism is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Our opposition will be difficult enough without our party leadership openly colluding with liberal Democrats. Remember, "cooperating" with liberals never means that they make concessions. It means you adopt their liberal position or else you are a bitter partisan. Ann Coulter's definition of stare decisis is a perfect description of the liberal attitude toward negotiating with conservatives: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." This is what a McCain/moderate leadership means for us. We don't persuade or oppose them, we concede and abdicate in the hopes of getting part of the credit for whatever Pelosi/Reid/Obama do. In short, "me too" liberalism.

This of course is the opposite of what we need. We must be opposition in the fullest sense of the word. No "bipartisanship" or cooperation. Are we conservatives or not? The whites could have avoided many conflicts with the Bolsheviks if they had acted in a "spirit of bipartisanship", but they still would have all ended up living under communism. We must fight them, tooth and nail, and it starts now with the defense of Sarah Palin and unapologetic conservatism.

No Collaboration!

Missouri Backs the Other Guy Against the Communist

2008-11-06T07:11:00.000-08:00

I have to say, nothing makes me more proud to be a Missourian right now than the fact that we didn't drink the kool aid. I could care less that we've lost our "bellwether" status. We've gained a "rational" status. My only issue is in the coming War Between the States, Missouri will be allied with Kansas. Damned redlegs!

Our Way Forward

2008-11-05T05:55:00.000-08:00

So here we are. First I'd like to apologize to the rest of the world. You may not realize this or you may not want to admit it, but the American electorate just screwed you over, big time. Secondly, all you young "first time voters". As you get older, many of you will realize what you have done. Just know right now that I have no sympathy for you. If I can figure it out this young, so can you. Instead you selfishly voted in droves for the hip, trendy pick because as much as you think you are "sticking it to the man", all you are doing is falling into lockstep with the rest of the misguided misanthropes that make up these fascist organizations we call college campuses, who can't seem to understand that they're not being individualistic by voting the same way everyone else on campus is voting no matter how many piercings they have. Congratulations, you just screwed over the country you're set to inherit. Someday maybe you'll understand that adults don't whine about the costs of student loans and vote a socialist into power. Adults understand that you pay for what you get and act accordingly (they get a job).

That said, we can't play the blame game for very long. We will have to rebuild the Republican Party and the Conservative movement, but we can't afford to neglect our role as opposition. It appears that the Democrats will fall short of the 60 Senate seats needed for a filibuster proof majority. The 40+ GOP Senators had better find a spine and find it fast. I don't buy the Obama as a pragmatist who will govern from the center line we've been fed from people on our own side. Barry will see this as a mandate and an opportunity to reshape this country in the progressive image. There will be at least two years where he will be able to pass whatever he wants if the GOP can't maintain unity against him in the Senate. I know that there are Olympia Snowe types in the Senate who can't wait to cooperate with the Democrat majority, and John McCain's concession speech didn't exactly fill me with hope last night. McCain needs to be nowhere near party leadership in the Senate. The moderates have had their chance this past election, and contrary to popular opinion, more times than not during the Bush administration. Its time for conservatives to rally around someone. We are facing the abyss. Will it be Mitch McConnell? I have my doubts, but we need a strong, steady voice in the Senate. Hopefully we'll be able to utilize moderate Democrat Senators from time to time. Otherwise our last line of defense is the courts.

It appears that the first legislative tasks come January will be the Employee Free Choice Act and the Fairness Doctrine. I don't think that either of these should hold up if brought to the current Supreme Court. However, how long will the court remain constituted as it currently is? Of the current basic conservative majority on the court, Chief Justice Roberts will be 54 in January, Justice Scalia will be 75 in March, Justice Kennedy will be 75 in July, Justice Thomas will be 61 in June, and Justice Alito will be 59 in April. No matter what you think of the Bush administration, part of his legacy will be the presence of Roberts and Alito on the court for the next 10-20 years. The question though, is Scalia and Kennedy. I don't care about the liberal members, if Obama replaces any of them it won't alter the balance of the Court. While Kennedy isn't a reliable conservative vote, he is infinitely better than anyone Obama would appoint. Remember, Obama would choose his justices based on their empathy for certain segments of society and has expressed regret that the courts haven't redistributed American wealth regardless of action by Congress. Scalia and Kennedy must remain on the bench for at least four more years. Even two years would put us in a much better situation as long as the GOP can make midterm gains in the Senate, but experience makes me wary of trusting the courage and resolve of Republican Senators, therefore I pray Scalia and Kennedy can hold out for a Republican administration. This is the most important fight over the next 2-4 years. The only way we may be able to stop Obama is over the Constitutionality of his Legislative agenda. I'm afraid though that there is little that we can do other than pray for the health and energy of the current majority.

What we can do is demand conservatism from the Republican Party. The moderates have had their shot and its been an unmitigated disaster. Its time to get back to our roots. Its time to demand conservative candidates and principles. Fiscal conservatism must be brought back, no more bailouts. Its time to rediscover the Libertarian wing of our party. Don't abandon capitalism. We can't become a "me too" liberal party. Don't run from social issues. California is on the verge of banning gay marriage. Barack Obama wants to reinstitute Federal funding for abortion. The GOP must make a stand in the House and Senate. These are winning issues for us. We must reestablish ourselves as the conservative alternative. The American public hasn't really had one in a while.

It is what it is. Obama has won. We have to deal with it. We have to weather the coming storm as best we can. Do not feel sorry for yourself. We took an awful candidate and tried our best to drag him across the finish line. It didn't work. Live and learn. We'll carry on. Obama didn't forever alter the balance of power in America. We are still a center-right country. Did you notice how many bans on gay marriage passed last night? If we just stand fast to our conservative principles, America will hand us the reigns again. We survived 4 terms of FDR. We survived the Great Society. We survived Jimmy Carter for goodness sakes. America and conservatism will survive Obama, but the Republican Party had better rediscover its convictions, and fast.

Always Back the Other Guy Against A Communist

2008-11-04T08:39:00.000-08:00

This is it. Hopefully my fellow citizens don't force me to question my faith in Democracy today, but seriously, if we elect Obama, the electorate is too dumb to be free. There's nothing as tragic as a people willingly shackling themselves. If only Parliament knew that all they had to do was bribe the colonies with other people's money and we'd dance our way willingly into subjugation. We'd even call it "salvation". McCain may be an awful candidate, but he fits my general rule of thumb: Always back the other guy against a communist.

My Closing Argument

2008-11-03T07:12:00.000-08:00

Barack Obama likes to frame this election as a turning point. A moment to "make history" in his words. He prognosticates that this is a crucial choice we're making that will determine the future of America. He's right. Tomorrow Americans will cast their vote to decide what kind of America they will live in. Will we be a free capitalist society that understands that with freedom comes risk, that we have a right to pursue happiness, but government should not attempt to guarantee it? Or will we accept the reassuring embrace of the State? Will we sacrifice freedom and leave our well being in the hands of a supposedly benevolent central government? Its a simple choice. Capitalism or socialism. Freedom or totalitarianism. Liberty or tyranny.

John McCain is not a perfect candidate. Many of his views ring with a populism that is little different than Obama's. I admittedly swore to myself long ago that I would never vote for the man. My sheer rage at the Republican Party in nominating him is difficult to express in words. I was determined to punish the GOP by withholding my vote this cycle. I believed John McCain would shatter the conservative base within the party and set the conservative movement back years. This is still true, though the Palin nomination has assuaged some of my fears. But while McCain may destroy the GOP as a conservative party, Obama will destroy America as a relatively conservative country. I feel I don't have the luxury this year of a vote on principle. Barack Obama is too dangerous. He is an admitted socialist and the damage he could do with a Democrat House and 60 friendly Senators is incalculable. A mere cursory examination of his past words and affiliations reveals Obama to be a radical leftist. He sees America as a guilty society who's "salvation" can only be achieved through collectivization and redistribution of wealth. His domestic policy is premised on the idea that the American system of capitalism is inherently unfair and must be remedied with an increasingly powerful and intrusive central government freed from the shackles of Constitutional limitations. His foreign policy is premised around the notion that America is the cause of the worlds problems, that we are too powerful and must submit to the wishes of the UN and the international community whose intentions are not compatible with America's best interests.

Its a shame that my case for John McCain is all about Barack Obama, but this election sadly is all about Barack Obama. McCain's involvement is only peripheral, at least for me. As Thomas Sowell put it, the only man who can get me to vote for John McCain is Barack Obama. It is unfortunate that the Republican Party has served up such an inept challenger to the closest thing to a marxist ever hoisted upon a presidential ticket. America should have a choice between two contrasting world views, if only we had nominated a clear, conservative voice. Barack Obama should be facing a 49 state landslide. Instead America faces a second "New Deal" from a man who has openly lamented the failure of the courts to impose socialism upon us. Just as I voted against John Kerry in 2004, I find myself voting not for John McCain, but against Barack Obama. 4 years of bloated Federal budgets and apparent wholesale abandonment of conservative principles have severely jaded me, but I know that I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. I know a McCain administration will enrage me on a regular basis, but an Obama administration will probably lead me to question my faith in humanity. I'd much rather regret McCain nominating another O'Conner than Obama nominating another Ginsberg.

So America will have to decide. Liberty or Statism. A Constitutional Republic or an almost theocratic socialism that hearkens back to the days of the Social Gospel with all the fascistic tendancies that come with it. While our current situation is immeasurably better than the Great Depression, Obama seeks to take us back to it, or at least back to the Depression mindset. So we will make a choice forced upon us on Tuesday: Freedom or insulation. The uncertainty of adult life, or the safety of childhood. The freedom to fail, or freedom from responsibility. Individuality or collectivization.

Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, as an Italian chap once put it. This is what we face Tuesday. So if you're a McCain supporter, go vote tomorrow. Don't be surprised when the media tries to discourage you and paints the early returns as precursors to a landslide. They're uneasy. Its not supposed to be this close. If you're an Obama supporter, I'd ask that just because you're afraid to be an adult, don't force the rest of us to be children. However, in the spirit of non partisanship, I wish you a pleasant day as you vote yourself a share of the National Treasury. Unless, that is, you work for ACORN, in which case I wish you a safe trip as you attempt to vote in every County in Ohio.

You Want To Make History? Let's Talk About History

2008-10-29T07:07:00.000-07:00

Considering Constitutional scholar and Law Professor Barack Obama's regret over the restrictions placed on the government by the Constitution (a legal document) and its failure (or as I like to put it, "runaway success") to guarantee a right to your neighbor's property, I thought that maybe we should consider what the founders thought on the subject:

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

I suppose that means the Republic has been on the down slope since the ratification of the 16th Amendment (which may not be legal). I guess Barry's going to make America great again by destroying the Republic and calling Ben Franklin an old fool.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

So the author of the Declaration of Independence saw redistribution of wealth as a violation of every man's right to the fruits of his own labor. Oh well, what did he know about freedom and tyranny?

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

So President Jefferson would see Barry Obama as unwise, unfrugal, and an advocate of "bad government". Remember though, Barry was President of the Harvard Law Review. He surely knows more about good government than Thomas Jefferson.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Not according to the Warren Court which wasn't that radical according to Barry.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

Harsh words for Barry from another Founding Father. Does Barry seek anarchy and tyranny? All he wants to do is render the legal document that defines the government of our union null, void, and meaningless. Its not like he launched his political career in the house of an avowed anarchist or anything like that.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Does that put "spreading the wealth" out of the question? What did Madison know anyway. He's only the Father of our Constitution.

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

So whenever someone talks about America's duty to help out the less fortunate in America (those richer than only 90% of the rest of the world) it flies in the face of what James Madison believed the Federal government's purpose was when the Constitution was ratified? Surely they teach this at Harvar- . . . never mind.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”
-Benjamin Franklin

So the best way to help a poor person is not to enable them in their poverty but to motivate them to pull themselves out of it? Well, if that were true, then how did poverty completely end after the Great Society programs?

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
-Benjamin Franklin

So happiness is not supposed to be benevolently bestowed upon us by the State? Huh, who knew?

I hate to say it Barry, but I think your "change" is the type of thing Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and the Constitution specifically intended to stop. But what do they know? They were only the most famous of the greatest collection of men assembled at one place and time in History. You were President of the Harvard Law Review!

Read more quotes at Conservative Colloquium and The Reference Frame.

So That's What He Means

2008-10-27T08:22:00.000-07:00

Finally, we know what Obama means by "change". Obama's own words from a Chicago Public radio interview in 2001:

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution. . . (The Constitution) Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted. . . one of the. . .tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."

Glad we cleared that up eight days before the election. Thank goodness there's still time for the media to apologize to everyone they labeled as "right wing lunatics" for conjecturing that Senator Obama may be a marxist. I'm sure all the big news organizations will lead with this revelation tonight.

Also, should (God forbid) Barry win the election, can we have him hooked up to a lie detector on inauguration day when he swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States?

I Have a Bit of a Problem With the Way the News Is Covered

2008-10-23T09:30:00.000-07:00

Via a new favorite Patterico:

"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread. His "bright eyes and easy smile" struck me as contrived and calculated--maybe because I was supporting another candidate. Since then, I've never heard him say anything new or earthshaking, or support anything that would require the courage of his convictions. I only voted for him in this last race--because his opponent was a pinhead. And I've been mostly alone in my views. But maybe that's changing."

This post has since been removed, I wonder why?

I hold the media solely responsible for the ascendancy of Barack Obama. I've always had a mild disdain and aloof contempt for the likes of CBS, NBC, the New York Times, etc., but it has never developed into vitriol. I viewed these DNC mouthpieces from the perspective of an enlightened one. How could they hurt me? I bear the knowledge of the truth, what this country was, what it is, what it should be. I was firm in my principles and therefore confident that none of the trite rubbish they publish could affect me. I never imagined they could raise up a marxist like Barack Obama purely by their own machinations, while at the same time hiding his true identity. My naivete is gone, and along with it my detached amusement. All I feel now is complete, utter, hatred. I hate their smug condescension to the average American. I hate their pretense of objectivity. I hate their bold faced complacency in the collectivization of America. I hate their brazen distortion and suppression of facts. I hate their misrepresentation of opinion as fact. I wholeheartedly despise their gilded facade of professionalism. I take an unhealthy joy in every drop in ratings or circulation they endure. I just, unrepentantly, hate them.

