OpineTree

We're Sorry...The Author You Have Dialed is No Longer In Service

2009-02-12T13:57:00.003-05:00

Check out my new project, a community that can be found here:

www.yourpoliticsareboring.org

This is the end of OpineTree. It was a great year-long run, and a big thanks to all you loyal readers, but it's time to move on to bigger and better things, and this project is certainly both. So go read!

Geithner to Head Department of Irony

2009-01-14T11:25:00.003-05:00

You can't make this up. Timothy Geithner, President-elect (God I'm sick of hearing that term) Obama's incoming Secretary of the Treasury, is President of the New York Federal Reserve - you know, the private bank from which our government borrows all of the money in existence, at interest? Yeah, that one.

It should be noted that this arrangement creates an obvious paradox: if all legal money has to be borrowed from a single bank with owed interest payments, and every dollar borrowed will just increase the amount the government owes to the private bank, and the amount of money in existence will never be enough to match the amount of money owed back to the bankers...

Where does the money to cover the interest payments come from? Your Federal income tax, of course. This outrageous facet of the "arrangement" is second to the fact that the implication of this is that the government (and you) are owned by the private bankers.

It seems Timothy failed to pay more than $34,000 in federal taxes while he worked for the International Monetary Fund. Hmmm...wonder how that happened.

The kicker is, according to the Wall Street Journal, Geithner was aware of the owed taxes in 2006, when the IRS audited his 2003-2004 taxes and concluded he "owed taxes and interest totaling $17,230." Yet in November of 2008, just after the Messiah was selected (I mean uh, elected), it came to light that Geithner had failed to pay the exact same taxes for 2001-2002.

So Geithner paid the taxes he owed for 03-04 when the IRS notified him, but not until November 21st of 2008 (coincidentally the very day he was named Treasury appointee) did he pay them for 01-02.

Either way the Obama team tries to slice this, it's embarrassing in the most hilarious way. Their official position is this:

"The Obama team said Mr. Geithner's taxes have been paid in full, and that he didn't intend to avoid payment, but made a mistake common for employees of international institutions."

So he's an international banker who's "unaware" of the IMF's regulations establishing the responsibility for paying payroll taxes, despite being a director of the institution.

At best, and as unbelievable as it may seem, he doesn't completely understand the system. While that's one way in which he's no different than the rest of us, does that sound like a good appointment to the Treasury, the department we're told is in charge of "overseeing" the IRS?

At worst, he's a tax cheat. Again I ask, does that sound like a good appointment?

The funny part is, the media is trumpeting this "outrage" over Geithner's tax missteps, while completely ignoring the other "complications" to his appointment, namely that as President of the Federal Reserve of New York and a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, he not only oversaw the Wall Street meltdown, but is quite literally one of the men responsible for the economic situation in which we find ourselves.

I know you're a puppet Obama, but marionettes are much more fun to watch.

Injured Palestinian Girl: Hamas is the Cause of All Wars

2008-12-30T12:53:00.006-05:00

I wish I could say this reflected the broader Palestinian sentiment, but that isn't the case. Consider this an interview with a human shield, her four-year-old sister one of the 60 civilians killed in IAF strikes so far (as opposed to over 300 Hamas personnel)

This did not air on Israeli networks, but rather Palestinian Authority TV. I have no reason to question the integrity of the clip, but some are suggesting it's a "Pallywood" attempt by Fatah aimed at undermining Hamas.

When Hamas starts to care more about protecting the people of Gaza (instead of using their bloodied corpses as PR tools), and less about the goal of destroying Israel, the Palestinians will be much better off.

I only wish America had the stomach, the will, the nationalist pride that the Palestinians have to fight and defend every inch of the land that is rightfully ours, instead of remaining complacent as the elite throw open our borders and tell us that sovereignty is an "anachronistic" concept.

When compared to the quislings in the United States, that particular facet of Palestinian culture is admittedly admirable.

Podcast: Hamas, Heatwaves, and Hawaii

2008-12-29T17:00:00.000-05:00

Keith hops on-board as co-host as we discuss the escalating situation in Gaza, the continuing trumpeting of the man-made global warming theory, and the nauseatingly obsessive press and their love affair with Obama.

(Click here to download, or subscribe via iTunes or RSS)

You Can't Spell Cliché Without Ché

2008-12-29T16:44:00.010-05:00

Director Steven Soderbergh is releasing a biopic about Ché Guevara, the Marxist "revolutionary" many in America cherish for entirely naive reasons. It's another depressing chapter in the idolization of a violent thug, whose image is plastered on anything capitalism can sell, creating perhaps the only humorous aspect of his legacy: perfectly misconstrued posthumous irony.

Imagine if Hitler was a pop icon. At one point he was, but only when his name was Ernesto "Ché" Guevara, as he stood against everything most of his T-shirt clad worshipers claim to believe in. Most of these people stand against capital punishment. Che not only believed in it, but practiced it mercilessly and without criminal trials.

Most of these people stand for personal freedom. Ché sent youngsters to "re-education camps" if they were caught listening to pop music. Most of them also claim to respect intellectual accomplishment, but Ché's writings are re-hashed two-bit slogans from the mouth of Karl Marx.

Most Guevara lovers value "heroism," an attribute they claim to see in Guevara. How heroic is getting your rocks off by shooting unarmed citizens in the back of the neck? Many close to Ché would remember the legendary "Paredón" - something Ché (acting as Castro's personal executioner) loved to show off.

It was the wall against which he executed political prisoners, stained red with the blood of countless victims.

Imagine if someone released a biopic about Adolf Hitler and portrayed him as a vegetarian painter who loved animals and hated unemployment. Just like The Motorcycle Diaries, it would be true, but rather beside the point. As someone once said, the only difference between Ché and Pol Pot is that Ché never studied in Paris.

Although it would be hard to find someone who wouldn't point out the irrelevance of Hitler's hobbies, there are throngs of Ché-lovers in America. But just as Hitler's crimes are entirely documented, the damning evidence of Ernesto's brand of thuggery is not hard to come by.

There is a massive amount of carefully researched and documented information telling the real story of Ché's bloodlust, as well the economic disaster over which he and Fidel Castro presided, which forced starving Cubans to choose between brutal totalitarianism and risking their lives by fleeing the island.

Does putting homosexuals into labor camps sound heroic to you? What about mandatory nation-wide AIDS testing, and the forced quaratine of all HIV-positive Cubans on the Isle of Pines? The Castro-Ché regime murdered more people in their first three years in power than Hitler and the SS did in their first six, and the percentage of Cuba's population imprisoned in labor camps was larger than the percentage of Soviet citizens incarcerated and sent to labor camps under Joseph Stalin.

I guess you could call him a revolutionary hero, if by "revolution" you mean "regression into a police state," and by "hero" you mean "brutal tyrant." If you're starting to realize Guevara wasn't a righteous soul worthy of heroic remembrance, Hot Topic probably didn't need your business anyway.

Podcast: Greed is Good

2008-12-23T02:31:00.008-05:00

Talking about Wall Street, Congress, Obama, Iraq, and the entire facade of government in the United States. This week's podcast includes clips from Congressman Ron Paul and veteran investor Jim Rogers, speaking of the current financial crisis.

(Click here to download, or subscribe via iTunes or RSS)

Having Solved the Nation's Problems, Congress Gives Itself a Raise

2008-12-20T16:07:00.000-05:00

No, this isn't The Onion. This is of course while the approval rating of Congress has hit the single digits again, and while wildly unpopular legislation bailing out failed banks and corporations is being shoved down the throats of the American people.

The Hill is reporting on this unbelievable story:

A crumbling economy, more than 2 million constituents who have lost their jobs this year, and congressional demands of CEOs to work for free did not convince lawmakers to freeze their own pay.

Instead, they will get a $4,700 pay increase, amounting to an additional $2.5 million that taxpayers will spend on congressional salaries, and watchdog groups are not happy about it.

I would like to propose a new law requiring all congressional pay raises to be subject to approval by the electorate. After all, we're paying for it right? Shouldn't we be the ones to decide whether or not they deserve it?

Think about it. Who determines whether you get a raise at your job? Your boss, of course. It's his money. I've had several jobs in my life, and I don't ever remember one where the only requirement for getting a pay raise was signing a piece of paper and announcing to my boss that he'll now owe me more money every year.

And they don't deserve it. Let's take their approval rating, which currently sits at a pathetic 9%. If you worked in an office, and there were 100 people in that office, and 91 of them thought you were doing a poor job, do you think you'd be able to convince your boss to give you a raise?

You'd be lucky to even have a job. In fact, the only thing separating you from a Congressman would be the fact that you actually stay at work for 8 hours a day, instead of strolling in at 11:30 (11:45 if you're Cynthia McKinney and you have trouble with security), renaming a post office, passing a "resolution" congratulating a college sports team, and eating a corn-beef sandwich before calling it a day.

Hamas Ready for War

2008-12-19T12:29:00.006-05:00

Hamas has declared an end to its ceasefire with Israel, which was largely meaningless given that Hamas has violated it on more than one occassion. More than likely what this means is that the Islamist group has simply had enough time to stockpile more weapons and ammunition to feel heroic again. Super.

From the Reuters report:

Hamas on Thursday declared an end to a six-month-old Egyptian-brokered ceasefire with Israel in the Gaza Strip, raising the prospect of an escalation in cross-border fighting.

"The calm is over," Hamas official Ayman Taha said in an announcement after concluding talks with Palestinian factions in the coastal enclave controlled by the Islamist group.

Israel's Haaretz is also reporting that the Israeli military cancelled weekend leave for all troops near Gaza and is preparing for "mobilization." Why does Israel keep agreeing to these "ceasefires?" They know what happens every time: The Israelis stop fighting, the Islamists fire more rockets, and then use the "calm" to reload, re-arm, and re-recruit. Then, it begins again.

If Hamas wants to call off the ceasefire, I say let 'er rip Israel. Hamas doesn't want peace, they want the complete destruction of Israel (as they have officially stated). This is Jihad, and Jihad never ends.

If only Jimmy Carter could save us!

OMG: Obama's Invocation to be Delivered by Christian Homophobe!

2008-12-18T11:44:00.006-05:00

Just after Dianne Feinstein and just before Aretha Franklin, evangelical minister Rick Warren will deliver the invocation at Obama's inaugural ceremony. Cue immediate gay/lesbian/transgender/bisexual/trigenital freakout.

Mark my words, this is but the first in a long series of disappointments among America's liberal community, as they will slowly realize that the mantra of "change" was simply a slogan, and Obama is only a slightly blacker (albeit more handsome) puppet, with strings tied to the same hands that have been running this country for decades.

Gays and indeed most liberals are shocked, shocked that Obama would pick a Christian who supported Prop 8, the amendment to the California state constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I'll remind liberals that their Messiah himself supports this traditional definition of marriage, but is in favor of legal, taxation, and employment equality, and for domestic partnerships or civil unions.

This is the exact same position as Warren's. Is nobody realizing this? You want he should have picked Jeremiah Wright? Where were your voices of outrage over his 20 year relationship with that "Christian?"

This is really just a nod from Obama to America's religious community; an attempt to bolster his manufactured image as a centrist who is sensitive to the desires of religious Americans. But liberals are fah-ree-king-out:

"By choosing homophobe Rick Warren, who helped pass Prop 8 in California, to do the invocation at the inauguration, Barack Obama just said to LGBT Americans that we're not part of that event." -- AMERICAblog

Get over yourself! On the one hand, I'm glad you aren't blindly following The One, but honestly, doesn't this at least show you what a calculating man he is? He is, after all, a politician. I also love the notion that if you support Proposition 8, you are automatically a "homophobe." I need a couple hands to count the number of gay friends I have, and I supported Prop 8. I guess I just secretly hate gay people.

"With this choice, Obama sends three destructive messages. Number one: In Obama's America, equal rights and reproductive freedom aren't for everyone. Number two: President-elect Obama likes sharing the national stage with hate. Number three: While Obama enjoys his equality before the law, LGBT Americans can go to Hell. Literally. Gee. Is this change we can believe in?" -- Firedoglake

I love it! Now even liberals are asking the "change we can believe in" question with their tongue planted firmly in their cheek! Once again, supporting traditional marriage = "hate." He may not like sharing the stage with hate, but he's fine with sharing a church with it. Do they not realize that Obama has been courting Warren for years now?

"This is more than a serious faux pas; this is an insult to all the queers and non-believers who worked their asses off to elect Obama-Biden. We need to let the President-Elect know that parading a homophobic bigot at his big parade rains on ours." -- Mike Tidmus

Liberals generally follow certain guidelines when deciding whether or not to castigate fellow liberals. It's amazing really. Liberal feminists will still cheer the likes of Bill Clinton or Ted Kennedy. Liberals who claim to be tolerant of other races will support former KKK member Robert Byrd. The only thing liberals can do wrong is to either be insufficiently liberal, or to somehow suggest legitimacy to conservative ideas.

The shoe incident notwithstanding, Bush is undoubtedly glad to get out.

Podcast: Taxes, Nukes, and Shoes

2008-12-17T21:55:00.016-05:00

Topics covered in this episode include: New York governor David Paterson’s scheme to tax virtually everything in existence, a persiapocalypse update in the wake of new warnings from Israel, and the now-infamous incident involving an Arab, a Texan, and 2 size 10 shoes.

(Click here to download, or subscribe via iTunes or RSS)

Educators Stress "Global" Values, See Nationalism as "Obsolete"

2008-12-17T13:09:00.004-05:00

The globalist agenda rolls on. In October of 2007, the annual Frontiers in Education Conference met in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Among the papers presented at the conference was "Critical Theory, Globalization and Teacher Education in a Technocratic Era," written by three professors: Mark Malisa, Randall Koetting, and Kristin Radermacher.

The opening statements read:

"Our perspective is that of educators who view the current world as one that is highly internationalized and intensely global, rendering nationalistic orientations obsolete. We also view education and educators as involved agents in the construction of a just social world, and contend that this implies infusing the curriculum and teacher education with cosmopolitan sensibilities, frequently, through critical theory and critical pedagogy."

The authors assert that national identity is anachronistic and obsolete in the new "intensely global" social order, and that children ought to be indoctrinated to accept this notion. The report states that American education programs must adopt a "global perspective" and that "the time of splendid isolation is over...purposes of education have changed."

"As globalization becomes the dominant term for describing and conceptualizing teacher education, colleges and schools of education will need to revisit their mission statements and rethink what it means to be part of the global community," the report states. It concludes by admitting that there will be resistance to these measures, stating "...a lot of work remains to be done in creating a critical consciousness that makes it possible to realize that global solidarity does not threaten nationalism."

Though these three professors in particular may not realize it, their objectives are part of an agenda that has been pursued for decades. Tax-exempt foundations, particularly the Rockefeller Foundations, Ford Foundation, and Carnegie Foundation were instrumental in influencing U.S. education policy. Are we to believe these rich bankers and industrialists had a genuine philanthropic interest in bettering the education system of the United States, or does it make more sense that they wished to use their money, power, and influence to carry out an elite agenda? I'm convinced it's the latter.

Thanksgiving in Bombay: Terror Survivor Describes the Attacks

2008-12-05T14:29:00.001-05:00

Details are emerging about the absolutely horrifying course of events for victims of the Islamic terror attack in Bombay. The following story is from the son of Apoorva Parikh, a 57-year old father who is still recovering from his injuries. Apoorva had gone to dinner that night with two friends, and upon hearing the initial gunshots, the hotel staff attempted to hurry the guests out of a kitchen exit.

"As the guests tried to rush into the kitchen, one terrorist burst into the restaurant and began to shoot anyone that remained in the restaurant. At this point my father was in the kitchen and, along with his two friends, rushed to the fire exit. They had barely descended a few steps when they were trapped from both ends by terrorists.

"The terrorists then rounded up anyone alive (about 20 people) and made them climb the service staircase to the 19th floor. On reaching the 18th floor landing they made the people line up against a wall. One terrorist then positioned himself on the staircase going up from the landing and the other on the staircase going down from the landing.

