Today, Al-Qaeda's second in command (if you think Osama is still alive), Ayman al-Zawahri, said that Obama's election has not changed the American policies he claims are aimed at "oppressing Muslims." But that was before he called him a Negro.
You crossed the line, son! I know you didn't just say that about no Barack!
Ayman al-Zawahri said in the message, which appeared on militant Web sites, that Obama is "the direct opposite of honorable black Americans" like Malcolm X, the 1960s African-American rights leader.
In al-Qaida's first response to Obama's victory, al-Zawahri also called the president-elect - along with secretaries of state Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice - "house negroes."
Speaking in Arabic, al-Zawahri uses the term "abeed al-beit," which literally translates as "house slaves." But al-Qaida supplied English subtitles of his speech that included the translation as "house negroes."
Daaaaaamn, no you didn't! Listen man, I know you like our black people when they're Muslims, but my cuz Obama was born Muslim, didn't you know? He even attended school as a Muslim in Indonesia - that don't count for nothin'? Can't we just chill?
"The Muslim nation received with extreme bitterness your hypocritical...stance toward Israel...You were born to a Muslim father, but you chose to stand with the enemies of Muslims."
Ohhhhh snap! What about Afghanistan n'all that?
"Be aware that the dogs of Afghanistan have found the flesh of your soldiers to be delicious, so send thousands after thousands to them."
Shiiiiiiiiit...come on man, it ain't gotta be like that. This is my man Barack! Change! Y'know what I'm sayin? He's got all that hope n'shit, man!
"America has put on a new face, but its heart full of hate, mind drowning in greed, and spirit which spreads evil, murder, repression and despotism continue to be the same as always."
Let me start by saying that the goal of this column is clarity, not agreement. I don't seek to change your mind or have you finish reading this and end up in either support or opposition to Proposition 8, or gay marriage as a whole. I simply wish to clarify the issue, and point out what I see as the real "intolerance."
Bash Back, a "tolerant" homosexual rights group.
California recently voted for the second time (after the first decision was overturned by the state supreme court in a 5-4 vote) to amend the state's constitution via Proposition 8, which will define traditional marriage as being one man and one woman. It was not a vote on civil unions, income tax or health insurance privileges, or to take away any "rights" from homosexuals. It was a simple ballot initiative to allow the citizens of California (arguably the most liberal voting state in the nation) to decide how the state should define the word "marriage." Nearly every county (including Los Angeles and San Francisco) voted for the traditional definition, with only 15 of California's 58 counties opposing the proposition.
It should be noted that this is in fact the second time Californians have voted as a state in favor of this traditional definition. Many opponents say Proposition 8 is a "step backward," since gay marriage is currently legal in California. But it's only a "step backward" because after the voters of California spoke for the first time, the issue was shopped to the state supreme court, who overturned the voice of the majority by a 5-4 vote, resulting in a few months of state-sanctioned same-sex "marriage." Now that the people of California have voted yet again in favor of the traditional definition of marriage, governor Schwarzenegger took a break from squat thrusts long enough to say, "It's unfortunate, obviously, but it's not the end...I think that we will again maybe undo that, if the court is willing to do that."
Democracy in action. If the state instead voted overwhelmingly in favor of redefining marriage to include same-sex couples, and one conservative judge tipped the 5-4 vote and overturned the voice of the people by re-banning "gay marriage," don't you think homosexuals and their advocates would rise up and say "Democracy has been subverted; the people have spoken and their voice has been silenced?" You'd think so, and you'd be right. But apparently the subversion of one of the last true democratic constructs in America (the ballot initiative) is completely fine if the results turn out in your favor.
Before going on, let me say this. I am a 100% sexual libertarian. I don't care what someone's orientation is, what they do, who they do it with, how many people are involved; whatever blows their skirt up in the privacy of their own home doesn't and will never affect me, nor should it. I'll never have a problem with (much less care about) what anyone does sexually, as long as it's consensual and no children are involved. I think this is pretty basic stuff.
After understanding that, understand that I am in favor of granting every "right" a married heterosexual couple has to homosexual couples as well. I use the term "right" loosely here, but you should know what I'm talking about: Hospital visitation, the ability to cover your partner with an employer's health insurance plan, the ability to file a tax return as a couple...the list goes on and on. I don't know a single supporter of proposition 8 who has a problem with two homosexuals taking advantage of the aforementioned benefits that society bestows to heterosexual couples. In fact, if you ask me, it's a travesty they aren't universally granted already. Homosexuality is not a choice, or a "preferred behavior." As such, society can not expect to dilute its influence by punishing it as a "choice," or creating economic incentives to "choose" its opposite.