I don't hate Barack Obama. I dislike him, and I despise his conscience misrepresentation of himself, but I don't hate the man. (FYI, I do and always have hated John McCain) I lay this all at the feet of the main stream media. Its one thing to be admittedly leftist. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion, but when you portray yourself as the objective arbiter of facts as you shoehorn a borderline trotskyite into the office of the Presidency while burying his true nature behind fluff pieces and pictures of him playing basketball, you aid and abet in the destruction of America as it was founded. That I cannot forgive. If Barack Obama is elected by an electorate with the understanding that he is a moderate, I shall become a swirling ball of seething hatred and vile repugnance. I pray it doesn't affect my objectivity, but I don't think I can supress this creeping revulsion that is wrapping itself around my soul. I fear that I won't be able to step away from the brink when socialism comes to America in an empty suit. Instead I'll willingly take the plunge into a deep, blood red, sea of frothing abhorrence. I'll be here blogging if you'd like to come along for the ride.

Shame on Lewis Diuguid

2008-10-22T06:26:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama is a socialist, plain and simple. He believes in a planned economy, an extremely progressive tax code, and he wants to allow the central government to intrude in almost every facet of our lives. (except if a doctor wants to kill a newborn, government's not allowed to intervene there) Obama has said this himself with his words and political platform. Socialism is socialism.

Unless that is, you're on the left and "socialist" is one of those nasty labels (like "liberal" last election) that reveals a leftist identity that you've been trying to hide from the public. So the world must be removed from public discussion. It must be twisted to mean something very foreign from its actual definition. How can we do that? Lewis Diuguid of the Kansas City Star knows how. Not satisfied with his last name merely being a palindrome, he has decided to make it synonymous with the slow death of intellectual freedom:

"The 'socialist' label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality."

I know how you feel, I had a stroke the first time I read this as well. So now we on the bigoted, race baiting, right aren't allowed to call advocates of wealth redistribution "socialists" if they happen to be half black. Diuguid goes on:

"Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization. . ."

Anyone familiar with my blog will know that I believe Barack Obama will be the the most socialist President we've had since the Great Society. In other words, he'll be on par with LBJ and FDR -- two white guys. Unfortunately, socialism doesn't discriminate. Its been advocated by every race on planet Earth and as an ideology, its responsible for the deaths of Europeans, Africans, Asians, South Americans, Arabs, and just about any other race you can think of.

Now, if you want a term that actually has come to be associated with black people, you have one in "civil rights". The NAACP is not the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. As a commenter points out, the National Rifle Association outdates it. The NAACP was founded in 1905. The NRA was founded in 1871.

As for the NAACP, it was cofounded by Mary White Ovington, a member of the Socialist Party. I criticize the NAACP not because it is a black organization, but because it promotes socialism like other leftist organizations such as the ACLU, and NOW. If a black person or organization is socialist, its not racist to call them such.

"McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Shame on McCain and Palin."

Now its time to take a journey to cliche land. This tactic is Orwellian in its suppression of free discussion. In newspeak, the term "free" couldn't describe political freedom because the concept no longer existed. You could freely use the word because half its meaning had been torn away. The previous sentence would be impossible. Unfortunately the concept of socialism does still exist, but the word will lose its meaning if people like Diugiud have their way. The easiest way to stifle discussion is to literally take away words. "Liberal" no longer means liberal, "socialism" no longer means socialism, "marxism" no longer means marxism. If one is no longer allowed to use terms to describe someone's ideology, one is extremely handicapped when trying to defeat that person in the marketplace of ideas.

Shame on Lewis Diuguid. Barack Obama is a socialist.

All We Really Need to Know

2008-10-21T06:43:00.000-07:00

France chooses Obama over McCain 64%-4%. So Obama has the support of a stagnant, socialist State with a 35 hour work week, rampant unemployment, an openly rebellious and violent muslim population, and who hasn't won a military conflict by itself since the turn of the century. I wonder why they like Barry so much?

Think There Won't Be Another Great Depression? Just Wait for the Next New Deal

2008-10-21T06:19:00.000-07:00

The consequences of an Obama Presidency are vast and terrible. And, as Michael Medved explains, for all intents and purposes, irreversible.

Why Labels Are Important

2008-10-20T07:17:00.000-07:00

Barack Obama appears to be poised to win the office of the Presidency with a socialist platform. How did this happen? The United States of America smashed socialism decades ago, at home and abroad. Why then, are we now embracing it? I think the answer is that we're not embracing it. We're embracing a candidate, Barack Obama. I don't believe that most Americans are aware of Barry's radicalism. America is a center-right country. Barry knows this and has adjusted his rhetoric accordingly. He says he'll give 95% of Americans a tax cut. Sounds pretty conservative doesn't it? Except that 95% of Americans don't pay taxes. Giving a "tax credit" to those who don't pay taxes is socialism, welfare, redistribution of wealth, whatever you prefer to call it, except until recently, no one (at least no one connected to the McCain campaign) has called it that. Only during the final month of the campaign does McCain take off the gloves and attempt to warn the American people:

"Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," McCain said in a radio address.

Way to go, but where was this in June? Obama isn't anything fresh or new. He's running on over a centruy of failed policy that is responsible for untold misery and stagnation. He embodies a radical leftism many in America thought we'd defeated and left for dead in the seventies. This should have been a simple exercise for the McCain campaign, the Obama camp is seemingly run by William Jennings Bryan and the reanimated corpse of Friedrich Nietzsche. These ideas and ideologies were long ago discredited. However, McCain has waited until almost the last minute to point this out. If he loses, he can only blame himself.

Was He Waiting for Schieffer to do It?

2008-10-16T06:45:00.000-07:00

If Barry Obama is elected on November 4th, he will be the most radical, left wing President in American history. This will happen without the opposition candidate pointing this out to the American electorate. Think all those "undecided independents" would be leaning toward Obama after last night's debate if McCain had detailed how he was a socialist? Johnny is so used to attacking Republicans and conservatives, that he looks lost when dealing with someone truly deserving of his ire: a left wing socialist.

Last night's debate was McCain's perfect opportunity to paint Obama with a socialist brush. It wouldn't have been hard. The debate was centered on economics, McCain had every chance. He properly mentioned Obama's association with Ayers and ACORN, but he didn't tie it all together. Why did Ayers support Obama at the start of his political career? Because Obama is a radical socialist, in line with the views of the SDS and the Weathermen. Why did Obama work for ACORN? Because they actively promote socialism in America. These were softballs lobed to McCain that he didn't swing at. McCain did bring up Joe the Plumber and Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, but once again he didn't tie it together. He never used the "s" word. He never explained why Obama's comment was damaging, what it said about his ideological beliefs. I could be wrong, but I never heard him use the word "redistribution" when talking about Obama, he should have. He should have quoted Marx, that's essentially what Obama was doing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is what "spread the wealth around" means. There is a dangerously high probability that we're going to elect a radical socialist to the office of the Presidency and no one in the McCain campaign or the Republican Party is warning the American people. Why the hell do we vote for them?

Arguing Against Gravity

2008-10-15T06:30:00.000-07:00

I was reading a book last night (Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War, a fascinating book for any history buffs out there.) and I came upon a chapter on the 1906 British election between the Unionist Party (A hodgepodge of Liberal and mostly Conservative MPs united by opposition to Irish home rule advocated by famous Liberal leader William Gladstone) and the remnants of the Liberal party. Not to get into too large of a history lesson, but the Unionist member of the Cabinet who was originally responsible for the split from Gladstone was Joseph Chamberlain. (Father of future idiot Neville Chamberlain.) What I found fascinating was a tidbit about a Liberal MP excitedly showing his wife a newspaper article detailing Chamberlain's new found desire for a tariff which flew in the face of traditional British belief in free trade. The Liberal MP excitedly exclaimed that arguing against the free market was like arguing against gravity and the Laws of Physics. (For any confused American readers, the term "liberal" in late 19th and turn of the century Europe didn't carry the same meaning as it does in our country today. It was more akin to "libertarian" or "classical liberal".)

I must say, it made me a bit nostalgic for an age I've only read about, especially after watching pundits and world leaders proclaim the death of capitalism over the past few weeks. There was once a time, before citizens began voting themselves a share of the national treasury, that elected leaders and the public at large had rational beliefs about economics and complete faith in capitalism. Of course World War I and the ascendancy of Keynesian economics changed that in Britain, and I'm certain that we'll never get to that ideal during my lifetime. (See the Keynesian government bailout approved by both parties and signed by our "conservative" President.) Still, if people and governments were rational once, they can be rational again. After all, arguing against the free market is like arguing against the Laws of Physics.

Obama's Marxist Cousin to Impose Sharia Law in Kenya?

2008-10-14T09:28:00.000-07:00

Why are we 3 weeks from election day and no one is talking about this?

About 50 parishioners were locked into the Assemblies of God church before it was set ablaze. They were mostly women and children. Those who tried to flee were hacked to death by machete-wielding members of a mob numbering 2,000.

The 2008 New Year Day atrocity in the Kenyan village Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi, had all the markings of the Rwanda genocide of a decade earlier.

By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians
The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama's father.

Mr. Odinga had the backing of Kenya's Muslim community heading into the election. For months he denied any ties to Muslim leaders, but fell silent when Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, appeared on Kenya television displaying a memorandum of understanding signed on Aug. 29, 2007, by Mr. Odinga and the Muslim leader. Mr. Odinga then denied his denials.

The details of the MOU were shocking. In return for Muslim backing, Mr. Odinga promised to impose a number of measures favored by Muslims if he were elected president. Among these were recognition of "Islam as the only true religion," Islamic leaders would have an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original]," installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction, a ban on Christian preaching, replacement of the police commissioner who "allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists," adoption of a women's dress code, and bans on alcohol and pork. . .
Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama's six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials," Mr. Obama announced.

"Kenyans are now yearning for change," he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama's remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans - he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga. . .
Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama's father were both from the Luo community, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, but their ties run much deeper. Mr. Odinga told a stunned BBC Radio interviewer the reason why he and Mr. Obama were staying in near daily telephone contact was because they were cousins. In a Jan. 8, 2008, interview, Mr. Odinga said Mr. Obama had called him twice the day before while campaigning in the New Hampshire primary before adding, "Barack Obama's father is my maternal uncle."

Com·mu·nism, noun - Spreading the wealth around.

2008-10-14T07:03:00.000-07:00

Does anyone still not understand that Obama is a socialist? On Monday he told a tax burdened plumber that:

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too. . . My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

In case anybody didn't catch that, Barry is advocating redistribution of wealth. This is a fork in the road for America. Are we going to at least try and keep some semblance of a free market, or are we going to embark down the dark path of socialism and State power? Does anyone really envy Europe or Canada? There's a reason that America is the first power in the world, and its not socialism.

Now Barry, we all know that you do want to punish the rich for their success. That's the big draw of progessivism. You're courting the angry, jealous, and spiteful demographic who are envious of their neighbors, bitter at personal failures, and are indignant the success of others. Taxing the rich doesn't improve the lives of the lower and middle classes, at least not economically. Psychologically, some take pleasure in seeing the rich attacked and their assets seized. This is who Obama is targeting. Socialism never builds "everyone who is behind" up. It drags the successful down.

Unfortunatly, Obama isn't just playing at the baser emotions of some embittered Americans (not the "guns and God" kind), he's a true beleiver. He has been a radical leftist perhaps all his adult life. He wants wealth redistribution on a scale he dare not admit to America. He wants to rebuild America on a new foundation that the founders would find obsene. Let's make no bones about it, redistribution of wealth is State sponsered theft, period. The government has no right to take the property of one American by force and give it to another American who in no way earned it. I can think of no better definition of tyranny. This is why I'm going to drink myself into a stuper and vote for Senator McCain. I can't stand the man, but at least he's not a marxist.

Update: Kudos to the McCain campaign for calling a spade a spade:

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

The Green Movement isn't Pro Growth?

2008-10-08T09:02:00.000-07:00

Reuters yesterday:

"A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on Tuesday.

Slower economic growth worldwide could help slow growth of carbon dioxide emissions and trigger more careful use of energy resources, though the global economic turmoil may also divert focus from efforts to counter climate change, said Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the depletion of the ozone layer.

'It's a cruel thing to say ... but if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage,' Crutzen told Reuters in an interview."

Wait, so slowing economic growth is linked to a decrease in CO2 levels? These issues are related? Do environmentalists know this? Do they know that the easiest way to lower CO2 in the atmosphere is to slow, stop, or even reverse economic growth? Thank goodness they don't have questionable motives. Imagine if someone's goal was to slow economic growth because they were say. . . a marxist who hated capitalism. They could use global warming as a decoy issue in order to destroy a pro growth, capitalist economy. Thank goodness there are none of those nefarious characters around.

One Day, We'll Wake Up, And We'll Be In Canada

2008-10-08T07:30:00.000-07:00

Much can happen between now and November, but after watching the debate last night, I think the election has become Obama's to lose. Palin did her job slowing the Obama/Biden, but McCain needed to win last night in his favorite "town hall" format to make up ground. He didn't. He said some good things and Obama misrepresented his leftism as usual, but the biggest thing I came away with wasn't a good line or a blatent lie, it was that Obama looked young and McCain looked old. I'm a political junkie, if that's what I came away with, I can only imagine what the average American with a 30 second political attention span thinks.

Is conservatism pretty much dead now in American politics? There was time after time last night when McCain just accepted the liberal premise of the questions and suggested big government solutions. I believe if we had a genuine conservative running who could articulate our positions and challenge the assumptions of the questioners and public at large, we'd be winning this election. Instead we have McCain letting Barry get away with calling health care a "right". If we're going to let liberals make up new rights that defy the actual concept of the "natural right" that America is based upon, what's the point of conservatives continuing to call the Republican Party home? What if McCain wins? How much better than Obama will that actually be? Sure it will put off America's participation in the slow decline of the West for another decade, but after that? Its inevitable without a strong conservative party. We'd be there right now if not for the Reagan 80's. If McCain can't challenge Obama on an issue as fundamental as the nature of rights, can we trust him to challenge Pelosi and Reid? Can we trust the Republicans in Congress? They just helped pass a decidedly nonconservative government bailout.