"Then, in a scene right out of the Holocaust, they simultaneously opened fire on the people. My father was towards the centre of the line with his two friends on either side. Out of reflex, or presence of mind, he ducked as soon as the firing began.

"One bullet grazed his neck, and he fell to the floor as his two friends and several other bodies piled on top of him. The terrorists then pumped another series of bullets into the heap of bodies to finish the job.

"This time a bullet hit my father in the back hip. Bent almost in double, crushed by the weight of the bodies above him, and suffocating in the torrent of blood rushing down on him from the various bodies my father held on for 10 minutes while the terrorists left the area.

"When he finally had the courage to wiggle his arms he found that there were four other survivors in the room. They communicated to each other by touch as they were too afraid to make a sound.

"My father moved just enough to allow himself room to breathe and then lay still. The survivors passed over 12 hours lying still in the heap of bodies too afraid to move.

"They constantly heard gunfire and hand grenades going off in the other parts of the hotel. They feared that any noise would bring the terrorists back.

"After approximately 12 hours, the terrorists returned with a camera and flashlight and joked and laughed as they filmed what they thought was a pile of dead bodies.

"They then moved to the landing below where they set up explosives. On their departing, my father decided that it was too risky to remain where they were, due to the explosives."

The three survivors then climbed the rest of the stairs to reach an air-cooling plant room where they hid, drinking sips of water from the air-conditioning unit, until Friday morning when a commando team rescued them and took them to a hospital.

Surprise: Muslims Outraged by Osama Bin Lego

2008-12-05T10:34:00.002-05:00

If you thought this story couldn't be topped, you're in for a good one. Add this to the long list of things that have Muslims outraged:

"A range of Lego-style fighting figurines - including an Islamic terrorist militant - has sparked outrage among Muslims. Shocked by the playthings, British Muslim organisation the Ramadhan Foundation has branded the figurines "absolutely disgusting".

Chief executive Mohammed Shafiq said the figures were "glorifying terrorism".

He said: "I don't think there's any difference between someone that shouts hatred through a megaphone and someone that creates a doll that glorifies terrorists...It belittles the pain the families of victims of terror have gone through."

Other fighters in the range include World War Two troops, US marines - and a Nazi SS officer."

Ah yes, everyone knows the stereotypical evil Muslim terrorist: yellow skin, a perfectly symmetrical body, and hands suitable for grabbing only the most cylindrical of objects.

The depressing part is that most Muslim organizations are more outspoken and "outraged" by effing toys than by the senseless murders that are carried out in their name. I'm sure the Ramadhan Foundation was "outraged" by the 10 Muslims who managed to torture and kill hundreds in Bombay last week (no, I'm not going to call it Mumbai). See any Jewish groups outraged over Lego Nazis?

Let's do a little experiment. Pick a group, any group at all. It can be a religious group, a political group, an occupational group - whatever. Now add the word "Outraged," paste it into Google, and hit enter. Here are my scientific findings:

What a burden it must be to carry such a large share of the worlds outrage. Whether it's cartoons, puppies, potato chips, inbreeding, college exams, bank robbers, or wine tastings, there's no shortage of outrage from the Muslim world. The non-Muslim world isn't looking for you to point out their "intolerance" in the areas of toy-making. It's looking for you to point out the subversion of your religion by Godless killers, and join the rest of the world in saying "enough is enough."

Yet Another 'No Srsly Israel Is Gonna Attack' Story

2008-12-04T15:30:00.001-05:00

Good ol' JPost brings us this story of an impending Israeli strike on Iran's nuclear facilities, with or without American support. Perhaps the only thing separating this story from the slew of similar articles over the last year or so is the fact that the U.S. is currently in presidential limbo.

Well, that and the fact that Iran is as close as ever to possessing an Islamic Bomb (if they don't have one or several already). From the Jerusalem Post:

Israeli officials have said it would be difficult, but not impossible, to launch a strike against Iran without receiving codes from the US Air Force, which controls Iraqi airspace. Israel also asked for the codes in 1991 during the First Gulf War, but the US refused.

"There are a wide range of risks one takes when embarking on such an operation," a top Israeli official said.

Yeah, like the Star of David getting shot down by the Stars and Bars, or God forbid the Star and Crescent. Israel's task of destroying a sufficient number of Iranian sites is daunting, but not impossible. And besides, impossible aerial missions are supposed to be what the IAF is all about.

The even more daunting aspect of a strike is the aftermath. As disgusted as most Iranians are with their rulers, nothing will unify them more than an Israeli bombing run. And nothing will cause oodles of self-detonating Shiites around the world to murder innocent civilians, something Israel will - believe it or not - attempt to avoid during a strike. It will almost immediately awaken two particularly vile arms of the Persian Octopus, Hamas and Hezbollah, igniting war on the northern border with Lebanon, and inviting more rockets and suicide attacks.

That is, of course, providing Iran doesn't just launch their own arsenal, nuclear or otherwise.

The Big Three Killed My Baby

2008-12-03T14:15:00.002-05:00

In honor of the current chapter of the American financial meltdown, here's "The Big Three Killed My Baby" by the White Stripes, one of their few politically oriented songs.

As 61% of Americans are opposed to a bailout of the three auto giants, they're being threatened once again. Just like the subprime lending crisis, we're being warned of a potential "new Great Depression" if we don't create money out of thin air to rescue the auto industry. From Breitbart:

"We're on the brink with the U.S. auto manufacturing industry," [Chrysler executive] Press told The Associated Press in an interview. "If we have a catastrophic failure of one of these car companies, in this tender environment for the economy, it's a huge blow. It could trigger a depression."

These companies have no plans to change their business models, no plans to alter their relationships with unions or lobbyists...they have no plan other than to beg the government for their own chunk of taxpayer money. There isn't even a plan to pay Americans or the private banks back for this bailout, other than to create a "government oversight board." Gasp! A government oversight board! How I feel better already.

Bailouts do not solve problems. They are government-issued band-aids that consist of money that never existed, created out of nothing and on loan from a private bank. Free enterprise has lifted more people out of poverty than any other system devised by mankind. Freedom has a neat way of working out like that. But economic liberty includes the freedom to fail if you don't live up to the expectations of your consumers, bind yourself with union agreements, and churn out poorly-made and decidedly ugly cars that no one will drive.

The Next Film from OpineTree

2008-12-03T13:13:00.001-05:00

Here's the trailer for the next film. Sorry, no more details until it's done.

More Excuses for the Lack of Activity

2008-12-02T12:31:00.001-05:00

I know I know. There's been sparse reading here for a couple weeks now, despite promises that after the movie was done, writing would resume. Well...research and reading and thinking and brainstorming have resulted in a new film being in the works, which reprises the issue of our central bank and links the decline of the dollar to the loss of U.S. sovereignty.

That project aside, I have some larger plans for the blog, and will be restructuring soon, as well as writing more. In the meantime, read:

BERNANKE SAYS CRISIS "NO COMPARISON" TO GREAT DEPRESSION

Despite what President Bush says:

"I can remember sitting in the Roosevelt Room with Hank Paulson and Ben Bernanke and others, and they said to me that if we don't act boldly, Mr. President, we could be in a depression greater than the Great Depression."

Fed Chairman Bernanke says:

"Well, you hear a lot of loose talk, but let me just ... say, as a scholar of the Great Depression -- and I've written books about the Depression and been very interested in this since I was in graduate school, there's no comparison."

If you misrepresent anything on your income tax return, you go to prison. But when Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke collectively loot the Treasury, rewrite tax laws on the fly to help their cronies, and oversee the biggest robbery in American history, they get to laugh all the way to Switzerland.

Oh Snap: Al-Qaeda Talking Some Major Trash

2008-11-19T12:02:00.001-05:00

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."

...Shit's cold as ice, son.

If "Stop the Hate" is the Message, Try Setting the Example

2008-11-17T13:42:00.002-05:00

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.

Watch "Disinterest" Online Now

2008-11-16T10:25:00.004-05:00

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!

The American Dream, Now with 100% More Mandatory "civil defense" training

2008-11-13T11:54:00.002-05:00

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?

GA Congressman: We've Elected a Marxist

2008-11-11T01:47:00.002-05:00

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."

Then from the wire service that doesn't like to be quoted:

"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.

Bush was just an appetizer.

Patriotism Apparently Fashionable Again

2008-11-07T00:22:00.001-05:00

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.

Lowered Expectations We Can Believe In

2008-11-06T21:46:00.001-05:00

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.

The hot potato is yours, Democrats.

Truthful Levity

2008-11-05T12:27:00.000-05:00

A Post-Election Stroll

2008-11-05T01:42:00.001-05:00

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.

Doctor Barack, or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Maverick

2008-11-03T12:51:00.001-05:00

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.

Obama on Energy: Change Behavior by Raising Prices

2008-11-03T01:03:00.001-05:00

"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."

Mmmhmm.

Soviet Dogs for Obama

2008-11-02T23:15:00.001-05:00

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?

Why One Debate is More than Enough

2008-10-31T15:42:00.001-04:00

Consider this the 1,000th example of the American media boiling down complex issues into easily digestible slogans, as the only two schmucks we can vote for dance along to the show. To quote Newt Gingrich, "We don't really have presidential debates today; we have a kind of meaningless political performance art: a recitation of talking points choreographed to avoid any risk."

End the Federal Reserve: National Day of Protest

2008-10-31T14:48:00.001-04:00

There will be a nation-wide protest against the Federal Reserve system on November 22nd, 2008!

Rallies will take place in front of every Federal Reserve bank and office, meaning 38 simultaneous protests in cities across the country. Come out and make your voice heard as we undertake the daunting task of toppling the Fed. Americans will be protesting in the following cities:

Boston - Philadelphia - New York City - Washington, D.C. - Buffalo - Cleveland - Cincinnati - Pittsburgh - Richmond - Baltimore - Charlotte - Atlanta - Birmingham - Jacksonville - Miami - Nashville - New Orleans - Chicago - Detroit - St.Louis - Little Rock - Louisville - Memphis - Minneapolis - Helena - Kansas City - Denver - Oklahoma City - Omaha - Dallas - El Paso - Houston - San Antonio - San Francisco - Los Angeles - Portland - Salt Lake City - Seattle

For all the pertinent information, head over to endthefed.us and restoretherepublic.net. You can sign up, get the times and locations for your city, and help organize the efforts of locals in your area. If there are any other Atlantans reading, print the following flier and help promote:

On a related note, I might as well take this opportunity to shamelessly plug my film. Look for DISINTEREST to be released soon, and watch some clips from the movie in the meantime. Then, send it to your friends. This information has to get to people who can make a difference, like you!

Iran Threatens Suicide Attacks Against U.S.

2008-10-31T12:36:00.001-04:00

Iran has a new parliamentary speaker, former nuclear negotiator Ali Larijani, who promised yesterday an "unexpected response" to U.S. aggression. Larijani threatened to use suicide bomber attacks against America, and even referred to a 13-year-old boy sent by the mullahs with a bomb strapped to him in the 1980s as a model for the fight against the U.S. From JPost:

"The US method and conduct, expressed by this aggression, will only be stopped by a clear-cut and unexpected response, whose grounds were set by the martyr Hussein Fahmida," Larijani said during a parliamentary session on Wednesday.

Fahmida was 13 when he detonated an explosive device he carried on him, destroying an Iraqi tank during the Iran-Iraq War in the 1980s.

"America should be aware not to put its huge body on top of the suicide bombers' explosive devices," Larijani said.

I've been saying this for about a year now. There will be no Iranian fighter planes, no Persian infantry. An Iranian retaliatory measure will be one of focused and unrelenting terror. We will have on our hands an American intifada, and the perpetrators will have already been living here comfortably for years.

Obama Prefers Fairness Over Facts

2008-10-10T17:03:00.001-04:00

Something that should have sounded a few more Leftist alarm bells was Barack Obama's explanation for his support of raising (read: doubling) the capital gains tax.

Charlie Gibson confronts Obama and clues him in to the fact that every time the capital gains tax has been lowered, the government actually collected more money in tax revenue. Likewise, when the tax was raised, government revenue went down. Barack's response? It's not about providing the government with more funds. It's about fairness.

GIBSON: All right. You have, however, said you would favor an increase in the capital gains tax. As a matter of fact, you said on CNBC, and I quote, "I certainly would not go above what existed under Bill Clinton," which was 28 percent. It's now 15 percent. That's almost a doubling, if you went to 28 percent.

But actually, Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital gains tax to 20 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And George Bush has taken it down to 15 percent.

OBAMA: Right.

GIBSON: And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased; the government took in more money. And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to 28 percent, the revenues went down.

So why raise it at all, especially given the fact that 100 million people in this country own stock and would be affected?

OBAMA: Well, Charlie, what I've said is that I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.

Obama doesn't see taxation as a way to finance the activities of government (which it's not, but that's a separate story), but rather the instrument with which the government can mandate fairness. This is the man who says he's going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans, which is curious considering that 40% of Americans don't earn enough to pay income taxes.

Gibson presses him again later, and while you might be thinking that Obama played the fairness card because he couldn't deny the facts, well...he does exactly that.

GIBSON: But history shows that when you drop the capital gains tax, the revenues go up.

OBAMA: Well, that might happen, or it might not. It depends on what's happening on Wall Street and how business is going.

That's like saying, "Wow you know, every time we increase taxes on businesses, they cut jobs and raise their prices to make up for the increased tax liability. But you know, let's try it again. 'Cause it might happen, or it might not."

Are you starting to see a relationship between the likelihood of an Obama presidency and the plummeting of the stock market?

Expert: Iran Could Have 60 Nukes in 2 Years

2008-10-10T16:44:00.001-04:00

A "leading non-proliferation expert" is saying that Iran could have the capacity to produce up to 60 nuclear bombs within 2 years. Somehow I don't see it getting to that point, especially if Obama is catapulted into the White House. Syria has some hollowed out facilities of their own, taken care of in a surprise attack by Bush and Israel last September.

If the Messiah gets elected, I see Bush green-lighting an Israeli strike after November. Livni knows Obama promises 4 years of "negotiation," and that Bush might want to go down as the guy who stopped the second holocaust (after he irreparably messed up all that other stuff, of course).

Iran may have the capacity to produce up to 60 nuclear bombs within two years, a leading US non -proliferation expert has told Adnkronos International.

Henry Sokolski, executive director of the Washington-based Nonproliferation Policy Education Center (NPEC), was taking part in a summit , "Preventing nuclear proliferation in the Middle East", organised by Italy's Institute for the Study of Foreign Policy (ISPI) and the Italian Foreign Ministry in Milan.

In an interview with AKI, Sokolski raised the alarm about Iran's intentions, claiming that it would have sufficient plutonium after the opening of the Bushehr plant to construct from 30 to 60 bombs.

The nuclear facility at Bushehr is being built under an agreement between the Russian and Iranian governments for 800 million dollars and is expected to begin production in early 2009.

Sokolski said Iran was putting in place the necessary technology and knowledge to recover the new plant's waste using a chemical process that does not need complex installation or specific structures.

We should probably kick off this whole Gog/Magog thing.

Reformed Alcoholic to Americans: Can You Say New World Order?

2008-10-10T10:46:00.001-04:00

Yesterday, Glenn Beck went on CNN and, during a diatribe about the coming "global meltdown," stated that the "endgame" is a one-world currency and the emergence of a (or perhaps "the") "New World Order."

Somewhere, Alex Jones is dusting off that damned bull horn of his.

Oh Yeah, The Government is Wiretapping Non-Terrorists After All

2008-10-09T17:17:00.001-04:00

ABC News has some sigh-inducing interviews with NSA whistle-blowers who say that U.S. officers "intercepted" and eavesdropped on hundreds of calls from citizens overseas as they phoned family and friends back home. From the article:

"Hey, check this out," Faulk says he would be told, "there's good phone sex or there's some pillow talk, pull up this call, it's really funny, go check it out. It would be some colonel making pillow talk and we would say, 'Wow, this was crazy'," Faulk told ABC News.