Proposition 8 supporters and indeed the vast majority of those who defend so-called "traditional marriage" do not hate gays. Many of them have gay friends, coworkers, family members - all of whom they fully accept and understand. They do not seek to destroy a homosexual's way of life, or punish them for their sexuality - something they have no control over. They see no problem in granting to homosexual couples a legal standing equivalent to traditional marriage in the eyes of the government (which is - like it or not - what these "rights" are all about; your church doesn't decide how you can file your tax return) - they simply want the term and the institution to continue to be defined by the society as male/female.
I hear and understand the complaints and grievances of Prop 8 opponents, whatever their sexuality. I simply ask that they use democratic and peaceful means to convince their opposition and achieve their goals. Naturally, opponents of Proposition 8 are incensed, and I sympathize with them, but there have been overwhelmingly un-American tactics used in the wake of the decision, which I can't support or defend in any way.
A 69-year old woman was swarmed by angry protesters, as the cross she was carrying was yanked from her hands and trampled upon. Jose Nunez, a 37 year-old Mexican immigrant who became an American citizen only two months ago, was "brutally assaulted" while waiting to distribute signs in support of Prop 8. He was punched in the left eye and his signs were stolen, after being asked by his assailant, "What do you have against gays?!" It might just be me, but it seems like now he's got a lot more to "have against gays" than he did before one punched him in the face. Well done.
Calvary Chapel Chino Hills, a church which served as a collection point for a petition to get the proposition on the state ballot, was spray painted by vandals. I mean uh...people who want to "stop the hate." Mt. Hope, a church outside of Lansing, Michigan, was stormed by an anti-Prop 8 group called "Bash Back," whose demonstrators marched outside the church and then invaded the sanctuary in the middle of a Sunday service, shouting slogans, throwing leaflets and condoms (yes...condoms), pulling a fire alarm, and having two lesbian members kiss at the pulpit in front of the congregation. If church-goers didn't like gay people before, they're sure to love them now!
Letters containing "white powder" meant to resemble anthrax were sent to the Mormon church's Salt Lake City headquarters, and to a temple in Los Angeles. A 25-year old director for the California Musical Theatre was pressured into resigning because of his $1,000 donation in support of the proposition.
You can even find online "anti-gay black lists" which publicly identify and call for boycotts against citizens, small businesses, and organizations that financially backed the proposition, even with amounts as little as $46. One website states, "The following individuals or organizations have donated money to the California Proposition 8 campaign which seeks to ban same sex marriages. Please do not patronize them." And no, patronize doesn't mean "chastise."
This is what is fundamentally un-American, and I don't care what your sexuality is. And this is coming from liberals, straight and gay alike, who are supposed to be the "tolerant" ones? It is not and has never been the American way for citizens to seek to destroy the property and livelihood of others who disagree with them. That isn't democracy, tolerance, compromise, or reform - that's terrorism. You don't turn someone who disagrees with you into a "hater" or a "bigot" in an attempt to tear them down or crush their businesses. You seek understanding, compromise, and unity. You don't claim to have an affinity for democracy when the vote goes your way, and then use the "inadequacy" of democracy as an excuse for violence when it doesn't.
Oh, and since it seems to be Mormons taking most of the heat for supporting this ballot initiative, I'll remind you that not only is the Messiah himself in opposition to gay marriage (as is Mr. Biden), over 70% of blacks in California voted in favor of traditional marriage, as most of them pulled the lever (or impregnated the chad, as it were) for Barack Obama. Hear any calls for the black community, whose members voted overwhelmingly against gay marriage, to be labeled as haters and homophobes? Any black churches stormed or invaded? Nah, better stick with the Mormons. They get this kind of stuff all the time.
Again, the point of this column is not to change your mind about anything. The point (which should be especially heeded by homosexuals) is that militant and indeed intolerant homosexual "advocacy" groups are doing for mainstream acceptance of homosexuality and gay couples what Sharpton, Wright, and Jackson have done for the progress of blacks in America. That is to say, setting it back decades. Denounce the violent acts of these groups (and any abhorrent actions of the opposition as well), encourage others to actually practice this philosophy of "tolerance," and in addition to trying to tear down walls, try to build some bridges as well.