We need a seachange, no matter who wins this election. I feel that we've ceded back much of the ground we gained after Reagan's victory, and its our own fault. The conservative cause needs new, articulate, true believing, advocates. Neocons are valuable allies, but we've let them seize the Party, and the concept of economic libertarianism has suffered as a result. We can have thousands of bloggers and radio hosts advocating real conservatism, but until we get politicians actively promoting it to the public at large, we will continue to lose ground, even when we win.

Why I'll Vote For McCain (Drunk)

2008-10-07T11:25:00.000-07:00

French President (supposed conservative, for France I guess) Nicolas Sarkozy:

"We want a new world to come out of this. . . We want to set up the basis for a capitalism of entrepreneurs, not speculators.''

By "capitalism" he means "heavy regulation of the private sector by an intrusive central government with little knowledge of economics or understanding of the 'invisible hand'", guided by "questionable --socialistic-- political motives"

McCain might (please God) balk at this new order the Europeans desire. Obama will embrace it, as well as the rest of their statist ideologies.

Damned Right I'm an Angry, White, Male!

2008-10-07T10:31:00.000-07:00

Obama critic and author of "The Obama Nation" Jerome Corsi has been detained by authorities in Kenya:

"Corsi had promised a news conference today that would 'expose details of deep secret ties between U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and a section of Kenya government leaders, their connection to certain sectoral groups in Kenya and subsequent plot to be executed in Kenya should Senator Obama win the American presidency.'"

Hmm, combine this with the millions of dollars Obama is allegedly receiving from abroad, and you begin to wonder who is backing his meteoric rise to power. Personally it frightens me a bit that a man who would be the most liberal President since LBJ appears to have such foreign support. D0 we really know anything about this guy? He's a relative unknown with socialist, if not marxist leanings, who has unknown, possibly foreign, backers behind the scenes. Do the American People know this? Is anyone trying to tell them? Do we know the kind of "change" Obama represents? Good Lord! The Democrats nominate a collectivist with more backing abroad than in the States, and all the Republicans throw against him is John McCain?

If Obama is elected, the resulting 4-8 years of socialism wrought on America will be a black mark not only upon the Democrats, but upon the spineless Republicans who were too unprincipled and cowardly to oppose McCain and then speak out against Obama. Why should we vote for you? Even in the minority role, you won't speak out. The reason I'm even considering voting for your nominee is because the other side is rolling out a Maoist. Big changes (1976-80-esque) need to take place in the Republican Party. Even if we somehow redefeat socialism in America, this will be far too close. Remember when wackjob leftists lost in 40+ State landslides? Do today's idiot GOP leaders know how hard the Buckleys, and Hayeks, and Goldwaters, and Reagans struggled on the fringes of American politics to pull this country back from the collectivist abyss? Now we just give all those gains back? We let them create a financial crisis, we let them blame us for it, we let them declare it a new "Great Depression", and we not only let them decide we need "New Deal" type government intervention, we collude with them to do it?!

Its not until now that I understand what it was like for men like Hayek and Buckley, what its like to be a lone voice in the wilderness, "standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'"

Can "Soft" Fascism Become "Hard"?

2008-10-01T07:45:00.000-07:00

Great Britain is rapidly becoming a case study in what Jonah Goldberg calls "soft" or "nice" fascism. A new study at the University of Surry on the impact of food on climate has recommended the rationing of meat and milk:

"People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change. . . total food consumption should be reduced, especially 'low nutritional value' treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.

It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops. . ."

Now, why is this fascist? If you're familiar with this blog, you know that I routinely accuse the environmental movement of marxist intent, and this certainly fits the bill: Returning to the habits of of our grandparents, throwing off the "wasteful" conveniences capitalism has wrought, actually reducing our standard of living for the benefit of the whole. These are all marxist tenants, but fascist?

Fascism and marxism are interconnected, sister ideologies. They both seek State control of the economy, as well as all other aspects of its citizens lives. They are both leftist. I cannot emphasize this enough. Now this study is particularly fascist because of the moral equivalent to war this study seems to be giving the "fight" against "run-away climate change". This is a favorite fascist tactic used by Mussolini and Hitler. Create a crisis to control the people. We must ration ourselves. We must sacrifice. We must trust the State. Some freedoms are now counterproductive to the greater good:

"Tara Garnett, the report's author, warned that campaigns encouraging people to change their habits voluntarily were doomed to fail"

So the State must intervene. The citizens should no longer be allowed to "voluntarily" choose what they wish to eat, where they wish to travel, what they drive, etc.

"(the report says) 'Study upon study has shown that awareness-raising campaigns alone are unlikely to work, particularly when it comes to more difficult changes.'"

We can no longer trust the people to know what is good for themselves. Big Brother --or in this case, Loving Mother-- must intervene.

Now, all western democracies have a certain degree of "soft" or "nice" fascism. But I believe Britain is much further along. The British are already the most watched society in the world. Add in the naziesque attack on cigarettes and personal responsibility, and you have a disturbing trend in British society. The State is taking more and more control over the citizen's life. I wonder whether or not Britain will make the turn from "soft" to "hard" or what you may call a more "classical" fascism. There is a rapidly growing, unassimalated, islamic population in Great Britain who are at odds with British culture, tradition, and government. Something's going to give. If this continues, I believe there's a chance of a civil war. If the muslims prevail, you could have a militant islamic state. What if the Anglo-Saxons prevail though? The framework is already there for a traditional fascist state. Throw in open, violent conflict with a completely different cultural and racial segment of society, and I fear you may end up with fascism everyone can recognize.

This is all speculation, and Britannia may well pull herself back before she goes over the edge --there's already a backlash against the environmentalist burden imposed the British-- but the founders in America who committed treason rather then be denied the inherent rights of the "Englishman" would be appalled over what it means to be one today. There must be consequences. I just wonder what they'll be.

We Should Make Economics Compulsory for Every Member of Congress

2008-10-01T06:35:00.000-07:00

Dr. Thomas Sowell puts the current economic situation in terms even Barney Frank can understand.

A Political "Solution"

A Political "Solution": Part II

Bailout Politics

Penny-Wise Politics

The 228

2008-09-29T13:28:00.000-07:00

What a bizarre day. Let's all just take a step back and calm down for a second. 777 is the biggest points drop in Dow history, but at just shy of 7% it doesn't even approach the 26% drop in 1987. There will be much moaning and gnashing of teeth. Congressional leaders are already declaring that they will not give up, but they're going to have to go back to the drawing board. Beyond that, there's even a question of whether or not some leaders in Congress want a bailout vote to succeed. Nancy Pelosi must not have wanted this to pass, that's the only way I can explain away her anti-GOP rant at the close of the debate today. You don't build bipartisan support for a deeply unpopular bill by attacking the minority party whose support you need, right before the vote. We know she supports heavy handed government intervention in the U.S. economy, so her actions today leave only two possibilities in my mind. She may be gambling that the economy is going to tank (Wall Street's reaction to the vote was predictable) and wants to blame the Republicans for voting down the bailout, or she is completely inept, incompitent, and just plain stupid. If anyone else has a viable explanation for her unhinged remarks today, I'd like to hear it.

Now don't get me wrong, I hate this bailout and am happy to see it fail. The bumbling Republicans however, have missed their opportunity. This crisis was caused by government regulation. By forcing lenders to accept less than qualified home buyers because of economic or racial status, they placed the housing market on a house of cards. Instead of pointing this out and educating the American people, the GOP leaders (you know, the party of limited government) responded to an over regulation problem with support for a mass government intervention that would make Karl Marx smile in whatever corner of hell he's stewing in at the moment. Are there any classical liberals in the upper echolons of the Republican Party anymore? Thank God the rank and file voted against it (if only because they feared being booted out of office). This is the problem conservatives face right now. We seem to be losing our hold on the Republican Party. Hardly if ever do I see an elected Republican promote the Libertarian economic principles that our country was founded on and swept Reagan into office. The American people aren't dumb. They will see who is in the right if we actually argue and defend our position. As Margaret Thatcher put it: "The facts of life are conservative," but you have to let people know what the facts are.

The 228 stand victorious for now, hopefully no one shows Henry Paulson a goat path.

What If The Moose Was Uppity?

2008-09-25T09:02:00.000-07:00

"If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention. Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through."

So says esteemed Florida Democrat Alcee Hastings. Now, I'll admit, I'm not much of a hunter, and I've never stripped a moose. I do however, know many hunters who I suppose could be described as "gun toting" and who certainly have stripped a deer at least. Contrary to Congressman Hastings' fears, I've never known any of them to harm a black person or a Jew, unless their descriptions of their hunting trips are completely eronious. I'm not sure how moose come into this, but I'm assuming that Congressman Hastings sees gun ownership as some sort of precursor to a racially motivated crime. I can assure the good Congressman that at least here in Missouri, there are many black men who tote guns and go hunting. And they, like their white counterparts, rarely if ever go on pogroms when they return.

Perhaps if Congressman Hastings is truly concerned about violent gun crimes, he should turn his attention elsewhere. It is a common misconception that most gun violence is motivated by the Alaskan moose hunting culture. In reality, most gun crimes are commited by blacks against other blacks in intercity urban areas. Many would be surprised that Sarah Palin and her moose feud have little if any significance to this problem. I would argue that much of this violence can be attributed to a violent ganster culture that has become a fixture of the urban black community. Perhaps Congressman Hastings believes Barry Obama can "organize" these communities into more productive pass time activities like say, moose hunting? (I kid, I kid)

In Florida, I would assume that aligators are responsible for the deaths of more blacks and Jews than Alaskan moose hunters. Regaldless Congressman, your fears, while honest mistakes, are batshit crazy. I think Governor Palin has bigger worries than organizing the next kristallnacht.

Friedrich Hayek, Where Art Thou?

2008-09-23T07:31:00.000-07:00

It seems likely that both candidates will miss the vote on the trillion dollar bailout plan that may be set for Friday. I understand Barry's reluctance. On one hand, this is the massive government intervention that liberal socialist types have wet dreams about. On the the other, Obama is trying to keep America in the dark about his radical socialist leanings.

McCain has no excuse. If he wants to keep saying that he was on the front lines of the Reagan Revolution, he needs to show up and vote against this bill. When Obama and the media rip him for it, educate the voters. Tell them why government intervention doesn't work. Tell them that these mismanged corporate behemoths created by Congress don't deserve the American tax payer's hard earned money. Tell them that Keynesian economics have been long ago discredited. Can't McCain understand that most of his newfound strength in the polls is due to the appeasment of conservatives with the Palin pick? I've been so happy with Governor Palin, that I almost forgot that John McCain isn't a conservative. Every time I grab McCain's olive branch, he whacks me in the face with the tree. I feel like an idiot teenage girl who knows her boyfriend is cheating on her, but stays with him anyway.

If I had any self esteem, I'd tell McCain to screw himself, but he keeps telling me I'm pretty.

America Needs The TVA!

2008-09-23T07:08:00.000-07:00

Demonstrating her complete grasp of the concept of irony, Hillary Clinton believes that "'once we get through this immediate crisis,' the country should look at some Great Depression-era type of governmental entity to deal with it." Like say, Fannie Mae? Government driven solutions to economic woes always work so well don't they? The Smoot-Hawley Tariff did its job, hamming the final nail into the coffin of the Roaring 20's and creating an America so destitute, that socialism seemed attractive. I'm sure Hillary, Obama, the DNC, don't want that. I mean its not like the Democrat candidate was endorsed by the Communist Party USA or anything.

Canada Needs A "Muslims With Inconvieniences Act"

2008-09-16T07:03:00.000-07:00

Kathy wonders why Toronto muslims don't just build their own salons? They could also move to Britain where they can successfully sue hairstylists who don't accede to their demands. Can Christian men in Saudi Arabia sue barbers who refuse to give them a quality shave? Personally, I don't think think it should be so hard for a Christian to get a decent pork steak in Medina.

Build Them Again, One Story Higher

2008-09-11T08:37:00.000-07:00

I Wonder Why The Russians Would Want Obama?

2008-09-10T12:28:00.000-07:00

According to a new poll by Worldpublicopinion.org:

"The survey of 16,063 people in 17 nations found majorities in only nine countries believe al Qaeda was behind the attacks on New York. . . On average, 46 percent of those surveyed said al Qaeda was responsible, 15 percent said the U.S. government, 7 percent said Israel and 7 percent said some other perpetrator. One in four people said they did not know who was behind the attacks."

Yet according to some, like Jonathan Freedland at the Guardian, the United States must listen to the opinion of the world when electing our President:

"Polling in Germany, France, Britain and Russia shows that Obama would win by whopping majorities, with the pattern repeated in Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Latin America. If November 4 were a global ballot, Obama would win it handsomely. If the free world could choose its leader, it would be Barack Obama. . . "

Can we poll Americans to decide who runs Germany, France, Britain, etc.? The free world doesn't elect its leader. America is the leader of the free world because of the sheer force of its cultural, economic, and military might. We can elect whoever the hell we want to because we're the one's who bankroll the military that's allowed you create your little socialist utopias (hah!) over the past 70 years. You want a say in who runs the most dominant country on Earth? Fine. Make your country the most dominant on Earth. Wait, I forgot. You're already trying with the EU, but alas, its socialist, so you can't compete. Yet you want us to elect a leader who will implement your failed policies? I suppose it is easier to drag us down than to build yourselves up.

"If Americans choose McCain, they will be turning their back on the rest of the world, choosing to show us four more years of the Bush-Cheney finger. And I predict a deeply unpleasant shift.