"By casting the net so wide and continuing to collect on Americans and aid organizations, it's almost like they're making the haystack bigger and it's harder to find that piece of information that might actually be useful to somebody," she said. "You're actually hurting our ability to effectively protect our national security."

Here are some links to videos of the interviews:

Adrienne Kinne describes why it was "awkward" listening in on Americans...

Arab linguist David Murfee Faulk describes a day on the job...

Kinne says listening in on aid organizations was part of the job...

Jim Bamford tasks about how the NSA missed warning signs before 9/11...

If It Quacks Like Socialism

2008-10-09T16:39:00.001-04:00

Might want to stock up on potatoes and vodka. President Bush (you know, the "fiscal conservative") is considering taking over partial ownership of several U.S. banks. The Treasury Department is also offering to inject "fresh" (meaning freshly printed) capital into financial institutions in exchange for ownership shares.

News that the Bush administration is considering taking part ownership in a number of U.S. banks helped restore a relative calm over global financial markets Thursday.

Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson told reporters that Treasury was moving quickly to implement the $700 billion rescue effort and he specifically mentioned reviewing ways to bolster the capital of banks.

"We will use all the tools we've been given to maximum effectiveness, including strengthening the capitalization of financial institutions of every size," Paulson said at a Wednesday news conference.

His statements came on the heels of Britain's move to pour cash into troubled banks in exchange for stakes in them - a partial nationalization.

Meanwhile, the Dow continues to tank. First it was the 10,000 mark. Today it was 9,000, and there doesn't seem to be any bottom in sight. I mean hell, GM is trading for under $5.00. Putting a gallon of gas in your Ford will cost you more than a share of stock in the company that manufactured it.

...And the worst is yet to come.

McCain is Running to Lose

2008-10-09T14:18:00.001-04:00

After Tuesday's debate, I'm so over these two candidates, but I'm especially disgusted with what John McCain has offered conservatives in the last month. He is virtually pleading with his base to stay home on November 4th.

Obama did everything he needed to do during the debate. McCain on the other hand, threw the Straight Talk Express into reverse and slammed on the gas.

While the Messiah has billions and billions in proposed new spending, the self-proclaimed Maverick wants to literally expand the bailout by spending $300 billion (at the very least) so the government can buy up bad mortgages. Both sound like a real good recipe for a country whose national debt clock has run out of digits.

I can't even articulate what a God-awful idea McCain's ACORN-like mortgage buy-up is. This was one of the first things out of his mouth during Tuesday's debate. His big game-changer. His big taking-off-the-gloves moment. Then, he spent the rest of the debate railing against government spending and bills "loaded down with goodies."

What irks me about this most is the fact that if Barack Obama had proposed this idea, we'd need hearing aids after the initial wave of screams from the Right. He'd once again be attacked as a huge-government socialist (which he is) who favored having the Treasury Department (still headed by Henry Paulson) renegotiate individual home loans.

Home ownership is good, but it's not a constitutional right. Foreclosures are bad, but they are not something to be avoided at all costs, no matter what the impact on taxpayers.

The guy who wants government to "get out of the way" and emphasizes "personal responsibility and accountability" wants to radically expand the federal government's role in meddling with individual mortgage loans. And speaking of "responsibility," this magic debt elimination is only available for those who have fallen behind on their mortgage payment for any number of reasons - not for you suckers who've managed to pay your bills on time.

Even if there was no $700 billion bailout, the mere implication of this is so compromising to John McCain and his base, who don't have much of a tongue left to bite. Regardless of the cost, the man thinks that house prices need to be stabilized through a government mandate. The man thinks it is somehow the government's duty to keep people in homes they couldn't afford in the first place.

He's a fall guy, picked to lose, I swear it. Remember now, McCain wasn't well-received even during the primaries; he was down there flirting with the likes of Ron Paul and Sam Brownback. Suddenly he's forced into our lap, and we're told to shut up and accept him, "lest we put the Marxist in the White House!"

Conservatives, do you know anyone who voted for McCain in the primaries? Me neither. Perhaps that can explain this:

Great News: National Debt Clock Runs Out of Digits

2008-10-09T12:55:00.001-04:00

Perfect. Our financial system is unraveling as it was designed to do. There's no difference between the parties on this matter, as George Bush has shown. The Democrats tax and overspend, the Republicans borrow and overspend.

It appears even technology cannot cope with the global financial crisis: the National Debt Clock in New York has run out of digits for the first time.

The electronic billboard hit its limit after US public debt rose above the $10 trillion mark for the first time on September 30.

As a temporary fix the dollar sign has been switched to a figure--the '1' in $10 trillion. The clock is currently marking the US federal government’s national debt at about $10.2 trillion.

The clock, located in Times Square in New York, shows the amount of money owed by the US government. It was created by the late Manhattan real estate developer Seymour Durst, who put the sign up in 1989 to call attention to what was then a $2.7 trillion debt.

I hate to say Ron Paul told you so.

The Federal Reserve and Economic Warfare

2008-10-09T12:41:00.001-04:00

In an interesting column describing the destructive power and downright frightening ambitions of the men in charge of the Federal Reserve, the author compares U.S. inflation via the Fed with Operation Bernhard, during which Nazis flooded the British economy with counterfeit money - an operation which resulted in a severely devalued currency and which constituted an act of war.

In 1942, German intelligence officers rounded up skilled Jewish prisoners and launched Operation Bernhardt [sic], a clever scheme designed to counterfeit hundreds of millions of dollars worth of British Pounds and destroy the British economy by flooding it with counterfeit money. Located in the Sachsenhausen concentration camp, Operation Bernhardt was, even by modern standards, a runaway success that resulted in the creation of forged bank notes worth 132 million British Pounds.

It is important to note that Operation Bernhardt was an act of war, specifically pursued for the purpose of destroying Britain's economy by creating so much new money that the value of the money already in circulation would plummet. This was considered a strategic attack, just as effective as carpet-bombing tank factories or mowing down soldiers on the field with German-made MG42 machine guns.

What does all this have to do with the Federal Reserve?

Today, the Federal Reserve is engaged in an eerily similar operation, counterfeiting trillions of dollars in U.S. bank notes and flooding the U.S. money supply with money created from nothing. The result, of course, is the same as was intended by Operation Bernhardt in 1942: The economic destruction of the target nation. Only this time, the target is the United States of America.

Read the whole thing here.

In Afghanistan With The ISAF

2008-10-08T16:13:00.002-04:00

I'm sick of writing about these elections. I think for the next month I may focus strictly on other parts of the world. These amazing pictures come from an embedded Reuters photographer in Afghanistan alongside the International Security Assistance Force, made up of 53,000 troops from 43 different nations. Enjoy:

No Matter Who Wins...We Lose

2008-10-08T11:01:00.001-04:00

The always lovely Kirsten Powers has penned an article in the New York Post summing up last nights debate, and the hopelessness of this election. Read it.

John McCain needs a game-changer, but he didn't get it last night. Barring some crisis that shifts the public debate away from the cratering world economy and onto foreign policy, McCain is swimming upstream in his effort to overtake Obama.

The "game-changer" she refers to won't come from McCain. He's acting like a fall guy; like he's taking a dive. He's lying in a hospital bed hoping to wake up each day to the miraculous news that the Palincillin is working, but alas, he remains on life support.

But of greater concern to the average American is this: In last night's debate, neither candidate displayed any real understanding of the economic mess or offered any vision on how to solve it. Instead, both men treated the audience to a tsunami of talking points interspersed with petty finger-pointing.

McCain, clearly oblivious to the notion that attacks don't seem to be working (whether they be over policies or "guys in Obama's neighborhood"), thinks "taking off the gloves" means finger-pointing.

On the other hand, Obama did oh-so-much to prove he's the real post-partisan candidate, by not only blaming the entire financial crisis on Bush and "deregulation" (wrong), but by taking every opportunity to point the finger at Republicans for letting Americans down, no matter what the question or issue.

It's appalling to watch the two men who are vying to run our country play the blame game and insist that only the actions of people in opposite political parties are at fault. It was a moment to grab the wheel and say something reassuring - but neither stepped up to the plate and acted like a leader.

Also, notice how both candidates have been completely silent on the issue of immigration, in all 3 of these debates? Hmmm, I wonder why...

CNN Commits Random Act of Journalism

2008-10-07T10:49:00.001-04:00

Yes this really is a CNN report scrutinizing Obama's relationship with Bill Ayers and concluding that he has been dishonest. It's got to tell you something when CNN won't buy the "this is a guy who lives in my neighborhood" line any longer. Watch.

And yes, you can expect McCain to raise this issue and attempt to hammer it home with every last bit of gusto the old coot has left. It won't work. When people see their 401ks going in the crapper, they don't want to hear about the bomb-thrower, however outrageous the connection may be, and Obama and the media will simply accuse McCain of avoiding the economic issues on everyone's mind.

Associated Press: Pointing Out Obama's Ayers Connection is Like, Racist or Something

2008-10-06T10:14:00.001-04:00

Douglass K. Daniel, a writer and editor with the Washington bureau of the wire service that doesn't like to be quoted, apparently thinks that even pointing out Obama's ties to white radicals is racist. Putting the "anal" in "analysis," Daniel writes that Palin's charge that Obama has "palled around with terrorists" is unsubstantiated and (gasp) racist.

From "Analysis: Palin's Words Carry Racial Tinge:"

Palin's words avoid repulsing voters with overt racism. But is there another subtext for creating the false image of a black presidential nominee "palling around" with terrorists while assuring a predominantly white audience that he doesn't see their America?

In a post-Sept. 11 America, terrorists are envisioned as dark-skinned radical Muslims, not the homegrown anarchists of Ayers' day 40 years ago. With Obama a relative unknown when he began his campaign, the Internet hummed with false e-mails about ties to radical Islam of a foreign-born candidate.

Whether intended or not by the McCain campaign, portraying Obama as "not like us" is another potential appeal to racism. It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American.

Most troubling, however, is how allowing racism to creep into the discussion serves McCain's purpose so well. As the fallout from Wright's sermons showed earlier this year, forcing Obama to abandon issues to talk about race leads to unresolved arguments about America's promise to treat all people equally.

The post-racial candidate has become the most-racial candidate. "It suggests that the Hawaiian-born Christian is, at heart, un-American?" Yeah, funny how much associating with unrepentant terrorists and then telling Americans "they cling to guns and religion" does to paint that picture.

$700 Billion Later, Some Food for Thought

2008-10-05T15:37:00.001-04:00

Henry Ford, founder of Ford Motor Company:

“It is well that the people of the nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning.”

Robert H. Hemphill, Credit Manager, Federal Reserve Bank, Atlanta, Georgia:

"Someone has to borrow every dollar we have in circulation, cash or credit. If the banks create ample synthetic money, we are prosperous; if not, we starve. We are, absolutely, without a permanent money system. When one gets a complete grasp of the picture, the tragic absurdity of our hopeless position is almost incredible, but there it is."

Barry Goldwater, U.S. Senator, former Republican Presidential Nominee:

"Most Americans have no real understanding of the operation of the international money lenders. The accounts of the Federal Reserve System have never been audited. It operates outside the control of Congress and manipulates the credit of the United States."

Thomas Jefferson, 3rd President of the United States:

"I believe that banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a monied aristocracy that has set the government at defiance."

James Madison, 4th President of the United States:

"History records that the money changers have used every form of abuse, intrigue, deceit, and violent means possible to maintain their control over governments by controlling money and it’s issuance."

Woodrow Wilson, 28th President of the United States, signer of the Federal Reserve Act:

"A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated governments in the civilized world - no longer a government by free opinion, no longer a government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men."

Still think you're voting for "change?"

Biden's Mouth Running Out of Foot Room

2008-10-03T11:30:00.001-04:00

Forgive me for not starting this column by immediately gushing over Sarahcuda's performance last night (and she did knock it out of the park), but I believe in the end, she merely kept McCain from flat-lining; a pair of cardiac defibrillators in a bra. With a month until the election, and after the bungled Hail Mary that was his campaign suspension, the maverick was (and still may be) on life support.

That being said - damn girl. You wore the pants in this debate, hands down. You had Senator Cheshire Cat on the defensive from the start, and while you didn't quite have the chops to call Biden out a lot of the nonsense that left his mouth, I'll be happy to do that for you. After all, you earned it. Just stop calling women "hockey moms."

Joe Biden (you know, the "foreign policy" expert) offered up a fair share of drivel last night, particularly having to do with the Middle East. The wackiest claim coming from the old smokestack from Delaware was that the Bush administration let Hezbollah into Lebanon, and then "we kicked Hezbollah out," (I have no idea what he's talking about). He then attests that he and Barry said that NATO should move in to "fill the vacuum," but no one took their advice, and now Hezbollah is all over Lebanon, and it represents a failure of this administration. I know it sounds bizarre, and it is, so here's the transcript:

When we kicked -- along with France, we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon, I said and Barack said, "Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't know -- if you don't, Hezbollah will control it."

Now what's happened? Hezbollah is a legitimate part of the government in the country immediately to the north of Israel.

The fact of the matter is, the policy of this administration has been an abject failure.

Um...what? Hezbollah was never "kicked out of Lebanon." They've been there since the early 1980s, exponentially growing during the 90s to eventually make up over 1/3 of the population of Lebanon. Hezbollah is essentially an entirely separate government entity with its own goals, representation, and infrastructure in southern Lebanon and other parts of the country.

Is he talking about Israel's failed offensive against Hezbollah terrorists in 2006? Israel accomplished virtually nothing in the 2006 war, and they certainly didn't "kick anyone out." Is he talking about Israel's occupation of southern Lebanon from 1982 to 1999? I don't remember hearing anything from Obama about NATO then.

This is of course, ignoring what Biden said right before the mess about Lebanon:

Here’s what the president said when we said no. He insisted on elections on the West Bank, when I said, and others said, and Barack Obama said, 'Big mistake. Hamas will win. You’ll legitimize them.' What happened? Hamas won.

If this quote gets any attention, you might get another glimpse of the long-standing double standard in the media. If John McCain had said this, it would be because he's ignorant, senile, crazy, dying, etc. But Biden will get a pass, and if he receives any criticism for it, it will be because he simply "misspoke." If you're talking about the plague of Hamas, you're talking about Gaza...not the West Bank. But he's right about one thing - Hamas did win...and subsequently endorsed Obama. Realize that no matter who wins, you're getting a third Bush term in the area of Israeli/Palestinian policy.

Joe also tried to pass off the lie (and I don't use that term frequently) that Obama never said he'd meet with the likes of Ahmadinejad, saying "This is simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say sit down with Ahmadinejad." This video from the YouTube primary debate (one that Joe Biden attended), proves otherwise:

Hmmm. Reminds me of another Biden quote about Obama: "I think [Obama] can be ready, but right now I dont believe he is - the presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the-job training." Say it ain't so, Joe!

Dear God, Let Palin Look Better Than This Tonight

2008-10-02T14:48:00.001-04:00

"Ultimately, what the bailout does is help those who are concerned about the health care reform that is needed to help shore up our economy...um, helping the...oh, it’s got to be about job creation too...shoring up our economy and putting it back on the right track...so health care reform and reducing taxes and...reining in spending has got to...accompany tax reductions and tax relief...for Americans, and...trade, we have, we've got to see trade as opportunity, not as uh...competitive, scary thing but...1 in 5 jobs being created uh, in the trade sector today, we've...we've got to look at that as more opportunity...all of those things under the umbrella of job creation..."

Remind you of something else?

Ken Timmerman on Obama's Unreported Campaign Contributions

2008-10-02T14:15:00.001-04:00

First off, do you remember Barack's infamous Gaza phone bank? Here's a refresher:

Now, Ken Timmerman has written an excellent article on some of Obama's shadier campaign contributions, from folks like "Good Will" and "Doodad Pro." Sure, Obama isn't required to identify contributions of less than $200, but given that McCain does it voluntarily, along with the fact that Obama claims to be all about a different type of transparent politics (and has famously been helped by small/grassroots donors), it's a little odd that he hasn't released this information.