Oh boy. The blog's first film is stream-able right now. You can click any of the links to the Disinterest page to watch it. Hell, here's the first of 5 parts. Click here to watch the rest. Enjoy!
In an interview with Ben Smith of the NY Daily News, Rahm Emanuel (Obama's White House chief of staff) chuckled and brushed off plans for mandatory civil defense training. The Daily News has more, but first you've got to listen to this:
"Rather than figure out if you take a train ride or a barrack, think of it this way: it will be a common experience, and you'll be prepared. God forbid there's a chemical hit, there's another terrorist act, or a natural disaster (which are coming more frequent), there will be a body of citizens who are ready and capable and trained. That's all you have to think about. We're all here for you, okay? It's a circle of love."
A circle of love! Oh how I love my nanny state!
Here's another surprise: gun sales have shot up since the election. Why can't a presidential candidate flip-flop on a definitive Second Amendment case in the middle of a campaign without people wondering if he's serious about gun rights?
Saturday, a congressman from the 10th district of Georgia deemed President-elect Obama's agenda "Marxist," and called out John McCain for running an "inept" campaign. Paul Broun is especially worried about Barack's pledge to create a "civilian national security force." First, the local story:
"In my opinion, we've elected a Marxist to be president of the United States...Mr. Broun qualified his remark, saying he believes Mr. Obama's policies of bigger government and shared wealth are Marxist..."I'm very disappointed with the McCain campaign," he said. "In my opinion, it was inept."
"It may sound a bit crazy and off base, but the thing is, he's the one who proposed this national security force," Rep. Paul Broun said of Obama in an interview Monday with The Associated Press. "I'm just trying to bring attention to the fact that we may — may not, I hope not — but we may have a problem with that type of philosophy of radical socialism or Marxism."
You don't need an outright Marxist revolution in America. You don't need a coup. You don't need a violent uprising. You don't even need to take people's guns.
When you control the value of people's money, the amount of money they get to keep, and the education of their children, achieving national socialism is like shooting fish in a barrel, you just have to shoot one at a time and over a period of decades, and the public will eventually clamor for the nanny state that has already been designed for them.
Of course, when Michelle Obama said she was "proud of her country" for the first time, she was the target of "racist attacks," but when Seattle liberals suddenly realize that red, white, and blue aren't venomous colors it's not only newsworthy, it sure "feels good." Somehow, patriotism is somewhat of a new concept for certain Washington residents. From the Seattle Post-Intelligencer:
With newfound patriotism, Seattleites want to wave the flag, hang it from their homes and stick it on their cars.
"The thing that's kind of astounding to me is I never ever would have cared to own a flag," said Rosemary Garner, 42. "This is the first day in my life I actually feel this funny sense of pride about my country. It's a very foreign feeling, but it's a good one."
Garner, a self-described "flag virgin" who lives on Capitol Hill, bought eight flags Wednesday -- some to wave and others to stick on her car to "mix and match with some nice Obama and peace signs. Then I bought a couple of flags for some friends who wanted to hang them from their truck along with their biodiesel stickers."
"It's just a rare feeling to feel that type of, I don't know, national connection," said Noah Kriegsmann, a 33-year-old builder from West Seattle. He feels that Obama's win will help America's standing in the world, and he bought a flag to fly on his truck, though he admitted it felt strange to see the flag in his hand.
Americans have an uncanny ability to utterly loathe their own culture. A "funny sense of pride?" Liberals so ache to be loved by the world; they truly don't understand what it means to be proud of one's country.
There are Muslims in the Islamic Republic of Iran that would tell you they detested their government's sponsorship of terror, their government's stoning of women, murder of homosexuals, and blatant anti-Semitism. But they have more pride than Seattle liberals could ever comprehend in their nation and their heritage. They're proud of their Persian history, language, and culture.
So we elect a black president, and suddenly America isn't the racist bully of the world, and its okay to be proud of your country and culture? Grow up, PNW.
Even though the common sentiment is that this is a life-changing country-changing future-changing election, many Democrats are already lowering their expectations, and wisely so. Of all people, Nancy Pelosi has called for the Congress to be "governed from the middle."