Until now, anti-Americanism has been exaggerated and much misunderstood: outside a leftist hardcore, it has mostly been anti-Bushism, opposition to this specific administration. But if McCain wins in November, that might well change. Suddenly Europeans and others will conclude that their dispute is with not only one ruling clique, but Americans themselves. For it will have been the American people, not the politicians, who will have passed up a once-in-a-generation chance for a fresh start - a fresh start the world is yearning for. . . "

Is this some sort of threat? What are you going to do? Dislike us more? I've been a dastardly Republican for these past 8 years, and I have to say your hatred/disgust/hysterics haven't bothered me all that much. I don't mind being despised by peacenik socialists, though it may bother my liberal countrymen who long for acceptance by the European elite. Boo f'ing hoo. Do you know how much I would love for America to renounce its role as leader of the free world? Do you know what a hassle it is? Do you know what its like to have the UN scold us while we bankroll them, even as they put 3rd world dictators who hate us on the Human Rights Committee? But who would take over our role? The Aussies are probably the only other country left with the balls to stand up to the thugs of the world, but unless/until they fill up that vast continent with people, they're not quite ready for primetime.

As much as I'd love for America to retire behind her borders and return to the isolationism George Washington preferred just so you'd finally realize what your economic situation is without the guarantee of American security, I know the world would go to hell in a handbasket labeled "Made in China", and Russia would eventually be knocking on Alaska's door from the Canadian side. So until your countries can grow up enough to take care of themselves Mr. Freedland, let's let the adults decide who leads (props up) the free world.

"If Americans reject Obama, they will be sending the clearest possible message to the rest of us - and, make no mistake, we shall hear it."

Once again, what are you going to do? Pull your 3000 troops out of Iraq? You're already doing it. Are you going to stop supporting America in the Security Council? Shall we allow Iran to acquire nuclear missiles? Just because the most popular boy wasn't elected class President? I'm going to say this in the clearest possible way, and I hope you hear it: You're an imbecile.

A Hick Response

2008-09-10T08:19:00.000-07:00

I was contemplating commenting on this bizarre anti-Palin rant by some weirdly vindictive Canadian (well, that's not fair to Canadians, whom I can only hope aren't frothing at the mouth with this much anti-American hatred) that's been making the rounds on the blogosphere, but LILEKS has already dismantled it so thoroughly, that there's not much more to say, but a few comments:

LILEKS: "You know, at some point the contempt the author has for the hicks has to be answered in the same terms. People don’t vote for Republicans on social issues to give themselves 'self-esteem' because of their 'broken existence,' and it’s the usual stupid reductive economic-uber-alles groupthink that makes her say such stupid things. If they had better jobs, they’d support abortion, redefining marriage, and firearms restrictions! The question of 'what’s the matter with Kansas' was posed by someone who couldn’t figure out why Kansas folk weren’t asking 'What’s the matter with us?' It’s the same bitter-guns-&-God-clinger notion that dogs another candidate, and it’s contemptuous – I mean, for heaven’s sake, who the hell is she to say the people of Kansas have a 'broken existence'? It almost sounds as if she is proudly overlettered, suspicious of the non-urban, and frankly disbelieving of the 'domestic.'

It pains me, but here is the quote by Heather Mallick that LILEKS is commenting on:

"The conventioneers are nothing like the rich men who run the party, and that's the mystery of the hick vote. They'd be much better served by the Democrats. I know Thomas Frank answered this in What's the Matter with Kansas?; I know that red states vote Republican on social issues to give themselves the only self-esteem available to their broken, economically abused existence."

This is possibly my biggest problem with the intellectual left. They see lower class GOP voters as simpletons who have been bamboozled into voting Republican by GOP slight of hand with social issues like abortion and gay marriage. "You idiot, don't you know the Democrats will give you stuff for free?! If only you weren't such a homophobe, Democrats would own this country! That's the only possible reason poor, white trash, midwesterners could possibly have for not voting Democrat when we offer them so many handouts." Nothing pisses me off more than this "What's the Matter With Kansas?" line of reasoning. Did it ever occur to you that "hick midwesterners" don't vote for the party of entitlments because they have more pride than that? Maybe they don't vote for "enlightened liberals" not because they've been fooled by James Dobson into voting against their economic interests, but because they don't think its right to steal from their rich neighbor just because he's better off? Maybe they'd rather earn what they have with their ability and effort than have some Washington elite take pity on them and "graciously bestow" upon them that which is not theirs to give in the first place? Maybe they understand that in America everyone is responsible for themselves and they don't hate their neighbors for achieving more success?

How does it feel, Miss Mallick, to know that these hick Republicans you so despise are the backbone of the a country far greater than your own? How does it feel to know that you rise every morning to write your silly little column under the blanket of protection provided by young men from Kansas, not enlightened elitists from the upper west side? How does it feel to know that the opinions of a CBC hack are as inconsiquential to them as a folk music mocumentary? How does it make you feel to know that these hicks you have such contempt for wouldn't deign to spit on you with their chewing tobbacco?

I try to keep this blog relatively clean, Miss Mallick, but fuck you. You're far to stupid and ignorant to ever realize how much more integrity a poor Republican has than yourself. And if you ever manage to stop marveling at your nuanced enlightenment, you may realize how insignificant you are to them.

Judas Was CEO Of An Oil Company

2008-09-09T07:36:00.000-07:00

From the Corner:

"How amusing is it that, in the wake of Sarah's hilarious take-down of community organizers, Obama supporters are passing around emails that say, 'Jesus was a community organizer, Pontius Pilate was a governor'? So Obama really does have a Messiah Complex!"

Obama just keeps stepping in it. First of all, who is this message geared toward? Obama's hard core supporters are committed leftists and therefore see people of faith as buffoons. This line may make them chuckle, but deep down they'll be irritated that Obama has to deign to appeal to these inbred hicks clinging to "God and guns". (Two things I beleive most people would be well served to rely on. The founders couldn't have been wrong about everything, could they Barry?) So is this supposed to be aimed at evangelicals, who are overwhelmingly right of center? If so, then Barry's campaign fundamentally missunderstands the Christian faith. Jesus Christ was only a "community organizer" to secualar socialists who have been trying to bend His ministry on Earth into an example of proto-Marxian communalism for over a century. To evangelicals, He wasn't a "community organizer", He was the Son of God and a carpenter, and any politician who seeks to compare himself to Christ is committing a terrible blastphamy.

As much as Barry fancies himself a "man of faith", he has little to no understanding of the American evangelical community. It bears little resemblence to Trinity United Barry, and Christians of all denominations frown upon self deification. Like it or not, you're not infallible. You're not even mildly well informed.

Did Obama Ever Vet Himself?

2008-09-04T06:57:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the light blogging as of late (especially at this critical juncture in the campaign), but work's been crazy and its College Football season, enough said.

Now some observations:

Sarah Palin is an out of the park home run for the McCain administration. He's simultaneously energized a lethargic (and frankly hostile) base and tricked the media into exposing its own biases. Take this slightly hysterical Politico piece today:

"On behalf of the elite media, I would like to say we are very sorry.
We have asked questions this week that we should never have asked.
We have asked pathetic questions like: Who is Sarah Palin? What is her record? Where does she stand on the issues? And is she is qualified to be a heartbeat away from the presidency?"

Would it be slightly uncouth of me to ask why the politico has never issued a sarcastic apology for asking these same questions to Barry Obama, who is a mere plurality away from the presidency? Oh, they never asked him those questions? No apology needed then, I suppose. I do wonder though, where are the pundits questioning whether or not Barry's children will take a back seat if he is elected? I mean, he'll be busy negotiating "spheres of influence" for China and North Korea in Asia, and say, the Pacific coast. Will his daughters suffer while Michelle tours the globe as Obama's "Labor Ambassador", imploring the workers of the world to "unite"? That's a full time job, ask Lenin.

Its almost as if the media is the sordid pit of chauvenistic sexism that they've always claimed the GOP was. (only if we're talking about conservative women, mind you. Liberal women are bravely shattering the glass/marble/plaster ceiling) In any case, at least I'll have to be a little less drunk to vote for McCain. Thank you Governer Palin.

Idiots Do Occasionally Live In Missouri (Hell, We Elected Claire McCaskill)

2008-08-28T10:52:00.000-07:00

Stupid, stupid people. The media's already setting up an "Obama defeat = racism" narrative. Kathy caught this slice of idiocy in Jop- . . . crap, this is my State. Well, its the west side. We don't associate with those people.

Thank Goodness Britain Has So Many "Youths"

2008-08-27T11:16:00.000-07:00

Britain is set to surpass France and Germany in population by 2060 according to the European commission. The article mentions that this is due to immigration, but nowhere in this article is it mentioned that these immigrants are mostly muslim. I'm sure that's just a minor detail. I'm sure there are no major consequences of vast muslim populations emerging in secular European States. Mark Steyn was just whistling Dixie.

Mile High Stadium = Mt. Olympius?

2008-08-27T10:34:00.000-07:00

Barry Obama can't be this dumb. Its got to be idiot advisers telling him to do things like accept the Democrat nomination on a stage resembling a Greek temple in Mile High Stadium. Does he think America will be impressed by 80,000 hysterical supporters essentially worshiping him as a demigod in a pagan temple? Does he know what the Greek term hubris means? Does he know he's giving credence to what was originally a rather sophomoric McCain add comparing him to Paris Hilton? Americans will be about as impressed by this stunt as they are by a music video featuring celebrities literally praying to Barry. American's aren't impressed by hysteria. We've all seen video of 17 year old girls screaming for the Beatles, and we all know just about how intelligent 17 year old girls are. That's who your supporters are Barry. Unhinged 17 year old girls. The adults in the room know that rabid popularity (well 46%) isn't necessarily a super quality. Sure it worked for Hitler and Mussolini, but most of their platforms ended up as huge disappointments to the electorate. We're not going to see Greek columns and think "Oh, its just like Kennedy's acceptance speech at the L.A. Coliseum! I'm voting for that guy!" Most Americans are too dumb to see this connection, and those of us who do are smart enough to know when you're insulting our intelligence, no matter how many times the media screams "Obama = JFK!"

This is just a stupid move. You're going to completely alienate Americans who are dumb enough to vote for a Democrat but smart enough to realize when they're being condescended to. You need to kick your god complex Barry, you're not infallible.

Its Not That I Hate Hippies, I Just Wish They Weren't Alive

2008-08-26T12:36:00.000-07:00

I try and never talk about myself on this blog, as I don't want to bore the 6 people who read it on a regular basis, but I thought I'd relate what just occurred at lunch. I walked down the street to a local restaurant/bar for the spaghetti lunch special, and who should be sitting at the bar, but two hippies. Now despite my love of Janis Joplin, Pink Floyd, and Led Zeppelin, I despise hippies. I think they are vile, fetid, unkempt, wastes of humanity who seek to drag the rest of us down with them. I don't know how any rational, God fearing, patriotic American made it through the sixties without mercilessly beating every one of these peace nick misanthropes he/she/everyone came across.
These particular hippies however, were in the middle of a very public and vulgar fight at the bar during lunch time. I sat down, a few seats away, ordered my food, and politely read the paper without looking their way so as not to reveal my utter contempt. This proved difficult as I became increasingly aware that the boyfriend hippie was the one doing all the yelling as he drank his double bourbon at 1pm. (Get a f#$^ing job) I'm chauvinist enough, that I believe that even an almost subhuman hippie girl doesn't deserve such obscene, public abuse from her boyfriend. Thankfully, as I contemplated the consequences of getting involved --a possible staff infection or maybe a contact high-- the bar tender kicked him out. This just got me thinking about how cruel leftists actually are. For all their holier-than-thou posturing about the environment and war, they can be vicious if you get on their bad side. Greenpeace, PETA, ELF, SDS, the weathermen, all these organizations were born out of the supposedly peaceful hippie movement, and all are violent.

In the end, exactly what I dreaded, happened. The chick hippie started talking to me, thus completely dashing any hopes I had of a peaceful lunch. So I politely ate my food and grunted indifferent answers as she droned on (she was hopped up on something) incessantly until the point where she mentioned that she and her boyfriend were from Pennsylvania on a bike ride to San Francisco and they'd been camping out in St. Charles (where I live/work/blog) for 4 months. I decided I didn't want to notice the smell and threw down a 20 and booked it back to work.

Stay in San Francisco.

Does This Mean We Can Ditch the Entitlements? No? Just Checking.

2008-08-26T07:57:00.000-07:00

"I think that women, we have to get away from the politics of victim."

-Nancy Pelosi telling Clinton supporters to suck it up and vote for Barry.

That sound you heard was the universe collapsing in a fire storm of irony.

Don't Worry, Only 100 Million People Saw It

2008-08-26T07:47:00.000-07:00

If you're going to go after McCain because he's not sure how many houses his wife owns, at least know what city you're in when you do a video feed to your party's national convention that will be broadcast live on about 50 channels across the country. I know Kansas City and St. Louis are both in Missouri, but they're kind of on opposite ends of the State. I don't think its a major gaffe, He's been campaigning so long, he probably lost track (You've been to one city in Missouri, you've been to them all, right?) but since Barry's campaign has decided to make such an issue out of McCain's age and competence, I think its high time we examined whether or not Barry is senile. He's a socialist after all, that implies he has problems with his higher brain functions.

Democrats Find Wool, Attempt to Pull Over Eyes

2008-08-25T09:29:00.000-07:00

The Democrat National Convention opened up last night with. . . prayer! That's right, the godless secularists aren't actually godless at all, why they're just like the typical mid western voter. Blessings will open and close each night, (I can feel Michael Moore wince. Seriously. He caused a small earthquake) plus there will be "panels and parties run by Democratic-leaning religious advocacy groups that didn't even exist in 2004". Hmm, why did these groups spring into existence over the past four years? Why is the Democrat party suddenly embracing faith? (Well other than faith in global warming, socialism, and the infallibility of Jimmy Carter) "Behind the scenes, efforts to attract the religious vote will concentrate largely on Christian 'values voters.'" Oh, so the Democrats want the "values voter" that supposedly pushed Bush over the edge in 2004. So now all of a sudden the Democrat party has found God, and to prove it to voters, they're going to pray. . . in public! Its almost as if they view religion as a means to an end, this magic force that will sooth the fears of Christian America. That can't be right though. That's way too cynical. If that were true, it would mean that the Democrats view religion as a type of "opiate of the masses" or something. "One reason religion is playing such a prominent role at this week's convention is that Obama has made faith outreach prominent in his campaign." That's better, I forgot Obama had such a strong faith. Jeremiah Wright can testify to that, I wonder when he's slotted to speak? I just hope the brutal campaign season hasn't made Obama bitter, because he's becoming clingy. No date yet for his Ohio hunting trip.