Timmerman agrees:

In a letter dated June 25, 2008, the FEC asked the Obama campaign to verify a series of $25 donations from a contributor identified as "Will, Good" from Austin, Texas. Mr. Good Will listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You."

A Newsmax analysis of the 1.4 million individual contributions in the latest master file for the Obama campaign discovered 1,000 separate entries for Mr. Good Will, most of them for $25. In total, Mr. Good Will gave $17,375.

Following this and subsequent FEC requests, campaign records show that 330 contributions from Mr. Good Will were credited back to a credit card. But the most recent report, filed on Sept. 20, showed a net cumulative balance of $8,950 - still well over the $4,600 limit.

There can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed these contributions, since Obama’s Sept. 20 report specified that Good Will’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $9,375.

In an e-mailed response to a query from Newsmax, Obama campaign spokesman Ben LaBolt pledged that the campaign would return the donations. But given the slowness with which the campaign has responded to earlier FEC queries, there’s no guarantee that the money will be returned before the Nov. 4 election.

Similarly, a donor identified as "Pro, Doodad," from "Nando, NY," gave $19,500 in 786 separate donations, most of them for $25. For most of these donations, Mr. Doodad Pro listed his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You," just as Good Will had done. But in some of them, he didn’t even go this far, apparently picking letters at random to fill in the blanks on the credit card donation form. In these cases, he said he was employed by "VCX" and that his profession was "VCVC."

Following FEC requests, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro in February 2008. In all, about $8,425 was charged back to a credit card. But that still left a net total of $11,165 as of Sept. 20, way over the individual limit of $4,600. Here again, LaBolt pledged that the contributions would be returned but gave no date.

In February, after just 93 donations, Doodad Pro had already gone over the $2,300 limit for the primary. He was over the $4,600 limit for the general election one month later. In response to FEC complaints, the Obama campaign began refunding money to Doodad Pro even before he reached these limits. But his credit card was the gift that kept on giving. His most recent un-refunded contributions were on July 7, when he made 14 separate donations, apparently by credit card, of $25 each.

Just as with Mr. Good Will, there can be no doubt that the Obama campaign noticed the contributions, since its Sept. 20 report specified that Doodad’s cumulative contributions since the beginning of the campaign were $10,965.

Also worth noting is this excerpt from the Economist:

Until recently, the Obama Web site allowed a contributor to select the country where he resided from the entire membership of the United Nations, including such friendly places as North Korea and the Islamic Republic of Iran.

Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.

With such lax vetting of foreign contributions, the Obama campaign may have indirectly contributed to questionable fundraising by foreigners.

So the Messiah is bringing in heaps of cash from foreigners who may or may not be citizens, as well as equally large piles of money from inside the country from untraceable phantoms who make up identities and break up their contributions into smaller amounts, for which the reporting requirements aren't as strict.

Change!

Homeless Ohioan Wants Obama, Food

2008-10-02T11:50:00.001-04:00

In what surely will not be the last video to render me speechless this week, Ohio residents are not only encouraging homeless people to vote, but facilitating the process. Watch.

One genius describing registering voters at a temporary address: "It’s a perfect opportunity for them to come in, register at a temporary address like a homeless shelter or a YMCA or something like that. They can register at that address because they don’t know where they’re going to be tomorrow or next week."

Another woman describing picking up potential voters at bus stops: "I asked 'em if they’re registered to vote and if they weren’t, I said 'Get in the car, I’m bringing you!'"

A homeless (and obviously very informed) man now registered to vote:

"They picked me up. They seen me walkin' around. So they said, 'You wanna vote?' I said, 'Yeah, I’ll vote.' (laughs) They said, 'We’ll take you anywhere you want.' I said, 'Dat’s cool'" - "If they say 'sign the ballot,' just give 'em and do exactly what they want you to do.' I mean hey, this is America, you know?” (laughs).

Who does he support? Let's ask him!

"Barack! I mean, I want him to do his thang. You know baby, do his thug thizzle...you know, that’s how I like it to be, you know (laughs)."

We're doomed.

Video: I'm Voting Democrat...

2008-10-01T23:11:00.001-04:00

A well done response to the infamous "I'm Voting Republican" video. The lines are a little nasty, but no less than its liberal counterpart, and just as overly simplistic:

Favorite quote: "I'm voting Democrat because I believe in change. And not just just any change...but a change...that translates...into hope. And not just any hope...but a hope that...brings about...real...change. I like change."

Tomorrow's Moderator To Release Book Starring Obama

2008-10-01T22:48:00.001-04:00

Scroll for updates...

Here's an idea of how "neutral" the moderator for tomorrow's debate with Caribou Barbie and Greasy Joe will be. Gwen Ifill is releasing a book entitled The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Really sounds nonpartisan, doesn't it? Here's an example of what you'll be getting:

I'd like you to forget about bias for a moment. Let's just assume Ifill isn't biased towards Barack Obama in her book. If Obama manages to lose, do you think her book will sell? Sure, it will. But a hell of a lot more copies will leave the shelves if Obama wins. A child could explain this to you.

So by moderator, they apparently mean "a person with a financial stake in the outcome of this election." You would think this would be immensely obvious, and it is to most rationally thinking people. If she had any shred of journalistic integrity, she would realize this herself and turn down the offer. But alas, she's got a book to sell, and a candidate to help win.

I'm surprised toward the end she didn't add, "Hold on Jim, I'm having trouble hearing you over whatever boring song they're singing."

Update: Here are some accurate comments from PBS viewer Brian Meyers of Granby, Connecticut about Ifill's convention coverage directly following Palin's speech.

"Her attitude was dismissive and the look on her face was one of disgust," Meyers said. "Clearly, she was agitated by what most critics view as a well-delivered speech. It is quite obvious that Ms. Ifill supports Obama as she struggled to say anything redemptive about Gov. Palin's performance."

That New Bailout Bill? Yeah, It's Got Earmarks

2008-10-01T13:14:00.001-04:00

Scroll for updates...

This morning, the Senate began debating their attempt to breathe new life into the bailout bill that failed in the House. You can read it here, but what you should really pay attention to is not the first push down the red brick road to socialism, but rather the fact that even one of the most important pieces of legislation in generations is no exception to the rule of Senators tacking on as many unrelated items as possible.

By the way, the new bill is over 400 pages. Do you think your Senator has read it? Here's a peek at the completely unnecessary additions to the bill:

New Tax Earmarks
-Film and Television Productions (Sec. 502)
-Wooden Arrows designed for use by children (Sec. 503)
-6 page package of earmarks for litigants in the 1989 Exxon Valdez incident, Alaska (Sec. 504)

Tax Earmark "Extenders"
-Virgin Island and Puerto Rican Rum (Sec. 308)
-American Samoa (Sec. 309)
-Mine Rescue Teams (Sec. 310)
-Mine Safety Equipment (Sec. 311)
-Domestic Production Activities in Puerto Rico (Sec. 312)
-Indian Tribes (Sec. 314, 315)
-Railroads (Sec. 316)
-Auto Racing Tracks (Sec. 317)
-District of Columbia (Sec. 322)
-Wool Research (Sec. 325)

Can someone please tell me what NASCAR tracks, wooden arrows, and wool research have to do with Wall Street? I'd have a much easier time believing this was a real financial "emergency" if the American people (you know, those folks Congress is supposed to be serving?) were presenting with a clean bill.

This is a mess that goes all the way back to Jimmy Carter, and is a mess the American people shouldn't have to rely on this do-nothing band of congressional bandits to clean up. Paulson doesn't have the interests of main street at heart - after more than $40 million dollars from Goldman Sachs to both parties, he's looking to scratch the back of his former cronies.

Repeal the Community Reinvestment Act, rewrite the accounting laws, and for once in your career, write just one bill without earmarks. You're risking a revolution.

Update: The Senate bill just passed. I imagine it will squeak through the house, as it's got that infamous "Bushmentum" that gave us flash-fried versions of the Patriot Act, the Iraq War, and the unsuccessful amnesty bill.

Updates From Planet Obvious

2008-10-01T12:39:00.001-04:00

Here are a couple stories that aim to tell you what you (should) already know. First, we go to Vienna, Austria, where the head of the International Atomic Energy Agency has said that "all is not well with the IAEA." He also adds that after 6 years of inspections, the UN can't rule out "the possibility that [Iran] may be running clandestine nuclear programs."

A six-year probe of Iran has failed to rule out the possibility that the country may be running clandestine nuclear programs, the chief U.N nuclear inspector said Monday, urging the country to end its secretive ways.

"All is not well with the IAEA," ElBaradei said, asking the opening session of the agency's general conference for more money and authority.

Back in America, an email has surfaced via Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit, sent in by a reader who works in a mainstream media newsroom:

"Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working."

The only surprising thing here is that someone on the inside admitted what we all (should) know.

Pre-Gaming Tomorrow's Vice Presidential Train Wreck

2008-10-01T00:02:00.001-04:00

Tomorrow's Biden/Palin showdown will most likely attract a much larger audience than last Friday's debate, although to be fair, many viewers might mistakenly remain tuned in under the impression they are actually watching Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader.

It seems the vice presidential candidates' strategies are clear. For Caribou Barbie, the objective is to come across more knowledgeable and apt than she probably is, and for Greasy Joe, the objective is to come across like anything other than a complete jackass.

If the earmark machine can keep himself well-oiled and gaffe free, he won't need to pounce on any of Palin's inevitable slip-ups; the media will be glad to do that for him.

Meanwhile, if Palin wants to salvage anything from Thursday, she needs to clearly state that her opinions are her own; that she is not simply John McCain in stilettos. Then, she can unleash the Sarahcuda teeth and let Biden flail like the beltway flounder he is. Just like with ANWR and Pakistan (the latter of which McCain should have left alone), she needs to give the impression that she is her own woman with her own opinions who - unlike Joe Biden - is not only unafraid to differ with her running mate, but has done so.

Sarah's responses during interviews have been lined with obvious rhetorical echoes of McCain's handlers. Forcing her to be McCain's faithful beauty queen surrogate, loyally trumpeting his middle-of-the-road positions (even if she agrees with 95% of them), is one of the many things contributing to the decay of his campaign.

Mr. Biden needs to learn from Obama's arrogance and refer to Sarahcuda as "Governor Palin," not "Sarah." Despite McCain referring to Obama consistently and solely as "Senator Obama," Barry referred to McCain as "John" over 20 times during the debate.

He also needs to remember that Palin isn't (and shouldn't be) the primary target of his attacks. Of course she's a walking bull's eye, but while Barry and Joe keep the heat on the bottom of the ticket, John McCain starts to look like the only one running for president. He doesn't need to make himself appear more trustworthy than Sarah - he needs to make Barack look more trustworthy than McCain.

Biden's best tactic will be to let her goofs go underplayed and silently sanction a post-debate media field day, but I suspect his ego will make achieving this all but impossible.

This debate is do-or-die for Sarah, as her campaign speeches with and without McCain have been more or less carbon copies of her RNC speech. How many times do I have to hear "Thanks but no thanks" and "I put it on eBay?" Her speeches are starting to sound just as full of canned rhetoric and witty one-liners as Obama's. Don't get me wrong, I agree with what she's saying, but she needs to stop being terrified of "winging it" and just be real. She needs to come off as a genuine person, and not "PalinBot."

I'm sorry Sarah, but if you can't come across as genuine standing next to the likes of Joe Biden, you're probably in way over your head. Come to think of it, you are in way over your head. You aren't entering a debate, you're entering a munitions factory, where any sound-bite can be used to forge the final campaign-killing slug.

5 weeks and counting.

Obama Kids Sing For Their Dear Leader

2008-09-30T18:07:00.001-04:00

There are no words for this:

And Now, Some Words From Barack Obama's Teleprompter

2008-09-30T12:08:00.001-04:00

God forbid Barack's prompter goes Ron Burgundy on him:

Obama Solicits Law Enforcement to "Remind" Voters He's a Christian

2008-09-30T11:59:00.001-04:00

Sit down for this one. The Obama campaign is asking for the involvement of prosecutors and sheriffs who will be "reminding voters that Barack Obama is a Christian who wants to cut taxes." Apparently the politics of change includes dispatching government officials to stifle criticism. Are you joking?

St. Louis Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce is maintaining that the tactics will not be used for "prosecuting people," not through any decisions made by Obama's Brownshirts, but through a little something called the First Amendment.

As a citizen, I believe that elections should be about issues. I also have enormous respect for our First Amendment and freedom of speech. My sole purpose in participating in this initiative is about getting truthful information to the voters. This has never been or never will be about prosecuting people.

Then why is it, Jennifer, that Obama's campaign is "asking Missouri law enforcement to target" people? No one has to be prosecuted for this to work. The goal isn't to jail anyone (because again, thanks to the First Amendment they can't); the goal is to have the fear of potential litigation factor into anyone's decision to criticize the Messiah.

The Governor of Missouri lays it out pretty clearly in his statement:

"This abuse of the law for intimidation insults the most sacred principles and ideals of Jefferson. I can think of nothing more offensive to Jefferson’s thinking than using the power of the state to deprive Americans of their civil rights. The only conceivable purpose...is to frighten people away from expressing themselves, to chill free and open debate, to suppress support and donations to conservative organizations targeted by this anti-civil rights, to strangle criticism of Mr. Obama, to suppress ads about his support of higher taxes, and to choke out criticism on television, radio, the Internet, blogs, e-mail and daily conversation about the election.

Barack Obama needs to grow up. Leftist blogs and others in the press constantly say false things about me and my family. Usually, we ignore false and scurrilous accusations because the purveyors have no credibility. When necessary, we refute them. Enlisting Missouri law enforcement to intimidate people and kill free debate is reminiscent of the Sedition Acts - not a free society."

He promised you a new type of politics, didn't he?

228 Nay, 205 Yea: Congress Defeats Bailout!

2008-09-29T19:36:00.002-04:00

In financial terms, Bush and the Fed are attempting pull off what Osama couldn't on 9/11. Americans scored at least a temporary victory today as congress dissolved Bush, Paulson, and Bernanke's pipe-dream of a check for $700+ billion of taxpayer money:

In a vote that shook the government, Wall Street and markets around the world, the House on Monday defeated a $700 billion emergency rescue for the nation's financial system, leaving both parties and the Bush administration struggling to pick up the pieces.

Democrats voted 140 - 95 in favor of the bailout, while only 65 Republicans were in favor of the bill. We'll discuss later how both parties are wrong on this issue and are acting as meandering and robotic apparatchiks, exploiting it to score points against their opposing faction. But first, how is the head of the snake taking the news? Breitbart is reporting that Bush is "very disappointed" by the vote. What a shame! I'm sure this isn't what he had in mind when his administration pieced the legislation together months (yes, months) ago:

[White House Deputy Press Secretary] Fratto insisted that the plan was not slapped together and had been drawn up as a contingency over previous months and weeks by administration officials.

He acknowledged lawmakers were getting only days to peruse it, but he said this should be enough.

Unbelievable. If by "enough" you mean "enough time to pass this stinking pile of socialist legislation before the American people wake up to the fact that they're being blackmailed by their own government via one of the worst examples of financial terrorism ever to take place within their own borders," then yes, George.

Republicans are wrong for going along with this plan, albeit reluctantly, instead of calling out their president and the pirates of wall street on this un-American proposal. Democrats are wrong for blaming the "free market gone wild," completely neglecting to mention the Community Reinvestment Act.

I'll keep updating with news and thoughts as the day goes on; there's too much going on now.

Update: Don't assume this was a partisan defeat, and don't assume this is over. It's not over by any stretch. Here are some details from the bill itself:

If the Treasury purchases at least $300 million in mortgage-based assets from a financial institution, that company would lose the ability to take a tax deduction on the amount of salaries that exceed $500,000 for its top five individuals. It also includes a 20% excise tax on golden parachutes payments triggered by events other than retirement.

There was no executive compensation limit of any significance. Nothing. Just tax the "golden parachutes!" Was there any real tangible oversight for these crooks? Of course!

[The legislation] creates a "Financial Stability Oversight Board" to oversee the program, which includes the chairmen of the Federal Reserve Board, the Securities and Exchange Commission; the Federal Home Finance Agency director and the Housing and Urban Development secretary.