I have no idea what to expect from the next Congress, other than whatever Barack, Pelosi, and Reid can cook up. The funny thing is, "the middle" is no longer the middle, as the nation has fallen victim to a sharp lurch to the left over the last 50 years. From The Hill:
Democratic leaders are tamping down on expectations for rapid change and trying to signal they will place a calm hand on the nation’s tiller.
“The country must be governed from the middle,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said Wednesday. Repeating themes from election night, she said she plans to emphasize “civility” and “fiscal responsibility.”
Her comments emphasized that after an election consistently referred to as “historic,” Democrats face the daunting task of dealing with the plunging economy and two wars.
Perhaps the Democratic party as a whole, as far left as it is, is realizing that the country still maintains center-right ideology, as they learned in 1994 after their failed health care initiatives got them thrown out of power for the first time in decades.
The truth of the matter is, the Democrat leadership knows that an immediate and sharp turn to the left will upset a suspicious electorate, namely in so-called "blue dog" districts that tend to elect more reserved and traditional Democrat representatives. If they're foolish, they'll go right for jugular and fast-forward measures like the fairness doctrine, health care "reform," and a perilous Iraq withdrawal.
If they're smart, they'll put the more radical initiatives on the back burner and attempt to avoid a GOP smack-down in 2010, by convincing a panicky America that the Left can be trusted with one party government.
It's 1:42 AM Wednesday morning, and I've just returned from venturing outside my Atlanta apartment amid cheers, car horns, and indistinguishable chants. What follows is a non-exaggerated account, to be taken simply as a true life anecdote in a media-drenched world full of slogans, soundbites, and bullshit narratives.
As I walked east on 3rd street, it was mere moments before I heard a boisterous voice, loud and clear. He was a black man in his twenties, strolling confidently on the opposite site of the street, posturing the way hip-hop artists do when they know there are cameras around.
I heard his triumphant cry: "Yeah baby! It's all about the O! Fuck McCain!" I couldn't help but look, and my gaze remained fixed upon him as we trotted in opposite directions. We made eye contact, and he directed his shouting my way. Slowing his pace, he asked me, "you hear what I said? Obama baby!"
I never talk to strangers. I never like when they talk to me, which is virtually every day, be it on the train, bus, or on foot. For some reason, though, I felt compelled to buck his sense of vicarious accomplishment. "What's he going to do for you?" I shouted back. His reply was simple, and cringe-worthy. "He's gonna give me change! What's he gonna give you?"
"He's going to dissolve my liberties and yours," I said, to which he poignantly replied, "Yeah bitch, that's why you voted for the nigga with the short arms."
Baffled, I kept walking. And then I heard the horns. The blaring sustained car horns that I can still hear out of my window, zooming with a mesmerizing Doppler effect up and down Peachtree street, the main thoroughfare which is to Atlanta as Broadway is to New York City. Obama/Biden signs sticking out of car sun roofs, sensationalist Obama apparel with airbrushed phrases like "Change" and "Hope," and more surreal commotion than I've ever seen after 1:00 am on a Tuesday.
I walked south for two blocks until I reached North Avenue, where an even bigger gaggle of Obama nighthawks were shouting and carrying on, decked out with shirts, placards, stickers, and flags. The rallying cry: "O-ba-ma, O-ba-ma!"
"Mar-xis-m, Mar-xis-m," I muttered quietly to myself. Not quietly enough it turned out, as while my attention was arrested by the celebratory cries of the half-moon droves, a homeless man meandering down North Avenue matched my pace and asked me a very honest question: "Hey man, you ain't pissed are you?"
I had to stop and think. What was I feeling? I wasn't angry. I wasn't even disappointed; it's pretty hard to disappoint someone as cynical as I am, and admittedly a significant part of me was undeniably touched by the historic implications of this election. I had always thought about the idea of a "black" president (or at least someone other than an aging WASP) ever since I realized at a young age that, while throughout the history of our republic, black people had overcome tremendous odds and catalyzed their own self-determination to achieve greatness, the presidency seemed just out of reach for a mainstream black American.
Barack Obama is anything but mainstream, but I digress...
My honest answer was "No." By this time, we had walked a full block and were standing on the corner of North Avenue and West Peachtree street. I told him I was concerned that people would be distracted from the real ways in which they could improve their lives. I told him that simply electing someone and feeling good about it would never change a thing, and would only serve to further exacerbate the mentality of entitlement and the systemic apathy that has stagnated communities across America for years.