Mullahs From Outer Space!!

2008-08-21T13:11:00.000-07:00

Iran wants to put a man into space within a decade.

I want to own a BD's Mongolian Barbeque.

Doesn't mean its going to happen.

Is Barry Shaving Points?

2008-08-21T09:51:00.001-07:00

Has anyone else noticed that Barry Obama has no idea what he's doing on the campaign trail? The Clinton machine's loss to this guy will go down as one of the biggest blunders in American political history. For a man with a religious following and fawning media coverage, he can't seem to pull away from an uninspiring moderate who is despised by his own base.

As of late, Obama has decided that he needs to hammer McCain on foreign policy and the Iraq war. Smart! Draw attention to the war the media has decided to ignore to your advantage! Obama will lose to McCain on the issue of foreign policy experience every time, because he has none. No matter how Obama paints McCain or spins his own policy positions, in the end all he is doing is drawing attention to McCain's best issues and the successful yet largely ignored war in Iraq. One of Obama's handlers needs to get a hold of him and tell him this is not the Democrats' issue anymore. In 2005, maybe, but not now. That's why the main stream media is ignoring it. I know Obama was crowned a political genius long ago, but he looks like an amateur to me. Also, I don't know who's making decisions on what his staff says in public, but blaming John McCain for the escalation of the Russian invasion of Georgia makes you sound silly. Almost as silly as taking credit for the imaginary cease fire. Someone needs to compile a list modeled on Warmlist that records everything Obama and his supporters have given Barry credit for, or claimed he can do (like lowering the sea level or transforming Mahmoud Ahmadinejad into Gordon Brown).

I don't understand how a campaign can be so inept. Barry should thank his lucky stars that the media is covering for him.

Obamaniacs of the World, Unite!

2008-08-20T06:39:00.000-07:00

Sorry about the light blogging lately. College Football season is ramping up, and as a die hard Missouri Tigers fan, the fact that they are good for the first time in almost a millenia has lead to most of my free time being devoted to Mizzou.

Here's something I've been meaning to comment on, the Communist Party USA has endorsed Barry Obama. Apparently he's the only one who can end "ultra-right rule" in America (If only Bush was "ultra right") by uniting all the races and classes. Even the commies have embraced hope, unity, and change! Now if only Obama can convince them to admit how old their gymnasts are, we'd really be making progress. No word on when the Fascist Party USA will endorse Barry.

She Wasn't Talking About the New Deal, She Was Talking About Bush

2008-08-15T06:21:00.000-07:00

UPDATE

I've researched the possible Atlas Shrugged movie a bit more, well, I typed "Baldwin Entertainment Group" into Google. The Baldwin Entertainment Group according to wikipedia, purchased the rights to the film in 2003. Heres a blurb about the screenplay on their website:

ATLAS SHRUGGED
Written by: Jim V. Hart
Based on the novel ATLAS SHRUGGED by Ayn Rand

ATTACHMENTS Lions Gate Films

LOG LINE: Dagny Taggart, one of the great heroines of modern literature, struggles to fulfill her great-grandfather’s legacy as she steers her family’s railroad conglomerate through the triple threat of government corruption, international terrorism and a mysterious force that is silencing the great thinkers of the day.

SYNOPSIS: Ayn Rand’s groundbreaking novel foresees an American future eerily similar to the future that America faces today. The politics of fear embodied by stringent government regulation and irresponsible foreign policy have driven American society to the brink of collapse. Against this backdrop, Dagny Taggart wrestles her corrupt and dissolute brother for control of their great-grandfather’s railroad conglomerate. Determined to live up to her ancestor’s name, Dagny steers the railroad through a minefield of government sabotage, domestic disintegration, and international terrorism. All the while the destruction of the American way is hastened by a mysterious force that is silencing the great thinkers of the day. Their disappearance inspires a universal sense of fatalistic dread that is summed up by the new popular catchphrase: “Who is John Galt?”

Are there any Rand fans that can tell me what's wrong here? Let's start at the beginning. "International terrorism"? Where was that in the book? Ragnar Danneskjold may have been refered to as a terrorist, but that's it. The book's over 1000 pages long, I don't think we need to add any extra plot points. What's next? How about "the politics of fear". How did a catch phrase of the left make it in here? The "politics of fear" had better refer to Dr. Stadler's "Project X" and not warantless wiretaps of overseas phone calls. The kicker though, the phrase in here that makes me dread this movie's release, is "irresponsible foreign policy". What?! The only "irresponsible foreign policy" that existed in the book was the American governments penchant for sending aid to struggling "people's states" around the world that had enslaved their citizens. If they use this movie to make a f*&%ing commentary on Iraq or the war on terror, they will have succeeded in both completely destroying the point of the book and giving me a noticeable facial tick.

Way to go Hollywood. Just destroy as much as you can. Maybe you can remake "The Fountainhead" and spin it to be a commentary on the heartlessness of the Bush tax cuts. Its only 8:51 am? I already need a drink.

UPDATE:

I'm not sure how I missed this, but right at the beginning in the "Log Line" it says "a mysterious force that is silencing the great thinkers of the day". John Galt was out to stop the "engine of the world". The "great thinkers" of the day in Atlas Shrugged are portrayed as pied piper buffoons, leading the populace into total destruction. It wasn't the thinkers Galt was after, (Unless you count Hugh Akston) it was the men who made the world work, the industrialists, the bankers, the oil magnates, the men the "great thinkers" ridiculed and scorned. There's a reason the book was almost called "The Strike". It's a cautionary tale about what this country and indeed the world would be like if all "big businessmen" went on strike, not the nihilistic intellectuals of the book who suck at the government's teat.

We Were Just Joking, the Cold War's Still On

2008-08-14T07:07:00.000-07:00

So, apparently Putin has decided to do his best Leonid Brezhnev impression as he seeks to reassert Russian dominance of her traditional satellite states. "Cease fire? F*$% that. We're Russia. Stop snickering Kazakhstan, you're next." Who knew an ex KGB guy would try and reestablish the Soviet Union? Alas, Russia has too many troubles. She can't recreate the old bipolar order the die hard commies miss so much. The economy is in shambles, Putin's cronies are looting whatever wealth there is, and a billion and a half expansionist Chinese are antsy to prove they are the dominant power in Asia. I wouldn't worry about Taiwan as much as I'd worry about resource rich Siberia. But for now, Russia's going to prove that she's still more powerful than Georgia, and unfortunately for Georgia, there's not much the United States can do short of declaring war on Russia. Putin and his ventriloquist dummy Dmitry Medvedev have smartly moved before Georgia could be admitted to NATO, though in doing so, they have confirmed the need for NATO's continued existence as an anti-Russian alliance.

In the end Georgia will be a bit dismembered and NATO will be a bit spooked by the threat of a resurgent Russia displaying her power, and idiot South Ossetians (South Ossetia is the Georgian province Russian is "liberating") will make rediculous statements like this:

"They want to physically uproot us all. . . What other definition is there for genocide?"

I can think of a couple, but that's just me. It looks to be setting up for a hell of a century, Russia should keep one thing in mind though:

I Don't Think Ayn Would Be Happy

2008-08-13T09:35:00.000-07:00

I remember seeing this maybe half a year ago when I was perusing the wikipedia article on Atlas Shrugged in search of Whittaker Chamber's famous review of Ayn Rand's iconic novel. (I tend to disagree with Mr. Chambers on the fascist overtones in Atlas Shrugged considering it advocates laissez-faire capitalism and attacks large government. In case you don't know, fascists hate laissez-faire capitalism and love large government, but that discussion is for another day) A recent entry in the "Media Blog" at National Review Online (which I would have missed had Rachel Lucas not noticed it) has reminded me of it. Apparently, talks have been underway for years about a film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged starring Angelina Jolie as Dagny Taggart and - according to some reports - Brad Pitt as John Galt. Anyone who has read Atlas Shrugged knows that it strongly advocates a free market which is unfettered by any government interference and refers to those who advocate a welfare state as "looters". This is why I'm puzzled as to why Jolie and Pitt would sign onto the film.

Now I've always known Brad Pitt was a liberal, environmental wackjob, so I can't imagine how he has come to admire Ayn Rand. He famously supported John Kerry in 2004. If he can't stomach George W. Bush, There is no way in hell he can agree with anything John Galt believes aside from his atheism. As for Jolie, maybe she's attracted to Dagny Taggart's character because there are some feministic qualities about her, but Rand portrays other female characters in a bad light, Lily Rearden for example. And given all Jolie's advocacy for the plight of the third world, I find it hard to believe she admires a book in which one of the "good guys" so to speak is a pirate who destroys aid shipments to impoverished countries around the world.

My biggest fear in all of this is that Jolie and Pitt have no idea who Rand was or what Atlas Shrugged advocates. They probably see it as just a chance to have a wild sex scene on film together. I've never minded Jolie much, in fact I go out of my way to avoid the tabloid obsession, and her father, John Voigt is somewhat of a conservative. However, if they tone down the free market, anti government tone of the book so as to not offend Jolie and Pitt's sensibilities, I will never forgive them. Despite being godless and at times reading like a romance novel, Atlas Shrugged is one of my favorite books. If they at all alter Francisco d'Anconia's brilliant monologue on money, I may just become a hermit and live out in the Ozarks, maybe gaining a wacky name from the locals, like "fraggle-toothed Jakey". Bottom line, I'll lose it.

If you're going to do it, do it right.

Camera Man "Unobjectively" Saves Marine's Life

2008-08-11T11:36:00.000-07:00

I'm not sure how I missed this, but Fox News camera man Chris Jackson pulled a marine out of a burning Humvee that had been struck by an IED in Afghanistan. Could anyone see a CNN or BBC camera man pull a marine out of a burning vehicle? Just saying.

Humanity Can't Survive Any More Guardian Columns

2008-08-11T08:35:00.000-07:00

Apparently we're all going to die, at least according to global warmist Oliver Tickell. The only thing that puzzles me is whether the global warmists see that as a good thing, or a bad thing. After all, humans are evil, consuming, capitalists who repeatedly rape Mother Earth, right? Anyway, here are some snippets from comrade Tickell's hysterical piece in today's Guardian.

"We need to get prepared for four degrees of global warming, Bob Watson told the Guardian last week. At first sight this looks like wise counsel from the climate science adviser to Defra. But the idea that we could adapt to a 4C rise is absurd and dangerous. Global Warming on this scale would be a catastrophe that would mean, in the immortal words that Chief Seattle probably never spoke, "the end of living and the beginning of survival" for humankind. Or perhaps the beginning of our extinction."

Hmm, well that seems very well thought out and reasoned. A 4C rise in the global temperature would indeed change the face of the earth, and humankind may have to radically adapt, if we can at all (I always like to bet on humanity). But is there any evidence that this is absolutely going to happen? There are many possibilities that would be disastrous to humanity, but we don't feel the need to destroy our economic prosperity without evidence. A bloodthirsty race of ant men with a taste for human infants could suddenly burst up from the Earth in central Asia and destroy most of the human race. Fortunately, geologists have yet to find evidence of giant ant tunnel labyrinths beneath Asia, but it could happen! We need to take action now! The human race can't survive in influx of 10 trillion murderous ant men! We'd be talking extinction!

Tickell goes on:

"To see how far this process could go, look 55.5m years to the Palaeocene-Eocene Thermal Maximum, when a global temperature increase of 6C coincided with the release of about 5,000 gigatonnes of carbon into the atmosphere, both as CO2 and as methane from bogs and seabed sediments. Lush subtropical forests grew in polar regions, and sea levels rose to 100m higher than today. It appears that an initial warming pulse triggered other warming processes. Many scientists warn that this historical event may be analogous to the present: the warming caused by human emissions could propel us towards a similar hothouse Earth."

How did mankind increase the global temperature 6C 55.5 million years ago? The Earth doesn't warm and cool naturally. Humans are responsible. And surely humans could have stopped the Earth from warming 6C, we have that kind of power. We can control weather and climate. We don't have to wait for Al Gore's dream of falling into a vat of toxic waste and gaining Captain Planet-esque powers to come true. Tickell's got a plan to stop the warming this time, unlike those selfish humans of 55.5 million years ago:

"The answer? Scrap national allocations and place a single global cap on greenhouse gas emissions, applied "upstream" – for instance, at the oil refinery, coal-washing station and cement factory. Sell permits up to that cap in a global auction, and use the proceeds to finance solutions to climate change – accelerating the use of renewable energy, raising energy efficiency, protecting forests, promoting climate-friendly farming, and researching geoengineering technologies. And commit hundreds of billions of dollars per year to finance adaptation to climate change, especially in poor countries."

Interestingly, Mr. Tickell doesn't say who will enforce this "global cap on greenhouse gas emissions". How are we going to keep sovereign nations in line? Maybe we could make them a little less sovereign? I think I see where Mr. Tickell is going here. Let's have the UN regulate global emissions like you know they're dying to do. We'll give them sweeping new powers to fight global capitalism and move one step closer to a socialist one world government. Hooray! I'm sure in a hundred years, when we're all serfs on a UN commune, there will be no bitter feelings when the next ice age hits.

America's Daughters Look Disgusted

2008-08-07T06:15:00.000-07:00

In an update to the "Proof that there is a God" file, Nancy Pelosi has sold 2,737 copies of her new book "Plastic Smile: Diary of a Wackjob"- er, I mean "Know Your Power: A Message To America's Daughters". Had I a daughter, I believe the last person I'd want sending her messages would be Nancy Pelosi, who despite becoming the first female Speaker of the House, managed to set the woman's rights movement back about a decade by bringing her 6 grandchildren up to the Speaker's podium while the House was in session. Thus she justified the fears of any man who believes that women aren't serious enough to govern the most powerful country on Earth.