Wow. The Fed and the SEC? Bernanke and Chris Cox were the crooks set to be on the Financial Stability Oversight Board? We don't need a casino, we need a market.

Keep in mind this is the lowest rated Congress in history, with an abysmal approval rating lower than that of George Bush. Mama Nancy has allowed congress and American resolve itself to wither and subsequently grind to a halt, and after today's defeat, there isn't enough botox in the universe to bring back that token Pelosi smile.

Update: Here are congressman Michael Burgess' remarks about the Democrats' chastising of Republican legislators, and making the case for informing the public of the contents of the bill.

Stay tuned for the arm-twisting.

Update: Nancy Pelosi has assured party leaders that there will be no "witch hunt" into who caused the Fannie/Freddie crisis:

Further, according to House Oversight Committee staff, [former board member for Freddie Mac] Emanuel has received assurances from Pelosi that she will not allow what he termed a "witch hunt" to take place during the next Congressional session over the role Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac played in the economic crisis.

Emanuel apparently is concerned the roles former Clinton Administration members may have played in the mortgage industry collapse could be politically -- or worse, if the Department of Justice had its way, legally -- treacherous for many.

Of course - why would the witch be in favor of a witch hunt? So Nancy Pelosi plays political games while trying to place blame completely on Republicans and their "free market," and then tries to protects her own underlings from legal scrutiny during the worst financial crisis in a century?

And she wondered why we laughed in 2006 when she pledged to run the "most ethical congress ever."

New Iranian Best-Seller: "Those Jews and Their Wacky Holocaust!"

2008-09-26T10:38:00.001-04:00

As if weekly "Death to Israel" rallies and Holocaust Deniers conferences weren't enough, a "group of Islamist students" have released a book mocking the Holocaust to "show solidarity with the Palestinians."

I know people love to claim that the knee-jerk reaction of calling someone an "anti-semite" for siding with the Palestinians is a popular one, but if you think "the Jews" were responsible for their own slaughter in order to politically exploit it - guess what? You're an anti-semite. From Breitbart:

The cover shows a Jew with a crooked nose and dressed in traditional garb drawing outlines of dead bodies on the ground. Inside, bearded Jews are shown leaving and re-entering a gas chamber with a counter that reads the number 5,999,999.

Another depicts Jewish prisoners entering a furnace in a Nazi extermination camp and leaving as gun-wielding terrorists from the other side.

Yet another shows a patient covered in an Israeli flag and on life support breathing Zyklon-B, the poisonous gas used in the extermination chambers.

The commentary inside the book includes anti-Semitic stereotypes and revisionist arguments, casting doubt on the massacre of Jews and mocking Holocaust survivors who claimed reparations after World War II.

One comment in a question-and-answer format reads: "How did the Germans emit gas into chambers while there were no holes on the ceiling?" Answer: "Shut up, you criminal anti-Semite. How dare you ask this question?"

I'm sure you remember the Danish cartoon controversy? How many death threats do you think will be made to the publishers of this book? How many bombings do you think will occur as a result of this mockery? I'm going to put my money on "zero."

I love how the Germans have admitted to and apologized for the murder of millions of Jews, and yet a culture and a race of people that had absolutely no involvement in the atrocity continues to deny it ever took place. Maybe they just want all the credit for their own soon-to-be-manifested genocide:

On Friday, tens of thousands of Iranians marched in Tehran, chanting "Death to Israel," declaring solidarity with the Palestinians and calling for Jerusalem and Israel to be handed to the Palestinians.

Demonstrators carried placards which read, "Israel will be destroyed, Palestine is Victorious" and "Holy war until victory," and they torched American and Israeli flags.

The demonstration was held under an official slogan: "The Islamic world will not recognize the fake Zionist regime under any circumstances and believes that this cancerous tumor will one day be wiped off the face of the earth."

I don't even know if I'm in favor of bombing their nuclear sites anymore. Maybe it would be feasible if we hadn't invaded Iraq (or were out by now) and if we had actually done something to stop them over the last 30 years, which is as long as they've wanted nuclear weapons.

Sure, keep up the economic sanctions. If they do anything, they enrage Ahmadinejad, allowing more of his evil nature and hostile vitriol to be seen and heard by the international community. But in the end, it's probably too late to stop them. They'll get the bomb if they don't have it already, and they'll use it.

I think I'm in favor of the YAD strategy. That is to say, "Your Assured Destruction." With our most sophisticated anti-missile systems, we let the Iranians know that any adorable little nuke they fire will be immediately shot down, and followed by ten of our own being detonated over Iranian soil. Too harsh?

It's the EMP threat that scares me, anyway.

Update: It should be noted that these "Islamists" are not random students but actually a tentacle of the Iranian government - a paramilitary force founded by the original Ayatollah in 1979. Also, here's how Pakistanis (you know, our "allies?") are celebrating their Al-Quds day:

New Yorkers to Ahmadinejad: Go Home

2008-09-26T00:15:00.002-04:00

Some of the best photos from the anti-Ahmadinejad rally in Manhattan yesterday. Enjoy:

The Government Bailout is a Taxpayer Bailout

2008-09-25T11:01:00.001-04:00

I've been weighing how I want to approach writing about the current financial meltdown, the words of our treasury secretary (you know, the former Goldman Sachs CEO), the failed policies of both parties, the unchecked greed of Wall Street, and the $700 billion the American citizens are being asked to cough up to bail out these pirates.

I don't have to anymore, as none other than Ron Paul has written one of the most sober and concise articles detailing the origins of the crisis and making the case against the bailout. I'm going to post it in its entirety here, because it needs to be read:

Many Americans today are asking themselves how the economy got to be in such a bad spot.

For years they thought the economy was booming, growth was up, job numbers and productivity were increasing. Yet now we find ourselves in what is shaping up to be one of the most severe economic downturns since the Great Depression.

Unfortunately, the government's preferred solution to the crisis is the very thing that got us into this mess in the first place: government intervention.

Ever since the 1930s, the federal government has involved itself deeply in housing policy and developed numerous programs to encourage home building and home ownership.

Government-sponsored enterprises Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were able to obtain a monopoly position in the mortgage market, especially the mortgage-backed securities market, because of the advantages bestowed upon them by the federal government.

Laws passed by Congress such as the Community Reinvestment Act required banks to make loans to previously underserved segments of their communities, thus forcing banks to lend to people who normally would be rejected as bad credit risks.

These governmental measures, combined with the Federal Reserve's loose monetary policy, led to an unsustainable housing boom. The key measure by which the Fed caused this boom was through the manipulation of interest rates, and the open market operations that accompany this lowering.

When interest rates are lowered to below what the market rate would normally be, as the Federal Reserve has done numerous times throughout this decade, it becomes much cheaper to borrow money. Longer-term and more capital-intensive projects, projects that would be unprofitable at a high interest rate, suddenly become profitable.

Because the boom comes about from an increase in the supply of money and not from demand from consumers, the result is malinvestment, a misallocation of resources into sectors in which there is insufficient demand.

In this case, this manifested itself in overbuilding in real estate. When builders realize they have overbuilt and have too many houses to sell, too many apartments to rent, or too much commercial real estate to lease, they seek to recoup as much of their money as possible, even if it means lowering prices drastically.

This lowering of prices brings the economy back into balance, equalizing supply and demand. This economic adjustment means, however that there are some winners -- in this case, those who can again find affordable housing without the need for creative mortgage products, and some losers -- builders and other sectors connected to real estate that suffer setbacks.

The government doesn't like this, however, and undertakes measures to keep prices artificially inflated. This was why the Great Depression was as long and drawn out in this country as it was.

I am afraid that policymakers today have not learned the lesson that prices must adjust to economic reality. The bailout of Fannie and Freddie, the purchase of AIG, and the latest multi-hundred billion dollar Treasury scheme all have one thing in common: They seek to prevent the liquidation of bad debt and worthless assets at market prices, and instead try to prop up those markets and keep those assets trading at prices far in excess of what any buyer would be willing to pay.

Additionally, the government's actions encourage moral hazard of the worst sort. Now that the precedent has been set, the likelihood of financial institutions to engage in riskier investment schemes is increased, because they now know that an investment position so overextended as to threaten the stability of the financial system will result in a government bailout and purchase of worthless, illiquid assets.

Using trillions of dollars of taxpayer money to purchase illusory short-term security, the government is actually ensuring even greater instability in the financial system in the long term.

The solution to the problem is to end government meddling in the market. Government intervention leads to distortions in the market, and government reacts to each distortion by enacting new laws and regulations, which create their own distortions, and so on ad infinitum.

It is time this process is put to an end. But the government cannot just sit back idly and let the bust occur. It must actively roll back stifling laws and regulations that allowed the boom to form in the first place.

The government must divorce itself of the albatross of Fannie and Freddie, balance and drastically decrease the size of the federal budget, and reduce onerous regulations on banks and credit unions that lead to structural rigidity in the financial sector.

Until the big-government apologists realize the error of their ways, and until vocal free-market advocates act in a manner which buttresses their rhetoric, I am afraid we are headed for a rough ride.

Once again, John McCain is doing everything in his power to convince conservatives to stay at home in November by parroting the message that the sky is falling, and asking Americans to add to our national debt the equivalent of what we've spent on 6 years in Iraq.

Let 'em go under. We'll be better off for it.

Biden: We Don't Support Clean Coal; Obama: Yeah, Actually We Do

2008-09-24T13:24:00.002-04:00

While reading Sarah Palin's interview with Fox News' favorite college dropout, I came across something of interest regarding drilling in Alaska:

Palin: I support drilling in Alaska because it’s going to be good for our nation and our nation’s--

Hannity: Including ANWR?

Palin: Absolutely. ANWR is a 2,000 acre plot of land and it’s a 20 million acre plot of land...But, no secret, John McCain and I agree to disagree on that one. And I’m going to keep working on him with ANWR...we must start taking the steps to get [energy independent]. That’s why he has embraced offshore drilling. That’s why he has embraced the ideal of the alternative fuels also. And I’ll keep working on him with ANWR.

Let me start by saying this. There are rational positions about which people with different values and political perspectives can differ. Then, there are irrational positions, which are driven either by the interests of powerful lobbies (read: environmentalists) or perhaps simply unchecked emotion. Opposition to drilling in ANWR can be classified as the latter.

The area in question is about the size of Los Angeles International Airport, and LAX isn't even one of the nation's largest; you could practically fit it inside Dallas-Fort Worth.

And don't get me started on the myth of threatened caribou populations. Since construction of the Trans-Alaska Pipeline System, the amount of caribou increased more than ten times over, a jump largely attributed to the warmth of the pipeline. If you were a caribou, where would you rather get it on with your old lady - under a nice hot pipe, or in the freezing cold snow?

After reading her statement, I thought to myself, "Gee, imagine that...Palin openly says that John McCain has something completely wrong, and is going to "work on him" to change his mind. Is there anything Joe Biden thinks Barack Obama has completely wrong? Any particular issue over which Joe wants to "keep working on him?"

I couldn't think of a single issue on which the 1st and 3rd most liberal senators would disagree. But then, as if Delaware's own gaffe-master was reading my thoughts, Biden dropped this bomb:

It would be one thing if he said, "While my running mate supports clean coal, I personally am not in favor of it, and will work to have the voices of people like you and me heard in an Obama administration." But notice the statement, "we're not supporting clean coal," which is in direct contradiction to Obama's stated energy plan. From Messiah's website:

Develop and Deploy Clean Coal Technology.

Obama’s Department of Energy will enter into public private partnerships to develop five “first-of-a-kind” commercial scale coal-fired plants with clean carbon capture and sequestration technology.

Either Joe has been too busy reviewing his IQ tests to remember which ticket he's on (which doesn't seem likely given that McCain also supports clean coal), or this is all part of some grand scheme to have the wicked witch of the East River jump aboard the ship Biden is hopelessly trying to sink with comments like these.

Come to think of it, this is probably in the same category as Biden's admission that the Obama ad lambasting McCain for his inability to magically make his bones work was "terrible." He even added some of that trademark Barack "nuance" when he implied that Barack Obama didn't approve a message that ended with the words "I'm Barack Obama and I approve this message."

Suddenly, Caribou Barbie no longer looks like the most detrimental VP pick of this election.

Update: The McCain campaign has already pounced:

As part of John McCain’s “all of the above” energy plan, the Lexington Project, clean coal will be a strong component of the drive to energy independence. In addition to providing domestic energy, the coal industry is a key part of the economy in several states.

John McCain’s support for clean coal technology is in sharp contrast to that of his opponents. Joe Biden visited Virginia on Saturday, saying that he was a “hard-coal miner” and that it was “nice to be back in coal country” while Obama supporter, Congressman Rick Boucher (D-VA) said “Senator Obama’s a friend of coal.” But just two days later in Ohio, Senator Biden said he wants “no coal plants here in America” and that he and Senator Obama are “not supporting clean coal.”

Update: Check out this adorable little bit of spin from the Obama campaign on the issue of Biden's comments. Again, remember what Biden said: "we're not supporting clean coal."

“Senator McCain knows that Senator Obama and Senator Biden support clean coal technology,” says Biden spokesman David Wade. “Senator Biden’s point is that China is building coal plants with outdated technology every day, and the United States needs to lead by developing clean coal technologies."

So the Obama campaign has now said that despite Biden's own words to the contrary, he really does support clean coal. Can you imagine if McCain had made the same statement, and his McCain tried to play it off as if he just "misspoke?" He'd be accused of being a senile old man unfit for the presidency. And what if Sarahcuda misstated one of John McCain's positions? It would be another reason to paint her as an "irresponsible" pick.

So while we don't know whether Biden supports clean coal, what if the coal is both clean and articulate?

Shocker: Eco-Fanatics Most Likely to Contribute to Global Warming

2008-09-24T11:04:00.001-04:00

In a day-making story from the Guardian, you can read about a study which showed that people who claim to have the greenest lifestyles can be seen as "some of the main culprits behind global warming."

According to the researchers, people who regularly recycle rubbish and save energy at home are also the most likely to take frequent long-haul flights abroad. The carbon emissions from such flights can swamp the green savings made at home, the researchers claim.

Stewart Barr, of Exeter University, who led the research, said: "Green living is largely something of a myth. There is this middle class environmentalism where being green is part of the desired image. But another part of the desired image is to fly off skiing twice a year. And the carbon savings they make by not driving their kids to school will be obliterated by the pollution from their flights."

Some people even said they deserved such flights as a reward for their green efforts, he added.

I think one of the requirements for being a global-warming eco-warrior is a certain amount of hypocrisy. I'm not damning these people for taking long plane trips - if they can afford it, by all means, have a blast. But what do expect when Mother Earth's very own savior (ahem, Mr. Gore), owns a house that consumes more electricity than 20 times the national average, and who continues to dart about the globe in a private jet?

Iranian Finds Christ, Death Row

2008-09-23T20:46:00.001-04:00

Just like there are "no homosexuals" in Iran, there apparently will soon be no non-Muslims. Iranian Ramtin Soudmand has decided that Islam just isn't for him, opting to convert to Christianity. However, despite the Iranian government's failure to charge him with a crime, Ramtin was arrested and detained by Iranian authorities and will face the death penalty if an anti-apostasy bill is passed by parliament.

From Adnkronos International:

Tehran, 23 Sept. (AKI) - Iranian Christian convert Ramtin Soudmand faces the death penalty after being jailed for the crime of 'ertedad' or abandoning the Muslim faith.

Ramtin's father Hossein Soudmand, a Protestant pastor, was executed almost 20 years ago for converting to Christianity and refusing to deny his new faith.

Married with two children, Soudmand was detained by security officials in Mashad about a month ago.

"The authorities have not yet charged my brother with any crime, but we fear that his charges will be formalised after the execution of the sentence, like what happened with my father," said Ramtin's sister, Rashin in an interview with Adnkronos International (AKI).

There is very little to stop the Iranian government from ratifying the law, which will make apostasy a capital offense. The bill in question was approved by a vote of 196-7, and would institute a mandatory death sentence for any Iranian who leaves Islam for a different faith.