His words were as surprising as they were candid: "People cain't be gettin' complacent, y'understand? These people cain't just be voting for some character and expect that they can just sit back and let whatever they dreaming about come to 'em. Ain't no politician nowhere who ever said some magic spell and changed people's lives."
I smiled, and I smiled big. This man, a middle-aged black man named Angelo with ill-fitting clothes and a scraggly beard, had once again reminded me that the average person isn't so average after all. As we continued walking west, I told him how much I agreed with him and how much I respected his point of view. I was talking politics with a bum, and I was intrigued by and grateful for every second of it.
He described what he saw as a "cycle," in which values and ideas are passed on to future generations, either for the betterment of society, or for the detriment of society. I was sure he was unemployed, yet he spoke of the virtue of "getting up and going to work," "makin' your living," and "taking care of your family."
I silently thought of two reasons for the amount clarity that came from a man living on the streets of Atlanta. The first was the fact that without a job, a family, and possessions, Angelo's only real pasttime was spent thinking about his life and his values. The second, even more telling of the state of our society, was the fact that without exposure to television, radio, and the internet, I was talking to a man who lived in a complete media vacuum. He lived a life completed unswayed by a liberal dominated mass-media monolith.
We walked for another block, and as we crossed Spring street in front of honking cars and shouting city dwellers, I felt more comforted by his honesty and integrity - things which I imagined were rare commodities among the numerous Atlantans forced to live one day at a time, without a bed to sleep in, a family to rely on, or a paycheck to collect.
I walked into North Avenue's BP gas station, the hub of nightlife for the southern tip of Midtown, and bought Angelo something to eat. I didn't have any cash on me, but I couldn't deny that if I could have paid for this conversation, I would have. He thanked me, wished me luck, and after learning that I was a mere 22 years old, reminded me I had a lot of living to do, and a lot of perspective to gain.
I walked the remaining 3 blocks to my house, satisfied with the knowledge that somewhere, somehow, the true spirit of America would survive. I felt assured that no matter who possessed the keys, this country was built by people who didn't believe in government, corporations, banks, demogogues, politicians, or rhetoric.
This country was built by people who believed in themselves.
I must pinch my nose, bite my tongue, and cross my fingers as I go on record as rooting for John McCain this election. I never liked John McCain, and I never saw myself "supporting" such a disappointing and inadequate candidate, but America is currently clinging to life on the operating table, and as the reaffirming beeps from the life support machine grow farther apart, I simply can't bring myself to place the scalpel in the hands of Doctor Barack.
Besides the fact that Obama represents the farthest Left America will have ever ventured, he would also be the most inexperienced and previously unknown candidate ever elected. After all, I've still yet to hear a compelling answer to the question "what has Obama ever accomplished?" The only thing his supporters can come up with is, "he was elected to the U.S. senate." Well, so were 99 other people, many times over. Does that make them qualified to lead the free world?
When backed into a corner on the experience issue, Obamatons will frequently cite his ability to "inspire people," especially youth, without ever answering the pertinent question: inspire them to do what? Does he inspire them to volunteer in homeless shelters? To donate to charity? To join the armed forces or the peace corps? The only thing Obama "inspires" young people to do is vote for him. His message is loud and clear: the best way to help out your community is to vote for Barack Obama. The Messiah himself will take care of the rest.
Because we knew so little about Doctor Barack at the outset, we were forced to look at his associations and his voting record. Starting with the latter, as you should know by now, he was ranked in 2007 by a non-partisan journal as the #1 most liberal voter in the U.S. Senate. To give you some perspective, Obama came out to the left of Bernie Sanders, a self-declared Socialist.
As for his associations, I'll say this: Throughout his brief political career, Barry has had an uncanny ability to be comfortable around people who simply hate this country. Wright, Ayers, Dohrn, Khalidi...the list goes on. Barack has had so many ties to so many controversial and America-loathing characters, he wouldn't even qualify to be his own secret service bodyguard. Anyone who has worked for the FBI knows that someone who was associated with the former spokesmouth for the PLO, or who kicked off a political career in the home of an unrepentant terrorist, would be denied the security clearance and thus the job based on those connections. Obama couldn't qualify to be an FBI agent, but somehow he's qualified to be president.