Let's think about this for a second. How many real, radical, man hating, feminists are there in America? A million? Half a million? One Hundred Thousand? Ten Thousand? Certainly more than 2,737. They don't even want to touch this crap. With the approval rating of Congress mired in the teens, its clear that even liberal democrats aren't happy with Speaker Pelosi. This all ties back into the current furor over Barry Obama. Black voters need to understand something, you want the first black President to be competent. When Barry is elected and the 2nd term of the Carter administration begins, many people's stereotypes about blacks will be confirmed in their minds, just as Nancy Pelosi has made women look like imbeciles. You don't want a President who says there are 57 States, or - as I fear most about a black President - thinks all "typical white" people are inherently racist.

On one hand, if Obama is elected, we'll get this whole "will there ever be a black President" thing out of the bloody way. On the other hand, if Obama is elected, the next black President may be a long time coming.

If You Say You're Not A Racist. . . You May Be A Racist

2008-08-06T07:31:00.000-07:00

From National Review Online:

1.If you think Obama's the most liberal member of the senate you...may be a racist.

2.If you object to Obama raising your payroll, capital gains and estate taxes you...may be a racist.

3.If you'd prefer a president have at least some foreign policy experience you...may be a racist.

4. If you're in favor of drilling for oil and building nuclear power plants you...may be a racist.

5. If you think "Vero Possemus" is Latin for "Massive Ego" you... may be a racist.

6. If you wonder why Obama was hanging around William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn you...may be a racist.

7. If your pastor is nothing like Rev. Wright or Father Pfleger you... may be a racist.

8.If you don't want the majority of justices on the Supreme Court to be like Stephen Breyer you...may be a racist.

9. If you're not impressed with Obama's 100% NARAL rating you...may be a racist.

10. If you're not sure whether Obama opposed or supported FISA reauthorization you...may be a racist.

11. If you don't think America is a "downright mean" country you...may be a racist.

12. If you think Obama should've visited wounded troops at Ramstein and Landstuhl you...may be a racist.

13. If you think the surge is working and that's a good thing you...may be a racist.

14. If you oppose racial preferences in employment, school admissions and contracting you...may be a racist.

15. If you think "we are the change we've been waiting for" is a line from a Monty Python skit you...may be a racist.

16. If you prefer that a president have a smidgen of executive experience you...may be a racist.

17. If you're appalled that Obama voted against treating infants born after an abortion attempt the same medically as other infants born alive you...may be a racist.

18. If you were proud of your country even before Obama's candidacy you...may be a racist.

20. If you don't think American troops are just "air raiding villages" you...may be a racist.

21. If your grandmother isn't a "typical white person" you...may be a racist.

22. If you don't think rural, working class people are bitter and "cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them" you...may be a racist.

23. If you're not sure invading Pakistan is a particularly good idea—what with their nuclear weapons and all— you...may be a racist.

24. If you don't want the president to meet without precondition with the leaders of state sponsors of terror you...may be a racist.

25. If you don't care how Hollywood or the European elite think you should vote you...may be a racist.

House GOP: Not Geldings After All

2008-08-04T06:35:00.001-07:00

Finally, someone in the GOP is pounding Pelosi and the Democrats over the ban on drilling. I was beginning to question their intelligence and genitalia.

This Isn't Dirty Harry's San Francisco

2008-08-04T06:20:00.000-07:00

Over in San Francisco, Mayor and Stalinist Gavin Newsom has proposed fining people $1000 if residents don't properly sort their trash for recycling. Seriously. Is their anyone who still can't see the fascism inherent in the green movement? San Francisco has sunk far deeper into liberalism than the rest of the country has, but this is the direction the greenies and politicians like Obama and Pelosi want to take us in. I don't think a lot of Americans realize this. I have always refused to set foot in that God forsaken place, but maybe now I'll visit just to dump trash.

Paint the White House Black

2008-07-31T10:35:00.000-07:00

Here are the lyrics to the new "song" by Ludacris about Barry Obama. I've actually heard it and it sounds terrible, well, more terrible than the average rap song.

"I'm back on it like I just signed my record deal
yeah the best is here, the Bentley Coup paint is dripping wet, it got sex appeal
never should have hated
you never should've doubted him
with a slot in the president's iPod Obama shattered 'em
Said I handled his biz and I'm one of his favorite rappers
Well give Luda a special pardon if I'm ever in the slammer
Better yet put him in office, make me your vice president
Hillary hated on you, so that b^$&%* is irrelevant
Jesse talking slick and apologizing for what?
if you said it then you meant it how you want it have a gut!
and all you other politicians trying to hate on my man,
watch us win a majority vote in every state on my man
you can't stop what's bout to happen, we bout to make history
the first black president is destined and it's meant to be
the threats ain't fazing us, the nooses or the jokes
so get off your ass, black people, it's time to get out and vote!
paint the White House black and I'm sure that's got 'em terrified
McCain don't belong in ANY chair unless he's paralyzed
Yeah I said it cause Bush is mentally handicapped
Ball up all of his speeches and I throw em like candy wrap
cause what you talking I hear nothing even relevant
and you the worst of all 43 presidents
get out and vote or the end will be near
the world is ready for change because Obama is here!
cause Obama is here
The world is ready for change because Obama is here!"

This completely dispels any fears I have about Barry.

Stay Classy Barry

2008-07-31T09:30:00.000-07:00

Who keeps bringing up the issue of race in the campaign for president? Its not John McCain. Its Barrack Obama and his cronies. This "new kind of politician" is using a very traditional Democrat tactic. If you disagree or criticize them, you're a racist. Here's what Barry had to say in my home state:

"Nobody thinks that Bush and McCain have a real answer to the challenges we face. So what they're going to try to do is make you scared of me. . . You know, he's not patriotic enough, he's got a funny name, you know, he doesn't look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills."

So, if I happen to point out your anti American statements in Germany, or your association with Bill Ayers, or call you an imbecile for calling on Americans to inflate their tires instead of drilling for oil, it means that I'm hick, redneck, racist who's afraid of colored folk? You must think that sounds as stupid as I do Barry, considering what your spokesman said:

"What Barack Obama was talking about was that he didn't get here after spending decades in Washington. . . There is nothing more to this than the fact that he was describing that he was new to the political scene. He was referring to the fact that he didn't come into the race with the history of others. It is not about race."

Do you think we're all idiots? You must think very little of your supporters if you think they'll buy this. They will. They're idiots. "You're eloquent if you have a prepared speech! Yay! We'll believe anything you tell us! We'll eat it all up! We'll follow you into Poland, goose stepping the whole way, because you're a fine public speaker with a vague motto about some sort of change that we interpret to mean you're going to fix everything that's wrong with our lives!" The rest of us aren't trying to catch the short bus Barry. We comprehend the words coming out of your mouth no matter how you later try and spin it. How did this guy beat the Clinton machine? He just commits gaffe after gaffe.

The worst part, however, is that after he comes out and prematurely accuses McCain of calling him a "scary negro", he takes an underhanded cheap shot at McCain over his age and state of mind:

"That's a definition of madness, but that's what John McCain is offering. He's offering Bush economic policies and Karl Rove politics,"

Stay classy Barry.

Today Will Be A Good Day

2008-07-31T09:23:00.000-07:00

Its days like this that I am reminded that there is a loving and gracious God who watches over the universe.

Via Drudge, Nancy Pelosi's book is 899 on Amazon.

The Crying Game

2008-07-30T06:19:00.000-07:00

What do we want in a leader? Do we want someone who trips all over himself to apologize for slights that happened in the century before last? Do we not understand that this is why the West is decaying? Instead of moving civilization forward as it has for the past millenia, the Western world can do nothing but apologize for its prosperity, as if it was ill gotten. Enter Barry Obama. He's going to take the crying game to a whole new level. Yesterday at a minority press convention (is there a white press convention?) he said this:

"There's no doubt that when it comes to our treatment of Native Americans as well as other persons of color in this country, we've got some very sad and difficult things to account for. . . I personally would want to see our tragic history, or the tragic elements of our history, acknowledged."

Yes, instead of moving the country forward, lets wring our hands about Andrew Jackson's actions in the 19th century. Let's all feel just terrible about Jim Crow laws, and at the same time further LBJ era programs that have destroyed black families and black prosperity. Hey, at least whitey feels bad though. At least we've publicly dragged America's name through the mud, which is what this is really all about, isn't it Barry? America's this great, exceptional nation? The last, best hope of mankind? Not so fast my friend. We're awful, and have no right to tell Iran or North Korea how to run their countries. We'd better up our foreign aid to the 3rd world, because our white prosperity was built on their backs, (Even though America was a wilderness with no infrastructure before whitey found it and built it into a juggernaut.) and domestically, we're going to set things long past, right at last:

"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

When white people see a good chunk of their paycheck go to a person of another race for crimes that the white guy didn't commit, and the non white guy wasn't personally victimized by, I'm sure it will completely eradicate racial tension forever in America. What a great idea Barry. We don't have enough white racists in this country to point to as oppressors. Let's create millions more by taking away their money and giving it to people of a different race who did nothing to earn it. You certainly are the post racial candidate. I'm sure KKK grand wizards across the country didn't just get a chubby reading this.

If you really want to help out people of color, Barry, dismantle the welfare state. That will do much more for black children than a one time payment that makes them hated by half the country.

No Time Left For You

2008-07-29T09:22:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi has no time to entertain Republican proposals to end the congressional ban on off shore drilling because she's "trying to save the planet". How arrogant can you get? If Republicans don't fall over each other to get to a camera, then we're pretty much doomed. If we don't take this and run with it, then we're too stupid to run the country anyway.

The Democrats weren't elected by the American people to "save the planet" by keeping oil supply low. If Mrs. Pelosi wants to make that case, I say be my guest. I'd love to hear a different Republican every day lambaste the Democrats over oil prices. This is our issue. Its their fault that we aren't exploiting domestic sources of oil. (Well, we can also blame George H. W. Bush, but then again we can blame him for a lot) There's a reason that Congressional approval is in the teens. If only Republicans would grow a set and go on the attack.

Pelosi is completely inept. She thinks she still represents San Francisco. I hope it isn't news to House Republicans that most Americans don't want to become San Francisco. I shudder to think of even setting foot in that God forsaken place.

How Did I Miss This?

2008-07-28T08:03:00.002-07:00

Terrific Walter Williams column from July 16th that brings to light new Oklahoma State legislations that seeks to reign in the overbearing and unconstitutional power of the Federal government.

Professor Williams, as bluntly as ever, puts it this way:

"One of the unappreciated casualties of the War of 1861, erroneously called a Civil War, was its contribution to the erosion of constitutional guarantees of state sovereignty. It settled the issue of secession, making it possible for the federal government to increasingly run roughshod over Ninth and 10th Amendment guarantees. A civil war, by the way, is a struggle where two or more parties try to take over the central government. Confederate President Jefferson Davis no more wanted to take over Washington, D.C., than George Washington wanted to take over London. Both wars are more properly described as wars of independence."

Wonderfully put. The slow erosion of our Constitution began with the War Between the States in 1861 and the States really no longer have any recourse to check the growing power of the Federal government. Professor Williams continues:

"Oklahomans are trying to recover some of their lost state sovereignty by House Joint Resolution 1089, introduced by State Rep. Charles Key.

"The resolution's language, in part, reads: "Whereas, the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States reads as follows: 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'; and Whereas, the Tenth Amendment defines the total scope of federal power as being that specifically granted by the Constitution of the United States and no more; and whereas, the scope of power defined by the Tenth Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states specifically to be an agent of the states; and Whereas, today, in 2008, the states are demonstrably treated as agents of the federal government. 'Now, therefore, be it resolved by the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 2nd session of the 51st Oklahoma Legislature: that the State of Oklahoma hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States. That this serve as Notice and Demand to the federal government, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.'"

The Federal Government was created to be an advocate of the States, to provide for the common defense of the States, to represent the States to other nations diplomatically, and to regulate interstate and foreign commerce. These are powers specifically granted to the Federal government in the Constitution. All other rights, whatever they may be, are reserved to the States and the people by the 10th Amendment, which the Supreme Court conveniently forgot about during and after the War Between the States. Professor Williams goes on to quote James Madison in Federalist Paper 45, and Thomas Jefferson:

"The powers delegated … to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, [such] as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce. "The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people." Thomas Jefferson emphasized that the states are not "subordinate" to the national government, but rather the two are "coordinate departments of one simple and integral whole. "The one is the domestic, the other the foreign branch of the same government."

The States were never envisioned as the provincial administrative units under the authority of the Federal government that they have become today. This is the essence of conservatism, to get back to the original intent of the Constitution, which was drafted to protect the liberty of the States, and thereby the lives, liberty, and property of the citizens.

Why I Binge Drink

2008-07-28T07:20:00.000-07:00

Obama is now leading McCain by 9 points according to Gallup. In a related story, I've lost my faith in humanity. I wonder if its those Berlin voters who've pushed him over the top?

Seperation of Church and State in California

2008-07-28T06:40:00.000-07:00

I'm shocked to discover that there is anything conservative about California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. Lo and behold, however, he said this after he vetoed a Bill that would have required climate change be added to California schools' curriculum:

"I continue to believe that the state should refrain from being overly prescriptive in specific school curriculum, beyond establishing rigorous academic standards,"

Decentralization of power, in California? How scandalous. This coming from a State that seems to believe that it can mandate auto mileage standards for the rest of the country.

This may come as a surprise to some of you, but I believe that "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" does deserve a place in school curriculum, the World Religions class.