If "international pressure" can't stop the messianic mullahs from getting the bomb, how can it stop the Islamic republic from executing their own homegrown infidels?

Heartbreak: Mexicans Pinching Pesos as Income From America Slows

2008-09-23T11:30:00.002-04:00

I hope I have room on my desk for all the tears I'm going to cry after wading through this story. The first few paragraphs of the article in question discuss Luis Martínez, who was deported after unlawfully leaving the country to attend a funeral while attempting to gain U.S. citizenship.

That's a bummer - but not the focus of the article. The real tragedy is that the flood of illegal immigrants can't afford to send quite so large a piece of our ever-feeble economy back to their familia across the border.

From the piece in the Dallas Morning News:

Of the 500,000 Hispanics who have lost their jobs since January 2007, he estimates 60,000 are illegal immigrants from Mexico. Some have been forced to take jobs that pay much less. "I have interviewed migrants, and they tell me they lost a job in construction at $15 an hour and now are washing dishes for $7 an hour," he said.

An illegal immigrant lost his job? Well, I seem to have also lost my violin. You should be counting your lucky stars you even have a job, nevermind the fact that you have health care, education, and a cluster of American cities whose police forces aren't even allowed to ask you about your immigration status.

Meanwhile, U.S. authorities are deporting Mexican immigrants at a rate not seen in 50 years, including more than 208,000 "removals" from the U.S. interior in the current fiscal year, which ends this month.

"Mexican immigrants?" Do we just go around deporting Mexican people who immigrated here legally? America must be a racist country! Try describing them as "illegal" Mexican immigrants and you'll be closer to the truth.

The "rate not seen in 50 years" might have something to do with the fact that we're currently in the midst of what can only be described as a national emergency. It might have something to do with the fact that once illegal immigrants get here, they're 50% more likely to be on welfare than citizens.

And if we want to start deporting "immigrants," we could start with the 17% of federal prison inmates who are illegal immigrants. It would rid our nation of criminals we don't want becoming citizens anyway, and would instantly save us the millions of dollars it's currently costing to imprison them. But you won't hear this proposal from Obama or McCain. By the way, that 17% of imprisoned illegal immigrants is significant considering that illegal immigrants make up only about 3% of the country's population.

So, why don't I have any tears on my desk? Because the life boat is sinking, and there aren't enough orange floaty jackets to go around.

Persia-Pocalypse Update

2008-09-22T16:10:00.002-04:00

Iran is ever-closer to the bomb and as resolute as ever. With Ahmadinejad heading to Manhattan, Israel's intelligence wheels spinning furiously, and Hamas and Hezbollah rearming themselves, we seem to have hit another crest in the up-and-down cycle of panic and apathy spurred on by the Iranian mullocracy.

On that note, here are a few related stories worth checking out:

Military Intelligence: Iran Halfway to First Nuclear Bomb :: According to the head of research for Israeli military intelligence, as Iran's progress toward a nuclear weapon speeds up, the West's dedication to stopping the Islamic republic slows down. He says Iran has already enriched one-third to one-half of the uranium needed for a bomb.

Iran exploits every second the ticking clock gives them, as every second exploits our weakness in the West.

IAEA Chief: Iran Could Be Hiding Nukes :: This one is a little more unnerving and slightly more believable, given the black-market proliferation that occurred after the Soviet union dissolved, and after Pakistan's A.Q. Khan sold the power of the stars to the highest bidder.

The fact is, if Iran wanted to buy an off-the-shelf nuke, there are plenty of willing distributors. One of which, I regret to inform you, is Al-Qaeda.

Ahmadinejad: We'll Stop Any Attacker :: More rhetoric from Mr. Dinner Jacket as he claims that Iran is "not in a position to show softness toward its enemies." Coincidentally, Iran is also not in a position to be bombed into the bronze age.

The Speech Palin Never Gave :: From Haaretz, this is the text of the speech Palin was to give at the anti-Iran rally in New York. This was the rally Hillary turned down, evidently because her special "awkward" pantsuit wasn't back from the cleaners. In the speech, Palin talks of Iran's desire for a new "final solution," and speaks soberly about the threat Iran poses. From the speech:

Tomorrow, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will come to New York - to the heart of what he calls the Great Satan - and speak freely in this, a country whose demise he has called for.

Ahmadinejad may choose his words carefully, but underneath all of the rhetoric is an agenda that threatens all who seek a safer and freer world. We gather here today to highlight the Iranian dictator's intentions and to call for action to thwart him. He must be stopped.

Keep your eye on the chess game, folks.

Ask Your Doctor About Palin Derangement Syndrome

2008-09-22T14:04:00.001-04:00

Andrew Breitbart has written a column in today's Washington Post about what is increasingly being referred to as Palin Derangement Syndrome. Read it:

Palin Derangement Syndrome, a more irrational variant of the Bush contagion, doesn't require sufferers to know anything about the subject of their hatred. Anonymous, unsourced rumors fuel the fire (book banning, speaking in tongues, creationism, etc.). Lovely family photos hacked from a personal e-mail account displayed on commercial Web sites push more buttons. Asterisks from Mrs. Palin's biographical sketch - "moose hunter," "small-town mayor," "wife of champion snow machine racer" - cause excessive sweating and irregular heartbeats. She even fired a guy who Tased a 10-year-old. (Oh wait, she didn't.)

What will happen when they find out she shops at Wal-Mart?

He goes on to describe how the likes of Lindsay Lohan and Margaret Cho, while "clumsy on their lesbian training wheels," have tripped over each other in their attempts to express their distaste for Sarahcuda. Cho recently blogged, "She is evil...If you [Palin supporters] were truly Christians, you would let gays get married, and send them fucking presents from Bed Bath and Beyond!" Breitbart points out their inability to acknowledge that their own Messiah doesn't support gay marriage either.

For many, gay marriage is a key issue.

Yet none of these gilded-ghetto living haters point out that their savior, Mr. Obama, stands against gay marriage, too. Is that change Melissa Etheridge can believe in?

Like President Clinton, who supported regressive anti-gay-rights legislation such as "don't ask, don't tell" and the Defense of Marriage Act, Mr. Obama gets a massive pass from the activist gay left and their stenographers in the mainstream media.

The never-reported political reality is that both Mr. Clinton and Mr. Obama understand that key components of the Democratic Party - the black and Hispanic blocs - hold views that Brad Pitt would deem "homophobic."

Liberals, particularly the Hollywood elite, live in a bubble. They read liberal opinion pages, they watch television networks saturated with liberal ideas, and they associate only with other liberals, lest they have to descend to the level of a lowly conservative, who to them is at best a moron and at worst a hyper-religious hate-filled bigoted racist.

Hence, it's no surprise that on many a Wednesday in November, they are often left wondering where all these conservative voters came from.

Can you imagine how many heads would explode in Hollywood amidst cries of a "political ploy" if John McCain were to appoint, say, an openly gay person to a cabinet position?

Pakistani Terrorists Replace Marriott Hotel Lobby With 60-Foot Crater

2008-09-22T12:29:00.004-04:00

In an attack believed to be perpetrated by Al-Qaeda, Islamabad's Marriott Hotel was gutted by a suicide bomber killing at least 40 people and injuring over 200 others, including 2 Americans. Saturday's attack was timed to occur as Muslims were packed into the hotel restaurants, breaking fast for Ramadan.

This also marks the second attack on Western targets in a week, after last week's attack on the U.S. embassy in Yemen. Here's one of the early reports:

A massive truck bomb destroyed much of Islamabad’s most popular hotel this evening, killing at least 40 people, wounding at least 100 and leaving a crater more than 25 feet deep. Officials feared the death toll would increase by dozens as rescue teams continue work at the scene.

At approximately 8 p.m. local time, an apparent suicide bomber blew himself up as his vehicle was being checked at the security gate of the luxury Marriott Hotel. The bomb was felt as far as 15 miles away. Within 500 feet of the blast, buildings and trees were shredded by the bomb, which was believed to be the biggest in Islamabad’s history.

In the minutes after the blast, dozens of dead bodies littered what used to be the lobby of the hotel. Between the entrance and the security checkpoint, about 50 feet away, there were mounds of rubble under which more dead are feared to be buried.

Hours before the attack and less than a mile away from the hotel, Pakistan's new president Asif Ali Zardari made his first address to Parliament. Zardari, as well as Pakistan's Prime Minister, were due to dine at the Marriott the same evening, but changed their plans and avoided the blast.

Just hours after his first address as president of Pakistan, particularly stressing his desire to fight terrorism in his own country, Zardari would have been not only a victim, but a symbolic statement of the resiliance of the Islamists and their desire to use terror to dissolve democracy.

Update: The death toll is now at 53 and rising as dead bodies continue to be pulled from the rubble. Czech Ambassador Ivo Zdarek is among at least 21 foreigners killed in the blast.

Also read Bill Marriott on the bombing: "They [security personnel] had stopped the truck just outside the fortified gate. They were examining it when the bomb detonated. Sadly each member of the team was killed. These guys were defending the lives of hotel guests and their fellow co-workers. They were killed in the line of their duty."

Update: A surveillance video recorded moments before the bomb exploded has been released:

The camera didn't capture the blast - if you look at the resulting crater you'll understand why - but it caught everything leading up to the explosion, including the driver apparently self-detonating as hotel guards closed in. The flames couldn't be extinguished before they ignited the truck bomb itself.

So, let me get this straight: Zardari and his contemporaries were supposed to be dining at the Marriott at the time of the explosion, but plans were changed at the last minute. It's been long asserted by the CIA (amongst other intelligence entities) that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence spy agency has close ties to Al-Qaeda leadership.

Hmmmmm - I wonder who would have intimate access to Pakistani leadership and be interested in sharing that information with jihadis?

Just a reminder - there are nuclear weapons in this country, and with ISI in bed with the radicals as they have been for years, no one in Pakistan can be trusted with nukes.

Duh: Ayatollah Khamenei Says Israel, Iran on "Collision Course"

2008-09-19T12:38:00.001-04:00

Iran's Supreme Leader (which is like Iran's regular leader, only with extra toppings) said today that Israel and the Islamic Republic were on a "collision course" and that Iran's hostility extended not just to the government of Israel, but to the Israeli people themselves.

Let me guess: Death to America?

This might serve as a convenient reminder for the fools who believe Khamenei is "more moderate" than Ahmadinejad. From the LA Times article:

Iran's highest authority lashed out against Israel today with some of his harshest comments about the Jewish state in recent memory.

Supreme leader Ali Khamenei, the black-turbaned ayatollah who is Iran's top political and military figure, said that Iran's hostility to Israel extended to the Israeli people, as well as the government, brushing aside recent peaceful overtures by top Iranian officials to ordinary people in the Jewish state.

I love when I hear people dismiss the threat posed by Ahmadinejad by saying that he's "just a puppet," and that "the real power is in the hands of the Ayatollah." While this is true, you're completely missing the point. The Ayatollah is responsible for putting Ahmadinejad into power in the first place, after a sham election which was rigged to ensure his victory.

Are these people even listening to themselves? The man who threatens other nations, denies the holocaust ever happened, and executes gays is the puppet, and you don't worry about the motives of the puppetmaster?

Here's some more rhetoric from Iran's Islamist leader:

January 2nd, 2005: "Today, the issue of the Islamic revival has spread from east, or at least from Pakistan, to the west and North Africa. The people are demanding Islam...this is a great threat to America. They admit that their interests are threatened and they are correct."

September 4th, 2005: "The only way to confront the Zionist enemy is the continuation and fortification of resistance and Jihad."

February 20th, 2006: "The only way to succeed is to continue to resist the [Israeli] occupation...The Palestinian people knew voting for Hamas marks the continuation of fighting against the Zionist occupation regime."

July 17th, 2006: "This regime [Israel] is an infectious tumour for the entire Islamic world." On Hezbollah disarming: "This will never happen."

July 28th, 2007: "The Zionist regime and the American government are the main enemies of Iran, and hatred for America is deepening every day around the globe."

Khamenei is right about one thing. It's gonna get ugly.

Biden to Wealthy Americans: Pay Higher Taxes You Unpatriotic Snobs

2008-09-18T15:40:00.002-04:00

Alright, so maybe my headline is a little sensational, but remember, this is coming from Joe Biden - the man whose Senate majority leader said that the income tax is "voluntary."

Biden is now telling Americans who will pay higher taxes under Obama's economic plan that "it's time to be patriotic." Patriotism apparently means allowing the Federal government to take a larger slice of your paycheck. I apologize in advance for the "Biden smile." Watch:

I would assume most Americans would rather elect someone who will better handle the money Uncle Sam is already taking from them, rather than someone who demands they relinquish more of their income to prove their "patriotism."

This is of course completely disregarding the fact that Biden's point about paying higher taxes to help an economy in crisis is completely baseless. Taxes have nothing to do with the credit crisis, the housing market, or government bailouts. Apparently Joe wasn't aware of this inconvenient truth, as he uttered what would be considered a gaffe (if a Republican said it):

"We should try to correct the problems that caused this. And what’s caused this? The profligate tax cuts to the very, very wealthy that John wants to continue. What’s caused this is the failure to have regulation so that, in fact — John talks about these CEOs getting these big bailout packages."

Sorry Joe. You're talking about two separate issues. Oh, and if you want to talk about CEOs getting big bailout packages, I can think of two Fannie/Freddie CEOs who fit the description: Jim Johnson and Franklin Raines, currently serving as Barack Obama's economic advisers.

If Democrats really wanted to increase the amount of money flowing into our already-bloated government, they'd keep their mouth shut about "tax cuts for the rich." But alas, they aren't taking more money from the rich to fund government - they're redistributing it in the form of tax credits, which is what you get when you create a "tax break" for someone who doesn't pay taxes.

That's called buying votes, and while there is a growing portion of Americans opting to vote for a living rather than work for one, don't look for Biden to question their patriotism.

Update: McCain has already pounced on Biden's monumentally clueless statement, releasing this ad...

Something else I find interesting (though not surprising) is the fact that the media is only focusing on Obama's plans in regard to income taxes; no one is talking about what effects his capital-gains and corporate tax increases will have. Does Obama think that businesses will just suck it up and eat the higher costs? They won't.

If your company's cost of doing business goes up because you're forced to hand over more of your capital to the government, how are you going to offset that cost? You'll either have to raise prices on consumers (particularly affecting the middle-class, Obama), eliminate jobs (which puts more people out of work, Obama), or pack up shop and move overseas (which is what you claim you're trying to prevent by raising taxes in the first place, Obama).

In fact, depending on how much of a bite Uncle Sam is taking out of your resources, you might do all of the above. If I may use Barack's own words...he just doesn't get it.

Shocker: University Professor Assigns Anti-Palin Essay Assignment

2008-09-18T15:16:00.001-04:00

Big surprise, right? If the professor was trying to get the kids to think critically, it could actually benefit conservative students, because they would be forced to scrutinize Palin's character and record instead of accepting her at face value based on her image - something many Obama supporters don't seem to hesitate with. Click the image below to read the local CBS report and watch the video.

Click to watch the video.

But instead of a healthy assignment that stressed critical thinking, the purpose of the assignment was to "teach" the students what a fraud Sarah Palin is. One student even said that "the instructor singled out Republican students in the class and allowed others to ridicule them." The intention of the assignment was to criticize the "fairy tale image of Sarah Palin" presented by Republicans. You aren't going to find any Marxist professors, America-hating racists, or domestic terrorists of the kind an exposé of a certain Democrat candidate would unearth.

Parents, this is what you're getting for $50k a year. According to the local news article, school officials are investigating claims of "bias, harassment, and bullying." Bias in a university classroom? Surely you jest!

I would like to think that for every one of these stories that comes to light, more professors with the same predisposition for "bias and harassment" check themselves. Sadly, I fear it's more likely that they simply devise more subtle means of indoctrination.