After establishing that he had no experience (Hillary helped with this one), and that he wished not to be judged based on his associations with the aforementioned unsavory characters, he pleaded with the American people to elect him based on his "judgment." Once again, this aspect leaves quite a lot to be desired.
Obama gained a lot of traction early on by touting his opposition to the Iraq war. While it's a given that he didn't even have a vote on the Iraq war resolution (remember, in 2003 Barack Obama was a complete unknown), one wonders how much political risk he took by speaking out against the war as a state senator from a decidedly liberal, anti-war district.
Regardless of his position in 2003, after Obama was elected to the U.S. Senate, he was faced with an actual vote on a controversial foreign policy decision: the troop surge. John McCain and other members of congress said the surge strategy was the only way to salvage the war and recover from Bush's horribly mismanaged conflict. The last 16 months have shown their judgment to be correct.
Obama didn't just vote against the surge, he actually predicted it would make matters worse. Even the New York Times now admits Iraq has been completely transformed by the increased troop presence, casualties are at all-time lows, and conditions for withdrawal are in sight. In fact, over the Summer, the murder rate in Obama's hometown of Chicago was higher than that of Baghdad's.
So, his experience is non-existent, his associations are downright terrifying, and on his biggest foreign policy judgment call since joining the Senate, he was spectacularly wrong, and stubbornly refuses to admit it. So what's left? What does ol' Barry really believe? What are the ideals and principles that form the core of the man who's being virtually catapulted into the White House? Folks, understand this: if we omitted everything about this man that didn't reek of failed Leftist policies or outright Marxism, we'd be left with nothing to discuss except his shoe size, which is incidentally something that the throngs of Obama worshipers could probably talk about endlessly.
Perhaps the most telling bits of evidence of Barack's radical views have come from his own mouth in the form of comments like "spread the wealth around," and tax increases "for the purposes of fairness." His egalitarianism is plain to see, which explains in part Europe's childlike infatuation with him. With so many Obama voters focused on his love for equality, no one seems to remember that equality was never an American value. Sure, Americans support equality for citizens in the eyes of the law, equal protection of the rights guaranteed by our constitution, and equal economic opportunity - that is, the freedom to earn as much as your skills and work ethic allow you to.
But Barack's idea of equality isn't the equality of opportunity, it's the equality of result. Everyone will have an "equal amount of stuff," even if it means taking from those who have earned it and giving it to those who have not. Obama advocates what Frederic Bastiat termed "legal plunder." That is, when the "law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime." Even Michelle Obama has expressed the virtues of legal plunder, although she used a much more voter-friendly foodstuff analogy:
"The truth is, most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive just a little bit...in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system, then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more."
I shouldn't have to explain to you how much this fundamentally conflicts with the principles of liberty upon which America was founded. Old school Democrats like John F. Kennedy used to construct tax policies with the ultimate goal of "growing the economy." Liberals today (better described as Leftists when compared to the likes of JFK) have modeled their tax policies with the ultimate goal of "fairness." This is truly the only way to make something as un-American as the federal income tax even more so. And rest assured, Obama represents the cream of the Democrat party's far-Left crop.
Doctor Barack is also remarkably dishonest - something that goes unnoticed by the Obama droves who will line up tomorrow to vote for a slogan, not a candidate. He constantly trumpets his plan to give a tax cut to 95% of Americans, and he's allowed to pass off such rubbish because most Americans (and probably close to all of his supporters) don't realize that 40% of Americans don't even pay income tax. They're never curious about exactly how you can give a "tax cut" to someone who doesn't pay taxes. If Obama said, "I'm raising taxes on the rich, and I'll give that money to people who don't even pay taxes," even the most deluded American would understand that right about now, Marx and Lenin are high-fiving in hell.
Another bit of dishonestly comes in the form of his claim to "end the power of special interests" - as if Republicans are the only ones beholden to lobbyists. When Barack Obama and the Democrat party decide to get out of bed with the teachers union, the trial lawyers, and the environmental lobby, I'll start believing his promises about "special interests."
Barack's naive outlook is neverending, and frankly, I don't trust him. Not on energy, not on national security, not on taxes; there isn't a single issue where he and I agree. Perhaps if Obama had a litle more time to build up his resume with some executive experience and actual accomplishments, he could be a somewhat compelling candidate. Instead, he wants Americans to support the most radical and least qualified candidate in American history.