Coronate Me, Bitch

2008-07-24T12:55:00.001-07:00

From over at World Net Daily

"Sen. Barack Obama's campaign plastered the entrance to the Western Wall – the holiest site in Judaism – with official campaign posters,"

How arrogant can you get? Are all his advisers idiots? How could you possibly think its a good idea to put up campaign posters at the Holiest Jewish site when you're trying to reassure the Israelis that you're not an anti-Semite who's going to sell them out? And another thing, is every moment of this guy's life designed to be a photo op? A pre dawn visit to the Western Wall? A speech at Berlin's victory column? These aren't things that candidate's do, considering that Israeli's and Germans aren't allowed to vote in our election. That part of our Constitution hasn't "evolved" yet has it? What's the point of even having campaign posters in Hebrew? Is he going to start running adds in Tel Aviv? He's acting like he's already the President, the election is just a formality. Kind of sounds like the attitude a certain Senator from New York who lived in Arkansas and was born in Illinios had back in January. He just puts out a "coronate me bitch" vibe. Talk about hubris. If there is any such thing as karma in the universe, he will lose in a landslide.

Here's a great quote on his speech in Germany by McCain's spokesman:

"While Barack Obama took a premature victory lap today in the heart of Berlin, proclaiming himself a 'citizen of the world,' John McCain continued to make his case to the American citizens who will decide this election."

Yep, couldn't have said it better. I don't see how everyone, even Democrats, doesn't find this completely pretentious and silly. Barry may think he's a "citizen of the world", but I just double checked Article Two of the Constitution, and there's really no loop hole the courts can use to count the votes of non citizens in Berlin.

"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress"

Which State is Berlin in? Someone needs to tell Barry that the old Electors of the Holy Roman Empire aren't the same ones mentioned in the Constitution. Barry or one of his advisers should probably try reading that document sometime. They'd be able to clear up misconceptions of who he is actually going to represent and when the election and inauguration take place.

Barry should also be warned that its probably illegal to accept foreign donations in a Presidential campaign before he hits up that 1000 Euro a plate luncheon in Prague. I'd hate to see him embarrass himself more than he already has

What About Bob Barr?

2008-07-23T13:57:00.000-07:00

This election scenario tool is probably going to get me fired. I can't stop playing with it. I can't imagine how excited I'd be if I actually liked one of the two candidates.

But Americans Are Fed Up With Conservatism, Right?

2008-07-23T09:54:00.000-07:00

The quarterly earnings of the New York Times have dropped 82% since this time last year. In a related story, I laughed.

As Canada Goes, So Goes Massachusetts

2008-07-23T08:32:00.000-07:00

Ezra Levant is the blogosphere's shock trooper. He takes most of the heat for us as we fight the good fight. (well actually, I'm lucky enough to live in America, where we understand that words don't hurt you unless someone is beating you with a billboard, hooray!) So help him out with a couple bucks for his legal defence (I'm feeling very pro Canada today) fund. Remember, no one cares about Canadian fascism until they invade Maine.

Barack Obama Will Completely Eradicate Child Suffering. . . Everywhere

2008-07-22T09:33:00.000-07:00

Alright, so normally, I wouldn't comment on a politician's wife or family. I've never understood why they have to be there at the rally or whatever for the photo op. I'd just as soon not see Al and Tipper Gore make out after he receives the Democrat nomination. (Thanks Al, I didn't think you were gay before, but now that you seem to feel the need to prove it, I wonder) We're not voting for the couple, we're voting for the guy (in most cases). I don't care what Laura Bush does, or how crazy Nancy Reagan was, doesn't matter. I'm voting for the guy and I expect him to do his damn job without feeling he has to consult his wife. Now I understand that marriage is a partnership, and Presidents as far back as John Adams have run ideas and strategies by their wives, I'm not saying there's anything wrong with that, I just don't see the need to have to vet a candidate's spouse. Further more, I don't see the need to criticize spouses or family members. However, when said spouse delves into the political arena, said spouse is fair game. That's the way it was with Hillary Clinton, and that's the way it is with Michelle Obama.

Now that I have the "I don't usually do this, but I'm going to do it now" disclaimer out of the way, let's look at what Mrs. Obama had to say in Coloradao (courtesy of Rachel Lucas) last week.

"We have one candidate who essentially is telling us every day that the world as it is just fine. That what we've been doing for the last eight years is fine," Obama said. "Stay the course. Don't make too many changes.

"And then we have this other candidate -- Barack Obama -- who is saying every day that the world as it is not right. It's not good enough," she said. . .

"I wish we had time to be divided. I wish we had time to be upset. To be angry. To be disappointed. I wish we did," Obama said. "Because if we had time for that, then things wouldn't be so bad right now. Instead, we're in a place where another four or eight years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child."

Who is buying this? Who is eating this up? Who? Does anyone really believe that if we don't elect Barry Obama right this second, then the sky will fall? Really Michelle? Is the moon going to come crashing down into the Earth if we have 4 more years of Liberal Republican control of the executive branch? Four or eight more years of the world as it is will devastate the life of some child? What does that even mean? Is that on Barry's website? Is it paragraph 16, sentence 4 of his campaign platform? "I, Barry Obama, will totally eradicate child suffering around the globe." Does anyone else who listens to Barry's speeches expect him one day to say "Be still and know that I am God"? I know I do. But back to Michelle, hopefully one day a reporter will discover that he has testicles and ask Michelle to elaborate on one of her insane comments. How about asking "which child Mrs. Obama?" Or "how can you make such a vague blanket statement and expect people to take you seriously?" Or "Michelle, why are you off your medication?"

This odd leftist world view that Michelle Obama personifies is just insulting. America is in decline, capitalism has failed, we're the cause of the planet's problems, we're killing children, we're too powerful, we need to understand why our enemies hate us and talk with them, we invented gravity because we hated Amelia Earhart, blah, blah, blah. I think maybe Michelle should sit back and reflect on how this country she says is broken is the country that has allowed her to make over 300 grand a year as an "executive director of community affairs" at a hospital. Then again, maybe this country is broken.

All the News That Fits to Our Ideological Agenda

2008-07-21T15:05:00.000-07:00

SHOCK: THE NEW YORK TIMES DECIDES NOT TO TELL THE OTHER HALF OF THE STORY!!

Via Matt Drudge, the NYT has rejected an editorial by John McCain in response to an editorial Barry Obama wrote about his position on Iraq less than a week ago. I'm personally flabbergasted. I can't believe the Times would risk its reputation of objectivity and even handedness. If they keep this up they might become known as left wing advocates posing as journalists. People might even believe that the last Republican they endorsed for President was Dwight Eisenhower.

On the other hand, I was surprised that the Iraq war was still going on. I never see anything about it in the Times anymore. I wonder why they don't want to talk about it anymore unless they get an editorial by Barry Obama('s staff)? A curious thought to ponder. They couldn't write enough about it in 2005. Are there no more Jack Murtha quotes comparing our soldiers to the imaginary Mongols John Kerry spoke of while he was in the SDS? I'd better stop there, if we delve into that, its enough for two or three more posts. Ah, you wacky libs. You're like the gift that keeps giving, or maybe the guy who keeps kicking you in the junk and taking your wallet.

Back to the point, I'm sure its just a matter of time before the Times corrects this error and regains its impeccable journalistic integrity. Otherwise people are going to begin to think they're just a mouth piece for the Democrat Party and that the NYT's whole reason for existence is to push a liberal agenda, not to report "all the news that's fit to print". But that's just crazy, right?

Maybe Its Because He Used to Sell Coke?

2008-07-21T08:13:00.000-07:00

Here's the difference between Venezuelan President (Uh, Dictator) Hugo Chavez and Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Chavez claims to be "negotiating" for the release of 15 hostages from Marxist Commie assholes FARC , Uribe rescues them with a bunch of guys wearing Che Guevara shirts just to rub it in. Uribe deserves more press than he gets. Remember Columbia? That South American Country with the historical misfortune of being the perfect place to grow cocaine? The country under siege by drug cartels on one side and commie drug lords on the other? Yeah, Uribe tamed that country. He's rescuing hostages that people had given up for dead. He's killing FARC leaders at a 12th grade level. He's got Hugo Chavez mobilizing troops and running with his tail between his legs to Russia to buy arms.

Its a shame no one (in the press at least) seems to be paying attention. With all seriousness, I believe Uribe getting Columbia under control is the greatest feat of our young century so far. George Bush agrees and wants to reward this struggling country with a Free Trade Agreement. Enter Barry Obama who believes Free Trade is a tool of the devil. In addition to slighting our friendly (if fascistic) neighbors to the north, Barry wants to nix the Colombian agreement which is pending while it awaits congressional approval. If we abandon Colombia just as they get their country out of the mess we helped create (yeah, its our money that fuels Colombia's problems, coke head) it will be a tremendous stain on America's national honor. Barry (that nuanced liberal who has plenty of experience and would never commit a massive foreign policy faux pas just to appease some reactionaries in the AFL) doesn't seem to think so. He doesn't think we should help out the guy who's trying to cut off the coke supply to our kids and welfare recipients. Way to go Barry. You're certainly the new politician we've heard you are. You'd never take the typical, worn out democrat position and refuse to support an anti communist ally.

Barry Obama: Change we can believe in -- unless you're anti communist, then you can go f*** yourself.

VP Blues

2008-07-18T07:02:00.001-07:00

Please John McCain, don't put Mike Huckabee on the ticket. I'm almost (almost) resigned to voting for you, most likely in a drunken stupor, but if you put the Huckster in the VP slot, I'm done. Adios muchacho, not a chance in hell that I'd vote for the liberal Republican dream ticket. It would be Ford and Rockefeller all over again, and had I been alive in 1975, that would have really pissed me off. I'm sure, however, that as usual McCain will take the path of "what will piss off conservatives the most" and choose the Huckster, or Lindsey Graham (whom I despise perhaps more than John McCain), or Joe Lieberman (whom I believe is a good man, but clearly a liberal).

In that line of thought however, I don't think I'd want Mitt Romney on the ticket either. Two reasons A: I don't want him tainted by the horror that's sure to be the McCain administration. I don't want to see Mitt or Bobby Jindal have to trot out before the camera and toe the administration line on what ever liberal crap McCain wants to do. It will kill me a little bit inside. B: I don't think I'm asshole enough (yet) to root for McCain's death for 4 years so Mitt can take over. I'm just not yet comfortable with wishing death on someone at this point in my life. Give me time. In a couple of years I'm sure I'll be so cynical and jaded (especially after a McCain administration) that I'll have no scruples with hoping a politician would die, but I'm just not ready yet.

I guess best case scenario, McCain chooses a well known conservative with no real political future to be ruined by his association with the administration. Maybe a Tom Delay type? I'd be happy with that. (McCain would NEVER do it however).

You know what? Screw it. Let's just get Mike Gravel and be done with it.

If Nancy Pelosi Blocks Off Shore Drilling, and No One Says Anything, Did it Ever Really Happen?

2008-07-17T08:22:00.000-07:00

Nancy Pelosi has made it a point to stop bills that ease restrictions on drilling from reaching the floor for a vote. If Republicans had any brains/balls, they'd be hammering the Democrats on this, its a gift issue. With Congress' approval rating at 14%, now is the perfect time to explain to the American people who is keeping gas prices up by pandering to the environmental left. Alas, most of the elected GOP in congress lack brains/balls, and we never see any real leadership from the White House. Maybe John McCain will. . . wait, no. He doesn't want to openly advocate a position that will upset the New York Times.

Another Reason Not to Vote for John McCain

2008-07-17T06:54:00.000-07:00

Al "Manbearpig" Gore is calling for a Kennedyesque national effort to "produce every kilowatt of electricity through wind, sun and other Earth-friendly energy sources within 10 years". I've already documented how fascistic I think this "Apollo Program" line of thought is, but there's another nugget in this article:

"The Nobel Prize-winning former vice president said fellow Democrat Barack Obama and Republican rival John McCain are "way ahead" of most politicians in the fight against global climate change."

Does Mr. McCain realize how aghast conservatives are when they hear a radical, anti capitalist, greeny like Al "Manbearpig" Gore say their presidential candidate is on the right track when it comes to global warming? Beyond the right, how about an average American who thinks the global warmists and environmentalists are wackjobs? What's he going to think? You don't have to be a conservative or a Republican to realize that Al Gore is bat shit crazy. Unfortunately, I'm sure McCain will be consistent and divine how conservatives want him to act and do the opposite. Expect to hear McCain refer to Gore as a "pioneer", or a "great American", or some such drivel in the coming days. Meanwhile, China chuckles to itself as it takes another shot of oil and grabs the reigns of history.

Et Tu, UK?

2008-07-16T10:14:00.000-07:00

According to the Daily Mail, Shakespeare may be dropped from secondary school testing in Great Britain. Remember a vague time period that you may have read about in a history book when the British were proud of their country, culture, and history? Why is it now only those of us in the old colonies that seem to give a rat's ass about the downfall of the mother country? William Shakespeare should be mandatory reading for every child in the English speaking world, if not all of Western society. How the British could abandon one of the greatest gifts her Empire bequeathed upon the world is beyond the reaches of my cognitive thought process.

Well, I guess everyone grab rifle, let's go free the home islands. Someone call the Aussies, they'll probably be up for it.

Well La-De-Fricken-Da

2008-07-16T08:53:00.000-07:00

The Chinese say they are preparing to "modify the weather" if need be for the opening ceremonies. Um, ok. I guess we should all learn Mandarin now and prepare to submit to our glorious new ChiCom masters since they appear to have a SPECTREesque weather machine that can destroy us all (and they blamed Bush for Katrina). On the bright side, the environmentalists can throw in the towel now that China can press a button and stop any "global warming" that's occurring. Everyone, back to your SUVs!!

Mark Steyn Redux

2008-07-15T13:29:00.000-07:00

More shenanigans to report in Britain's slow motion suicide. Harry's Place blog is being sued for accurately quoting a muslim. Looks like Canada is exporting her values to the world after all. Support Harry's Place here

The Iraq War is Sooo 2005

2008-07-15T09:25:00.000-07:00

Obama has scrubbed his website of all criticism of the Iraq "surge". That sound you heard was George Soros' head exploding.

At Least He Doesn't Look Up to Karl Marx

2008-07-14T12:15:00.000-07:00

John McCain is making steady progress in his effort to completely alienate every conservative Republican voter. In an interview with the International Herald Tribune, McCain named Teddy Roosevelt as his "conservative model". The only problem is that Teddy Roosevelt isn't a conservative. In fact quite the opposite, he was a self described "progressive", i.e. a liberal. He was a foreign policy hawk to be sure, but progressives were much less dovish than modern day liberals.