Soy Barack Obama, y Apruebo Este Desastre

2008-09-18T12:09:00.001-04:00

Barry has released yet another attack ad, after vowing to "take off the gloves." You might want to sit down for this one. It's in Spanish, obviously because everyone speaks Spanish, and certainly not because he's trying to reel in a particular demographic. The ad attempts to link McCain to Rush Limbaugh, takes Rush's words (as much as he irks me) out of context, and tries to paint John McCain as a racist. Watch.

If your internal translator is broken:

"They want us to forget the insults we’ve put up with...the intolerance...they made us feel marginalized in this country we love so much."

(Then, the ad shows two quotes from Rush Limbaugh, who is apparently a McCain spokesperson)

"Stupid and unskilled Mexicans"

"Shut up or get out!"

(The narrator continues)

"John McCain and his Republican friends have two faces. One that tells us lies to get our vote - and another, worse still, that continues the policies of George Bush that put special interests ahead of the working families. John McCain - more of the same Republican tricks."

First, get all the laughs out of your system before reading on. The sad truth is, if you're an illegal immigrant already in America and trying to attain citizenship without "going to the back of the line," Señor McCain is probably your best friend.

There are major problems linking McCain to Rush Limbaugh. If there was one issue on which the cigar-chomping blowhard differed with McCain, it was illegal immigration. Limbaugh also apparently doesn't particularly care for him. The Obama ad makes it seem like they go golfing on the weekends and have private jet races. Either way, Rush wasn't too happy, as was evidenced by an email written in response to the ad:

"Obama is now stoking racism in the country," Limbaugh wrote in an email. "Obama is a disgrace - he wants the public to think he is Mr. Nice Guy while his thugs are in Alaska looking for dirt on Palin and he runs race-baiting ads and lies about what he has done and what McCain has done."

At this point I'd like to remind you of the grand treatment immigrants to Mexico receive. Do you think Mexico has bilingual education? Bilingual ballots on election day? Do you think illegal immigrants to Mexico are entitled to welfare or food stamps? Do you think a third-world country like Mexico is going to let millions of people (skilled or otherwise) flood across its borders from somewhere like Guatemala?

Do you think Mexico would sit back and watch you avoid paying taxes while sending millions of Mexican pesos back to family members in your native country?

Do you really think you'd have the right to organize a political group and protest in the streets, waving the flag of your homeland, bad-mouthing Mexico's president, and showing contempt for the laws of the country you so badly want to make your home?

The answer, of course, is no.

And again, linking John McCain to something Rush Limbaugh said is like taking a Bill Maher or Joy Behar quote and trying to tie it to Obama. It would be just as unfair and irrelevant as what Barry did with this ad.

After all, if Obama wants to use talk show hosts as surrogates, are liberal talkers from the ever-sinking Air America up for grabs? Take this gem for example, from woman-of-the-left Randi Rhodes, in which she makes the backhanded claim that Sarah Palin will abuse your children:

In addition to accusing Sarahcuda of being at best a latent child molester, Randi has also claimed that John McCain was treated like a "prince" by his captors in Vietnam. Yet somehow, you'll go on believing that conservatives are the ones who spew "hate speech."

Update: Limbaugh has penned an editorial in the Wall Street Journal today accusing Obama of exploiting racial tensions and resorting to "segregationist" fear-mongering. It's worth reading, but here's an excerpt:

The malignant aspect of this is that Mr. Obama and his advisers know exactly what they are doing. They had to listen to both monologues or read the transcripts. They then had to pick the particular excerpts they used in order to create a commercial of distortions. Their hoped-for result is to inflame racial tensions. In doing this, Mr. Obama and his advisers have demonstrated a pernicious contempt for American society.

We've made much racial progress in this country. Any candidate who employs the tactics of the old segregationists is unworthy of the presidency.

Eh, he's right.

Hillary to Jews: Sorry I Can't Protest Against Ahmadinejad, Sarah Palin Might Be There

2008-09-17T13:36:00.001-04:00

As I reported last week, Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad will be visiting New York City at the end of this month. Naturally, given his holocaust denial and repeated threats to destroy Israel, Manhattan's Jewish population isn't too pleased. Several Jewish organizations are planning a "Stop Iran" rally to coincide with Ahmadinejad's visit to the United Nations.

Among the confirmed speakers slated to appear at the rally were Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and author Elie Wiesel. However "Clinton officials" soon learned of Palin's scheduled appearance, and decided that while a Democrat speaking at an anti-Iran protest was fine, a Republican speaker suddenly turned the rally into a "partisan political event."

Needless to say, Hillary is taking her ball and going home:

"We are pleased to inform you that the keynote speakers at the "Stop Iran. Now!" Rally are confirmed to be Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, Governor Sarah Palin and Nobel Laureate Elie Wiesel," read an e-mail from a leader of a Jewish group planning the event.

But the curtain came down on the comedy sketch-turned-reality before the duo ever hit the stage: Clinton officials soon said they had not been told Palin would be on hand - and that her presence, which made the event a political one, would mean the absence of the New York senator.

"Her attendance was news to us, and this was never billed to us as a partisan political event," said Clinton spokesman Philippe Reines. "Senator Clinton will therefore not be attending."

The McCain/Palin campaign released a statement in response to Hillary's decision to put concern over potential awkwardness above speaking out against a man who hangs homosexuals and stones women:

"Governor Palin believes that the danger of a nuclear Iran is greater than party or politics," said spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "She hopes that all parties can rally together in opposition to this grave threat."

In fact, by saying "to hell with it," Clinton has made this a political event. Why wasn't it a political event when Obama and McCain appeared together at ground zero to commemorate 9/11?

Of course, she could just be worried about sniper fire.

Duh: Bipartisan Report Says Nuclear Energy Would Help America

2008-09-17T13:15:00.002-04:00

Third Way, a non-partisan think tank, issued a joint report with the Heritage Foundation which concluded that "a rebirth of nuclear energy would deliver vast economic and environmental benefits to the United States." This was of course the highly anticipated follow-up to their well-received "The Sky is Blue" report.

Adam Sacks, director of Oxford Economics USA, said building 53 new plants in the United States would result in reduced demand for fossil fuels domestically and could save the U.S. up to $9 billion a year in energy imports, most of which would be petroleum imports.

The expansion of nuclear power will create many jobs, many of them high-paying, technical jobs, Sacks says.

Update: More developments regarding another piece of the energy puzzle - offshore drilling. The House voted late yesterday to approve offshore drilling. Sweet, now we can start drilling, right? Not so fast.

The vote allows oil and gas drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, but only if the drilling takes place "50 or more miles out to sea," despite the fact that most of the estimated 18 billion barrels of oil below coastal waters are within 50 miles of land, and as such are still off-limits. From Breitbart:

An administration statement said the bill would "stifle development" of offshore energy resources by essentially making permanent drilling bans within the 50-mile coastal buffer, while imposing new taxes on the largest oil companies.
"How much new drilling do we get out of this bill? It's zero. Just zero," declared House Republican leader John Boehner of Ohio. "It's a hoax on the American people. This is intended for one reason...so the Democrats can say we voted on energy."

And Pelosi wonders why her approval rating is lower than George Bush's.

Surprise: Obama Tried to Delay Iraq Withdrawal Until After Election

2008-09-17T11:10:00.003-04:00

Yet another example of how Barack Obama is nothing more than a politician, and in no way represents anything close to "change from politics as usual." Amir Taheri, an Iranian born journalist and author, first brought this story in an editorial in Monday's New York Post.

The article detailed how, even as he campaigned on the platform of a speedy withdrawal from the war that "should have never been authorized and should have never been waged," Obama met in private with Iraqi leaders and attempted to "persuade [them] to delay an agreement on a draw-down of the American military presence."

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari can vouch for Taheri's claims. He says:

"He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington," Zebari said in an interview.

"However, as an Iraqi, I prefer to have a security agreement that regulates the activities of foreign troops, rather than keeping the matter open."

Then, the American Spectator confirmed the allegations, and described the Obama campaigns headaches after Taheri's column:

The three problems, according to campaign sources: The report was true, there were at least three other people in the room with Obama and Zebari to confirm the conversation, and there was concern that there were enough aggressive reporters based in Baghdad with the sources to confirm the conversation that to deny the comments would create a bigger problem.

Today, Taheri has written another column rebuking Obama's defense, with even more damning statements from Iraqi Foreign Minister Zebari:

In a long interview with the pan-Arab daily Asharq al-Awsat, Zebari says: "Obama asked me why, in view of the closeness of a change of administration, we were hurrying the signing of this special agreement, and why we did not wait until the coming of the new administration next year and agree on some issues and matters."

Zebari continues: "I told Obama that, as an Iraqi, I believe that even if there is a Democratic administration in the White House it had better continue the present policy instead of wasting a lot of time thinking what to do."

In other words, Obama was trying to derail current US policy, while Zebari was urging him not to "waste time."

If McCain has a pair, he'll be attending the debates with this card up his sleeve. As much as you and I loathe Bush, please recognize that if this is true, Barack Obama undermined the current administration to further his political ambitions. Anyone in reality knows Barry simply cares about being the one who history will say stood up and stopped the most unpopular war in American history. If Bush and the Iraqis draw up a withdrawal agreement before Obama takes office, all he'd be doing is carrying out the previously-agreed-upon-plan, and would hardly be credited with stopping the war.

I'll sum up with a quote from Harry Truman. Obama might want to take this to heart if he still thinks "change we can believe in" is more than just a campaign slogan:

"It is amazing what you can accomplish if you do not care who gets the credit." -Harry S. Truman

Update: The McCain campaign has released a statement in response to this story. From Senior McCain/Palin Adviser Randy Scheunemann:

"At this point, it is not yet clear what official American negotiations Senator Obama tried to undermine with Iraqi leaders, but the possibility of such actions is unprecedented. It should be concerning to all that he reportedly urged that the democratically-elected Iraqi government listen to him rather than the US administration in power.

"If news reports are accurate, this is an egregious act of political interference by a presidential candidate seeking political advantage overseas. Senator Obama needs to reveal what he said to Iraq’s Foreign Minister during their closed door meeting. The charge that he sought to delay the withdrawal of Americans from Iraq raises serious questions about Senator Obama’s judgment and it demands an explanation."

Update: More evidence emerging, this time from July 2008, that the freshman senator from Illinois was indeed interfering in an attempt to stall the Iraqi government until after the presidential election:

[Foreign Minister Zebari] said that Mr. Obama had asked him: "Why is the Iraqi government in a rush, in a hurry? This administration has only a few more months in office."

Islamists Attack U.S. Embassy in Yemen: 10 Dead, 6 Enjoying Their Virgins

2008-09-17T10:37:00.002-04:00

The U.S. embassy in Yemen was attacked by "Islamic militants" believed to be from the Yemen branch of the Islamic Jihad Organization, killing 6 Yemeni soldiers and 4 civilians. Oh, and the 6 thugs didn't survive either. At first this seems like the 1983 attack on the Marine barracks in Beirut (also perpetrated by the IJO, with a little help from Iran), which ending up killing 241 Americans.

Similarly, a disguised truck filled with explosives was driven into the embassy compound before being detonated. However, the jihadis weren't satisfied with a lone truck bomb:

Several rocket-propelled grenades were fired and a gun battle broke out that is believed to have killed and wounded both guards and attackers.

"It was a well-organised and well-planned attack."

A senior US official said there had been up to five explosions and that the Yemeni authorities who first responded were ambushed by snipers.

He said it appeared some of the attackers were dressed as Yemeni troops, and that the first emergency personnel to arrive on the scene were hit by heavy sniper fire from riflemen laying in wait across the street from the embassy.

Sky News can reveal that the US and British embassies in Sanaa had received a threat from the Yemen branch of the Islamic Jihad Organisation on September 14.

"We will strike against all foreign interests, especially American and British interests, accurately and quickly," it said.

I'm sure Obama will be able address the terror group's "legitimate claims."

America: No Israel, You Can't Have Bombs to Attack Iran.Israel: Please?America: Okay.

2008-09-16T15:05:00.003-04:00

About a month ago the U.S. opted to turn down requests from Israel for "military hardware" for a possible attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. U.S. officials continue to say that the military option isn't "the right thing to do at the moment," but will also say that the military option shouldn't be taken off the table.

I believe there are some people in power who are willing to live with a nuclear Iran. There are others who want to bomb Iran's nuclear sites yesterday. The Iranian crisis ends in war, and Iran is buying time to further their messianic global ambitions, to bring about an Iranian (and Muslim) victory after nearly 40 years of clandestine conflict with the United States.

It's not going to be pretty, and it doesn't matter who we elect in November.

Now, the Department of Defense has prepared a $77 million potential arms deal to Israel, to sell the Jewish state "1,000 smart bombs capable of penetrating underground bunkers."

Time is running out. If the pattern of "testing new presidents" with terrorist attacks continues (1993 WTC bombing in Clinton's first year, 9/11 in Bush's first), and we're hit in 2009, look for two things: Iran to have helped (as is now being revealed in respect to 9/11), and American leadership to use the attack to rally the people behind the idea of an Iranian strike.

If Iran is provoked, the problem of terrorism will mean more than "that time those planes crashed in Manhattan" - innocent people will be targeted. They want this war, because they know that however ugly it might be for them, it will be devastating for Americans. It will be Iran's national suicide belt.

Update: For all of you who think Iran and other Shia entities don't cooperate with Sunni groups like Hamas and Al-Qaeda, get a clue. Hatred of the West and non-believers is a universal value of radical Islam. See also:

Captured Documents Show Iran Working Al-Qaeda
Iran: Hezbollah and Tehran's Sunni Gambit
BBC News: Iran Sending Weapons to Taliban

Anti-Palin Merchandise Sinks to New Low

2008-09-16T11:51:00.001-04:00

If you peruse www.tshirthell.com, you'll find the most despicable piece of anti-Palin merchandise I've ever come across, obviously in reference to Sarah's Down-syndrome-afflicted son:

This doesn't happen very often, but...I'm speechless.

Joe Biden: Vote For Obama, He's Black

2008-09-16T11:40:00.001-04:00

So after a year and a half of campaigning, claims of practicing "post-racial" politics, endless cries of racism toward any detractor, and columnists even predicting a "race war" if McCain "steals the election" (by winning it), it's come to this: Joe Biden telling black voters to elect Barack Obama because he's black:

Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden, campaigning in North Carolina where black votes could help swing the state to the Democrats, said today that electing a black person to the White House would be transformative.

Biden said the policies of running mate Barack Obama make his presidency even more urgent and declared this to be the most important election that any living person has seen in their lifetime. But he particularly singled out the meaning of electing someone who is black.

"That will be a transformative event in American politics and internationally," Biden said. "That all by itself will be significant."

Anyone remember what Biden had to say about Barack before he secured the nomination? I'm surprised he didn't tell the voters of North Carolina how clean and articulate Obama is:

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," Biden said. "I mean, that's a storybook, man."

You stay classy, Joe.

Attention Teachers: When Talking About Terrorism, Try Not to Use the Sole Muslim Kid as an Example

2008-09-15T17:30:00.002-04:00

In fact, if your goal is to keep your job, it might be a good idea to just not talk about airline terrorism in class at all. A Chicago public school teacher could be finding another line of work after deciding it was necessary (and "politically permissible") to describe how the only Muslim in the room could "hypothetically" sneak bombs onto a plane.

Naturally, CAIR is on the case. Rest assured offended Muslim child - the Saudis have your back. The article doesn't state whether or not she made him take off his shoes:

The teacher allegedly used Saleh as an example when she described a hypothetical homicide bombing, saying that he would carry explosives on board a plane and blow it up.

Though the 13-year-old declined to speak to the media about the ordeal, his brother Mohammad Fahad Choudhary said that "before he even took his backpack off, he had tears in his eyes already" when he came home from school that day.

The older brother said that Saleh was then relentlessly mocked by the other students after the classroom incident in April.

"Everybody started teasing him and calling him a terrorist after the comments were made by the teacher," Mohammad said.

Surprisingly, this lesson came right after a lecture entitled "MONUMENTAL FAILURES OF COMMON SENSE." Come on, man.