Our country deserves better, and it's for this and countless other reasons that I must relectantly (and secretly, lest I be branded a racist) root for John McCain, with all his flaws. He's a washed up middle-of-the-roader; a compromised man who has lost his will to fight - something which may ultimately cost him this election.
But admittedly, I'll take the guy who shot rockets in Vietnam over the guy who shot staples in Chicago. I'll take the guy who has a son fighting in Iraq over the guy who says Americans "cling to their guns." I'll take the guy who palls around with liberal Democrats over the guy who palls around with racist preachers and former terrorists. I'll take the guy who says he wants government to "get out of the way" over the guy who says he wants government to "spread the wealth around." I'll take the guy who views babies as blessings over the guy who views them as "punishments." I'll take the guy who's concerned about how much energy we can produce over the guy who's concerned about how little carbon we can produce.
Simply put, after pinching my nose, biting my tongue, and crossing my fingers...I'll take the guy who wants to change Washington over the guy who wants to change America.
"Price Signals." Otherwise known as punitive taxes and fees, which would primarily affect the middle class, just like the One's plan to tax small businesses. Watch as Obama advocates sending "price signals" to the middle class in order to "change their behavior."
"It's not gonna be painless...a lot of us who can afford it are going to have to pay more per unit of electricity." So that's his plan: raise energy prices so Americans will be able to consume less, thus benefiting the environment and catalyzing the production of new energy. This is completely ignoring Obama's lack of initiative (to put it very politely) in respect to nuclear power, coal, and offshore drilling.
And it gets worse. In the same interview, Obama said that under his plan, electricity rates would "skyrocket," as companies passed higher fees on to consumers:
"You know, when I was asked earlier about the issue of coal, uh, you know — Under my plan of a cap and trade system, electricity rates would necessarily skyrocket. Even regardless of what I say about whether coal is good or bad. Because I’m capping greenhouse gases, coal power plants, you know, natural gas, you name it — whatever the plants were, whatever the industry was, uh, they would have to retrofit their operations. That will cost money. They will pass that money on to consumers."
Engineered price shocks are the last thing our economy needs right now. As we've seen with this year's gas crisis, rising energy prices can wreak havoc on an economy, affecting families and businesses alike. Obama talks about technology "catching up," but a receding or even stagnant economy will hardly ever produce major scientific breakthroughs, especially when the powerful hand of government is increasing taxes and imposing unnecessary cost burdens on energy.
As profits for energy companies begin to fall, less money can ultimately be funneled to research and development, which means the deployment of any revolutionary technology for a society will be significantly delayed, or simply never realized at all.
So, what do you get if you vote for Obama on energy? Well, he's a de facto nuclear opponent. He doesn't support additional drilling. He's said nothing about improving oil and gas infrastructure or building more refineries. He's obviously no "coal booster," as he recently admitted. And he is literally guaranteeing that energy prices will rise under his administration. Believe him.
The problem? Obama has no plan for the period of transition. He thinks he can wave his divine wand and shackle the energy companies, save the environment with a Captain Planet-esque PSA, and "science" will heroically come to the rescue and invent a magic new energy source to fuel his SUV and power his mansion.
We need to adopt sound policies to keep energy prices down, harness our own supplies of oil, coal, natural gas, wind, tide, and the rest of the lot, and use the resulting cushion to sustain our economy while we develop the alternatives and the infrastructure to deliver them.
Here's hoping America sends Barack his own "signal" on Tuesday.
Update: Chris Hamilton, senior vice president of the West Virginia Coal Association, has made a statement declaring Obama's remarks as "unfortunate."
"His comments are unfortunate," Chris Hamilton said Sunday, "and really reflect a very uninformed voice and perspective to coal specifically and energy generally...If they're victorious Tuesday, they'd better go to someone other than Al Gore on energy and environmental matters," he said. "They've tipped the balance way -- unnecessarily so -- toward protecting the environment."
This Barack Obama sign was recently spotted in Albany, California. Obviously this is just silly, but then again, parents listening to the political "wisdom" of their kids is about as silly as a dog-owner taking his pooch into consideration while pulling the lever. Here's the sign:
Now for the non-silly part. This sign is actually an almost exact copy of a Soviet propaganda poster painted by Russian artist Alexander Rodchenko in the 1920s:
Canine placards notwithstanding, Is there anything about Barack Obama that doesn't reek of communism?