Roosevelt crusaded against big business and was a zealous regulator. His "Square Deal" was the ancestor of the "New Deal" FDR would introduce 25 years later. The government took control of railroad shipping rates, which in part led to their downturn in later years as they faced competition from trucking and airplanes. Roosevelt took an active role in attacking major American corporations, pushing the courts to submit to the the wishes of the executive branch when it came to antitrust suits.

In 1912 Roosevelt formed the "Progressive Party" whose platform included heavy regulation of industry, required health care for industrial workers, regulation of campaign donations, and early forms of Medicare, unemployment programs, and social security. It advocated the Imperial German model of cooperation between the government and business. It called for government ownership of remaining coal and oil fields, and for a progressive income and inheritance tax. This is McCain's conservative model.

Does McCain actually admire him for the reasons I've listed? I know he agrees with at least some of what Roosevelt stood for (Damn Oil Companies! Patriotism over profits!), but more likely he's ignorant of most of Roosevelt's policies and proposals. He probably just knew Teddy was a conservationist and a hawk and thought to himself, "why that's me!" Still its disheartening to have the Republican candidate point to a big government liberal as his "conservative model". Its like pointing to Jenna Jameson as a model of chastity and virtue.

MSM: Nothing to See Here, Let's Talk About Health Care

2008-07-11T06:48:00.000-07:00

Oh look, another example of how the Iraq war has completely shifted Mid East politics. Israeli warplanes are now practicing for an assault on Iran in Iraqi airspace. Israeli warplanes. Eight years ago, I couldn't fathom this happening anytime in my lifetime. Apparently, the sources in the Iraqi ministry say:

"the American bases in Iraq might serve as a platform for the IAF from which to attack Iran. If Israeli warplanes will take off from Iraq, they can reach Bushehr in five minutes - a "record time," the sources said."

But of course, the Iraq war hasn't made us any safer, right? Say whatever you want about the justification for the war (and believe me their were many justifications beyond WMDs), but you cannot deny the strategic position it puts us in vis-a-vis Iran. We have friendly countries on two Iranian borders with American bases and a heavy troop presence.

The huge thing though, is that the source that leaked this came from the Iraqi Defense Ministry, which means, A: They're aware of it, and B: They most likely are leaking it because they're unhappy the Iraqi government approved it. I could be wrong on this last point, but I think the Iraqi government would have to approve something as controversial as Israeli warplanes using its airspace for an attack on Iran.

But of course this doesn't vindicate G dubya, this war was for oil, Iraq is a quagmire, its just a diversion from the war on terror, etc. etc. Hey, MSM, I hope you choke on that crow, asshats.

Can You Detect His Upper West Side Accent?

2008-07-10T10:12:00.000-07:00

Obama sticks his foot in his mouth again, here's the video at Right Wing News and here's the transcript courtesy of Rachel Lucas:

“I, I don’t understand, when people are going around worrying about, ‘we need to have English only.’ They, they wanna pass a law, ‘we want just, uh, we want English only.’ No, I agree that immigrants should learn English. I agree with that.

But. But. Understand this. Instead of worrying about whether, uh, immigrants can learn English. They’ll learn English. You need to make sure your child can speak Spanish! You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual. We should have every child speaking more than one language.

“You know, it’s embarrassing, it’s embarrassing when, when, uh, when Europeans come over here. They all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe. All we can say is merci beaucoup. Right?”

Did it ever occur to Mr. Obama that there may be a reason a lot of people choose to learn English? Obama is so nuanced and intelligent, so he must have a firm grasp of history, correct? He must know that for, oh, say the past 500 years, English speaking Anglo-Saxon countries have dominated cultural, economic, and political thought? Why is English overwhelmingly used on the internet? Because America invented it. Why do so many people in foreign lands learn English? Because it makes their lives easier. They can trade with us. They can understand the new American or British pop hit. They can watch Star Wars without voices dubbed over. People learn English because it is practical for them to do so seeing as Britain and then America have been the driving force of history for so long.

Its not usually practical for Americans to learn a second language once they're out of school. I'd love to read the original text Voltaire wrote in French, or the Aeneid in Latin, but the time I'd have to put in makes the cost prohibitive. For someone who wants to enjoy American culture, or make money through international trade with the English speaking world, the costs may not be prohibitive. They may be a worthwhile investment.

I think Obama scolding soccer moms for not taking time out of their busy day to teach their kids Spanish is incredibly condescending. Calling them "embarrassing" reveals a conceited elite who doesn't think much of the ordinary Americans whose vote he seeks.

John McCain Should Read This

2008-07-09T13:19:00.000-07:00

Anything you need to know about economics, you can learn from Walter Williams. The man's brilliant. Read his defense of speculation. Do it. Do it right now. I will drive to your house and punch your dog, click on the link.

Thomas Sowell ain't too bad either.

I May Have To "Trip Acid And Vote 4 McCain"

2008-07-09T09:39:00.000-07:00

Found a great blog via Ann Coulter: Get Drunk And Vote 4 McCain. Now that I think about it, that's the only way I can vote for him. Come November, I'm going to have to get hammered, I mean real hammered. I may have to go on a three to sixteen day bing. I don't want to remember voting for him or the hysterical crying that I'm sure will ensue once I really come to grips with what I have done. Hell, I don't think I'll want to remember his administration if he's elected. I'm not sure what the shelf life of my liver is anymore. I'm not sure I can handle a 4 year bender.

Every freedom loving American who thinks they can hold their nose enough to vote for McCain (I'm still not sure on this by the way) because Obama will probably cede Canada to Iran should get together and take some shots of Wild Turkey, or say, pure absinthe, and do the deed. We're going to need each other's support, its as close to a suicide pact as I hope I ever come. Back in college, some of my buddies and I got together to party and watch the 2004 returns, but those were returns, we were celebrating (this is back in the day when we thought if Bush can just get a second term, he and Carl "permanent majority" Rove will unleash their secret conservative master plan, which turned out to be amnesty and deficit spending). This time we'll have to get drunk in the morning or several days earlier so we can vote and then curl up in the fetal position and sob.

Its going to be tough, but we'll just have to "lay back and think of America", so to speak. We'll use Everclear to try and drown the shame.

Psychologists Identify "Climate Change Delusion"

2008-07-09T08:10:00.000-07:00

Yeah, I identified "Climate Change Delusion" as soon as I realized Al "Manbearpig" Gore was the main proponent, but you shouldn't call it a delusion. Its not cool to ridicule people's religious beliefs.

Barbara Hall Has Never Met A Speech That Wasn't Too Free

2008-07-09T07:06:00.000-07:00

Barbara Hall does a drive by assault on Free Speech. Crap, did I just stereotype Italians, or slow drivers packing heat? Wait, I live in America so I'm O.K. I'm sure she'll pen a response decrying my comments and lamenting the fact that she has no jurisdiction over me or the Vatican. . . or Thomas Jefferson. Sorry Barbara, but take it from a friend, I know Che Guevara is trendy, but the beret is just not your look. Don't sweat it though girlfriend, the brown shirt and the jack boots really accent your luger nicely.

A Broadcast Banned In British Columbia

2008-07-09T06:30:00.000-07:00

Starting to get the shakes from Steyn withdrawal? I know I am. Well dry out no more, Mark will make a brief return from his sabbatical to guest host the Rush Limbaugh Show on Friday, July 11th. Tune in or you're not my friend anymore.

SHOCKING NCB STUDY : BABIES ARE PEDOPHILES!

2008-07-08T07:57:00.000-07:00

Of course we all know that babies can be horrid, horrid, racists, but surprising and unnecessary new research now shows that they can be pedophiles as well!! The National Children's Bureau has a stunning new study out that shines a chilling and semi rediculous light on baby pedophilia.

According to chronic overreacter Jane Lane (a serious name), babies "can show disturbing signs of pedophilia at a startlingly young age, often even before they are conceived." The NCB is now rushing new guidelines to nurseries across Britain in an effort to forestall baby sex crimes and justify their government grants. "I know its shocking," said Jane Lane, "but in our research we've found that babies often look at other babies and even smile at them, not to mention the fact that they spend a shocking amount of time naked."

Asked to comment, Yorkshire MP Thomas Sullivan was quoted as saying "Are you (censored) serious? Game over man, just take it all down. Burn it all, (censored) it. I'm not even going to pretend to care any more. Bloody (censored) rediculous."

Despite seeming government apathy, the NCB is pushing for far reaching powers to resolve this growing crisis. "We need a National Baby Sex Offender Registry," said plain dame Jane Lane, "we can't have these monsters crawling the streets."

Horrified mothers across Britain are already ratting out their infants. "He's been sucking on my nipple for months," said a hysterical London mother who wished to remain anonymous. "At first I thought it was just a phase, but now I fear its a symptom of something far more ominous. I'm not sure, but I think when I gave birth to him, he touched my vagina!"

Reached late last night, noted child psychologist Nigel Chamberlain remarked "is this a (censored) serious question?"

Trees? Screw Trees!

2008-07-07T11:33:00.000-07:00

What's wrong with California, let me count the ways. . .

I can't imagine how conservative Californians put up with this crap. A global warming sticker on every new car? What's the point? To ostracize people who drive what they want and are willing to pay for it?

Now, I've got no problem with recycling, cleaning up our messes, and common sense. "Don't empty your septic tank into the stream." "Hey, don't throw away that can brother, recycle it." "Hey man, don't build your campfire at the base of that redwood." "Bro, you should stop strangling condors for fun," etc. etc. Blah, blah, blah. But you couldn't just peacefully try and persuade us through rational discussion. You had to become hysterical and begin imposing your beliefs on the rest of us. You know what? Fine.

I'm moving to California and I want the car that puts out the most pollution. If one is the worst rating, give me a zero. In fact I'm going to drive down the street towing a trailer full of burning tires, and you know what? You environmentalists drove me to it. I wouldn't provoke you if you hadn't messed with me, but now its on. I'm going to drive around in a tank that burns pure crude oil in the most inefficient manner possible. I don't care how much it costs. I'm going to drive down the road spraying aerosol cans out the window. I'm not going to brake for animals, in fact, I'm planning on dumping crude oil on any wild animal I can find. I'm not even going to turn my car off, I'm just going to let it idle all night while I sleep with all the lights on and the refrigerator door open. I want a carbon footprint bigger than Al Gore's. Trees? Screw trees. I'm cutting em down for no discernible reason. Does that make me a monster? Maybe, but remember you created me. I'm mad as hell and I'm not taking it anymore.

On second thought, nah. A transgender, antiwar protester from San Francisco would probably follow me home and strangle me with his/her fabulous new neckerchief.

Guy Fawkes, Where Art Thou?

2008-07-07T10:28:00.000-07:00

Britain's death spiral seems to become more pronounced with each passing day. Now a British government sponsored organization has declared that kids who don't like foreign foods are displaying early signs of racism. . . . Seriously. . . . WTF?

I wonder if anyone could have imagined in 1908 when Britain sat astride the world with the greatest Empire the Earth had ever seen, that in a mere century they'd be calling their toddlers racists if they didn't like Thai? This is why I'm generally in favor of less rather than more government. Its usually run by idiot bureaucrats who not only have the gall to tell you how to raise your kids, they call them little racists who need to have that "white guilt" instilled in them extra early.

I don't understand how the entire population isn't up in arms at the daily outrages that come out of those islands. All of Western Civilization seems complacent to go silently into the trash heap of history.

Ich Bin Ein Conceited Collectivist

2008-07-07T08:09:00.000-07:00

Obama may be planning to speak in Berlin. I can already hear the media: "JFK! JFK! He's just like JFK!" Except that he's not. JFK was tough on foreign policy, queasy about Civil Rights, and cut taxes. Sound much like Obama? It won't matter to the media.

There's this bizzar myth about who JFK was that liberals have used to turn him into this statist martyr who would have built the perfect socialist society if only he'd lived. Now they've attached this to Obama. JFK reborn, the messiah back from the grave. Obama for his part seems to be playing right along. I don't know if he's being pragmatic or just incredibly pretentious and arrogant, probably a combination of both.

JFK was certainly no conservative, but he's definitely not Obama. We all - Mr. Obama included - would do well to remember that.

Nag, Britannia!

2008-07-07T07:54:00.000-07:00

Britain is now telling its citizens not to buy food in bulk and to be sure and clean their plates. Given all the talk you generally hear about "keeping the government out of the bedroom", I'm puzzled that I don't hear those same types going on about "keeping the government out of our kitchens". Its sad to see what was such a wonderful country that civilized a fourth of the world reduced not just to a nanny state, but to a nag as well.

I Think Baby Pandas Cause Global Warming

2008-07-03T08:00:00.000-07:00

A new submission for the Warmlist.

Someday, in the next Dark Age, some monk in Scranton will be studying the fall of our Civilization, and he'll say to himself, "Those Assholes had flat screens and thought it was a problem?"

Obama and the "F" Word

2008-07-02T08:27:00.000-07:00

Jeffry Lord has penned the most succinct description of the Totalitarianism Obama represents that I have thus far read:

"To start there would be no more driving SUVs. No more Rush. For God's sake absolutely no driving your SUV while listening to Rush. No more eating whatever you want. Definitely no keeping your home as warm or as cool as you prefer. No capital gains cuts because they are unfair. Your guns will be banned. And if you have a different opinion on global warming? All those lofty supporters of rights for terrorists are going to strip every oil executive in America of theirs in a heartbeat, live and in living color.

Is anyone paying attention here? Today the targets are talk radio, oil, SUVs, or guns or debates on global warming and so on. But what about tomorrow and the day after that and the day and years after that? What freedoms will next be targeted with that deadliest trademark of an Obamalander -- moral superiority? What do we have when the sole purpose of the government as run by the chilling principles of Obamaland is to "use the political process" to remove freedoms large and small one by one by one?

Someone needs to speak it plainly.

The word is fascism."

Do I truly have to seriously contemplate voting for John McCain?