No, Palin Doesn't Unite America's Women

2008-09-15T17:02:00.001-04:00

Because more than half of them are liberal, and will end up hating a woman with whom they disagree, as evidenced by these charming ladies at an anti-Palin rally.

Let's keep it appropriate sir, this is a family event.

More heartbroken community organizers.

Simple. Effective.

Doesn't Code Pink have a monopoly on
that particular shade?

Someone hasn't heard of Google. Or perhaps
it's just more fun to believe she wants Alaska
to secede from America.

Let it be known that I love homemade protest signs, be they from Republicans or Democrats. Go right ahead and keep up the attacks on her, and encourage Obama to do the same. Ironically, McCain could be the only one to emerge from this fiasco without any scars.

Outrage: Old Man Who Can't Lift Arms Also Can't Send Email

2008-09-15T14:00:00.002-04:00

In recent days the noise from the Obama campaign indicated that Barry intended to "take of the gloves" and really start ratcheting up the intensity of his attacks. What was the first line they decided to trot out again? McCain is old!

Here's his most recent ad explaining how poor John half-senile-incontinent-vitamin-requiring-wheel-of-fortune-watching McCain can't even send an email.

Don't get me wrong...the fact that McCain doesn't use email is astounding (even considering the fact that for security reasons, presidents don't even send emails), but does Obama really think this is McCain's achilles' heel? His major weak point? Of all the things you could rip John McCain to pieces over, you choose to go with the classic "He's-elderly-and-barely-in-your-reality" line.

Maybe Barack's campaign should have asked first, because it's coming to light that since 2000 it's been well understood (by anyone who cared to research) that McCain's computer hurdles are due to the injuries he sustained as a prisoner in Vietnam.

As reported in the Boston Globe in March of 2000, when no one knew who Barack Obama was:

McCain gets emotional at the mention of military families needing food stamps or veterans lacking health care. The outrage comes from inside: McCain's severe war injuries prevent him from combing his hair, typing on a keyboard, or tying his shoes. Friends marvel at McCain's encyclopedic knowledge of sports. He's an avid fan - Ted Williams is his hero - but he can't raise his arm above his shoulder to throw a baseball.

Making fun of a former POW's injuries. Real smooth, Obama! Some of the more vicious left-wing blogs will undoubtedly accuse McCain of "Playing the POW card," but honestly, couldn't team Obama have checked this out before embarrassing themselves?

Update: Here's what an Obama spokesmouth had to say on the subject.

You'd think if Barack was serious about elevating himself above those nasty politcal games he claims to be able to transcend, he'd pull the ad and try to avoid any blowback. Needless to say, the ad is still featured on Obama's campaign website.

Update: In an ABC news interview, Obama maintained that the ad was not a cheap shot at McCain's age, and then offered up a laugh-out-loud quote:

“If we’re going to ask questions about, you know, who has been promulgating negative ads that are completely unrelated to the issues at hand, I think I win that contest pretty handily,” Obama said.

You can't make this stuff up.

Woman Born in 1955 to McCain: Do I Have to Be Worried About Becoming a Slave Again?

2008-09-12T15:44:00.001-04:00

Whoopi Goldberg is worried that John McCain's decision to appoint Supreme Court justices who strictly interpret the constitution could result in the return of slavery all over America. John McCain is worried that spending two more minutes on The View could result in the return of his lunch all over his favorite tie. Watch:

Since Whoopi apparently knows the constitution so well, she might want tell the rest of us about the 13th amendment. You know, the one that states that "neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."

Somewhere, steam is shooting from Ron Paul's ears.

See also: SHOCKER: ONLY 29% OF OBAMA SUPPORTERS THINK SUPEREME COURT RULINGS SHOULD BE BASED ON THE CONSTITUTION

USA Today: Palin's No Theocrat

2008-09-12T15:05:00.001-04:00

Despite repeated shrieks from the Left to the contrary, USA Today is reporting that during her time as governor of Alaska, Sarah Palin "governed from the center," "went after big oil," and "rebuffed religious conservatives" on issues like abortion. From the article:

Weeks after taking office as Alaska's governor in December 2006, Sarah Palin vetoed a bill that sought to ban benefits for the same-sex partners of state workers. It was unconstitutional, she said.

This year, she rebuffed religious conservatives who wanted her to add two abortion restriction measures to a special legislative session on oil and gas policy, even though she supported the bills...Palin has taken few steps to advance culturally conservative causes.

Instead, after she knocked off an incumbent amid an influence-peddling scandal linked to the oil industry, Palin pursued a populist agenda that toughened ethics rules and raised taxes on oil and gas companies.

What? A Christian can reasonably isolate her beliefs from her role as a public official? This won't sit well with DailyKos.

The Yawning Gulf of Barack Obama

2008-09-12T14:00:00.001-04:00

Rational-thinking Briton Gerard Baker writes in the Times Online today that the reason the presidential race is so close is because there is a "yawning gulf between what [Barack Obama] says and how he has acted." He's right.

It's a pretty sober column, and worth reading in its entirety, but here are some excerpts:

This election is a struggle between the followers of American exceptionalism and the supporters of global universalism. Democrats are more eager than ever to align the US with the rest of the Western world, especially Europe. This is true not just in terms of a commitment to multilateral diplomacy that would restore the United Nations to its rightful place as arbiter of international justice.

It is also reflected in the type of place they'd like America to be - a country with higher taxes, more business regulation, a much larger welfare safety net and universal health insurance. The Republicans, who still believe America should follow the beat of its own drum, are pretty much against all of that.

This is of course true, and explains why Barry is so immensely popular with Europeans, young and old alike. Obama and the rest of the American Left are essentially the arbiters of egalitarian values; values which seem to work just fine for Europe, but which are distinctly un-American. However, Baker says this isn't the only reason to be nervous about Obama:

Even if you think that Americans should want to turn their country into a European-style system, there is a perfectly good reason that you might have grave doubts about Mr. Obama.

The essential problem coming to light is a profound disconnect between the Barack Obama of the candidate's speeches, and the Barack Obama who has actually been in politics for the past decade or so.

Speechmaker Obama talks about an era of bipartisanship, He speaks powerfully about the destructive politics of red and blue states.

Politician Obama has toed his party's line more reliably than almost any other Democrat in US politics. He has a near-perfect record of voting with his side. He has the most solidly left-wing voting history in the Senate. His one act of bipartisanship, a transparency bill co-sponsored with a Republican senator, was backed by everybody on both sides of the aisle. He has never challenged his party's line on any issue of substance.

If you're an Obama voter, yet still possess some capacity for rational thought, this could be devastating. If I were John McCain, I'd be loading my cannons with this ammunition. This isn't an opinion, it's a fact, and one that I'm glad someone outside the United States is mentioning: John McCain, as insufferable as he can be at times, is the only person running for president with real reform experience, and a resume full of uncomfortable positions which went against his own party's interests. Or, to put it in terms Mr. Obama can understand, "change from the politics of usual."

Of course we know Barack Obama had the number one most liberal Senate voting record in 2007, and has never broken from his party on the Iraq war, abortion, redefining marriage, health care, taxes, immigration, or any issue of importance to the American people. He's a dyed-in-the-wool Leftist who, until just a few years ago, no one knew existed. Baker continues:

Speechmaker Obama talks a lot about finding ways to move beyond the bloody battlegrounds of the "culture wars" in America; the urgent need to establish consensus on the emotive issue of abortion.

Politician Obama's support for abortion rights is the most extreme of any Democratic senator. In the Illinois legislature he refused to join Democrats and Republicans in supporting a Bill that would require doctors to provide medical care for babies who survived abortions. No one in the Senate - not the arch feminist Hillary Clinton nor the superliberal Edward Kennedy - opposed this same humane measure.

So it seems Obama does break with his own party, but only to run even farther to the left of them. Gerard sums up his analysis with the following gem:

The fact is that a vote for Mr. Obama demands uncritical subservience to the irrational, anti-empirical proposition that the past holds no clues about the future, that promise is wholly detached from experience. The second-greatest story ever told, perhaps.

As I've said before, as the Hope-ium and Dreamamine highs slowly wear off, and the enlightened and anoited drift back down to Earth, Captain Change doesn't seem quite so bulletproof anymore.

Still More Race Cards to be Dealt

2008-09-12T12:52:00.001-04:00

First, you'll need watch McCain's latest ad, which accuses the Messiah's campaign of being "disrespectful" towards Sarahcuda, after asserting that she was lying about her record:

Now, take a look at what lawyer David Kurtz had to say about the ad over at TPM:

Check out the latest McCain ad, especially the line, "How disrespectful." Doesn't it just drip with contempt? The sort of old-fashioned contempt that whites often held blacks in (and obviously still do).

I agreed with Jim Geraghty at National Review Online when he said, "If Obama becomes president...I fear that for at least four years, the president's disapproval rating would be widely described as the new National Racism Index."

If anyone with criticism of Barack Obama is going to be labeled a racist, then consider me a racist, because the man doesn't have my vote.

Sarahcuda Nibbling at Unattractive Psuedo-Feminist Professors

2008-09-12T11:36:00.003-04:00

Just another sad example of the utter garbage you often get when you send your children to college. Here are some choice words about Sarah Palin from Professor Wendy Doniger of the University of Chicago's Divinity School:

Her greatest hypocrisy is in her pretense that she is a woman. The Republican party's cynical calculation that because she has a womb and makes lots and lots of babies (and drives them to school! wow!) she speaks for the women of America, and will capture their hearts and their votes, has driven thousands of real women to take to their computers in outrage. She does not speak for women; she has no sympathy for the problems of other women, particularly working class women.

But I'm sure Hillary Clinton speaks for America's women, right? A woman whose entire career was (and let's hope it's past-tense) rooted in being married to a powerful man? Isn't feminism all about breaking down traditional barriers on your own, attaining positions of leadership previously reserved for men, and being strong enough to keep a family together while still having a career and aspirations?

Also, according to Wikipedia, Ms. Doniger was born in 1940. Does that picture look like a 68 year old woman to you? You aren't ashamed of your age, are you Wendy? Sorry, but your hypocrisy is much more palpable.

Update: If you read the comments in response to her column, the negative reactions are winning by about 500-1. Among my favorites:

It is clear that modern feminism isn't about women at all. I have known for years the ugly secret is that the leaders of "the feminist movement" are a bunch of lesbians who hate men. It's fine to be a lesbian, but it's not okay to denigrate those who don't agree with you. The reason I had the light bulb come on about liberal think [sic] is that they really are NOT open-minded. They have small boxes they put everyone in, and will be outraged if you dare try and escape. It's really sad, but also gratifying to see this type of stuff coming to fuller light.

Also, Charles Nelson Reilly called. He wants his glasses back.

Pie Charts: As American As the Food They Were Named After

2008-09-11T18:56:00.001-04:00

Apologies for the re-post, but I've been having some html-related issues resulting in a deletion, and this was too good to let go. From our good friends at GraphJam:

Snore: Concern About Terrorism Lowest Since 9/11

2008-09-11T13:44:00.001-04:00

What's surprising is that the number of people who think a terrorist attack will happen in the next several weeks seems fairly high - 30%. Remarkably though, 86% of Americans don't believe that it's only a matter of time until we're hit again.

Here's the story from (gulp) CNN:

Concerns about an impending terrorist strike are at the lowest point on record since the attacks on September 11, 2001...

Seven years after the attacks of September 11, just 30 percent of Americans said they thought an attack on American soil is likely sometime over the next several weeks - a number that's down 11 points since last year at that time and down 30 points since the first anniversary of 9/11. Only 14 percent of Americans say an impending terrorist attack is likely in their community.

Come to think of it, this poll is pretty misleading. Notice how the question is whether an impending terrorist attack is likely "in their community." While I think the next 9/11 is a question of "when," not "if," I wouldn't place my bets on such an attack taking place in Parkville, Missouri or Milford, Pennsylvania.

For your own edification, here is a list of the nineteen major terrorist attacks thwarted by the United States since 9/11.

Abortion Industry Worried About "Trig Palin Effect"

2008-09-11T12:07:00.002-04:00

Meet Dr. Andre Lalonde. Andre is a Canadian doctor who is concerned that Sarah Palin's decision to give birth to her son Trig (the one with Down syndrome), may have negative consequences on Canadian women. What consequences, exactly? That instead of aborting 90% of the time, women may actually feel strong enough to go through with the pregnancy and care for the child, and "thereby reduce the number of abortions." Oh no!

Andre offers more insight into just how much having Down babies worries him:

[Dr. Lalonde] worries that Palin's now renowned decision may cause abortions in Canada to decline as other women there and elsewhere opt to follow suit.

He says not every woman is prepared to deal with the consequences of Down babies, who have developmental delays, some physical difficulties and often a shortened lifespan.

Wider use of blood screening and amniocentesis during pregnancies can now accurately predict the presence of Down syndrome.

Lalonde says his primary concern is that women have the...choice of abortion and that greater public awareness of women making choices like Palin to complete a pregnancy and give birth to their genetically-abnormal baby could be detrimental and confusing to the women and their families.

What sort of doctor looks at the Palins' situation and says "The worry is that this will have an implication for abortion issues in Canada"? The Society of Obstetricians and Gynecologists in Canada, of which Lalonde is the executive vice president, has tried to recover its credibility after these statements, but according to Carly Weeks of Canada's Globe and Mail, doctors in Canada routinely give "messages of fear" to parents upon learning they will give birth to a Down syndrome baby. She writes:

Members of Canada's Down syndrome community say that many of the country's medical professionals only give messages of fear to parents who learn their baby will be born with the genetic condition.

"It's very dark," said Krista Flint, executive director of the Canadian Down Syndrome Society. "They hear a lot about the medical conditions that are sometimes associated with Down syndrome. They hear about the burden ... it places on children and a marriage.

From the same article, on the subject of Dr. Lalonde's comments:

As a vocal opponent of abortion, Ms. Palin's widely discussed decision to keep her baby, knowing he would be born with the condition, may inadvertently influence other women who may lack the necessary emotional and financial support to do the same, according to Andre Lalonde...

Dr. Lalonde said that above all else, women must be free to choose, and that popular messages to the contrary could have detrimental effects on women and their families.

Forgive me if I'm being grandiose, but doesn't this speak rather loudly against Canada's socialized health care system? This essentially eugenics via abortion, except instead of attempting to create a "master race" like oh, I don't know...the Nazis - the good doctor is just looking out for the Canadian government, whose health care system is already in shambles. It doesn't take the vice president of an OBGYN society to figure out that the socialist system will be further burdened if more special needs children are born.

And if you think the eugenics comparison is a bit of a stretch, allow me to remind you that Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood, was an advocate of negative eugenics - the goal of intentionally lowering fertility among the genetically "disadvantaged." Here were some insights she managed to pass on before her death in the 1960s:

"The most merciful thing that a family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

"Birth control must lead ultimately to a cleaner race."
Margaret Sanger. Woman, Morality, and Birth Control. New York: New York Publishing Company, 1922. Page 12.

"[Our objective is] unlimited sexual gratification without the burden of unwanted children..."
Margaret Sanger (editor). The Woman Rebel, Volume I, Number 1. Reprinted in Woman and the New Race. New York: Brentanos Publishers, 1922.

With that last quote, Sanger crystallized the difference between pro-lifers and many people on the left. One crowd sees such children are burdens - the other sees them as blessings.

Depressing: Majorities in Only 9 of 17 Countries Surveyed Believe Al-Qaeda Was Responsible for 9/11

2008-09-11T10:28:00.004-04:00

The following poll released by WorldPublicOpinion.org reveals that majorities in only 9 of 17 surveyed countries believe that Al-Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. It also reveals that these statistics make for one ugly looking graph. Sorry. A couple things:

First, notice how apparently the pillar of Middle East rationality is the Palestinian territories. Second, should our European allies be embarrassed by how far they lag behind Kenya and Nigeria?

If this is accurate, Osama should really consider increasing Al-Qaeda's advertising and public relations budget. Crap-quality audio tapes sporadically released? Videos shot a decade ago? It's just not doing the trick. How is the world supposed to be aware of their...er, "accomplishments?"

Really though this is freaking stupid.

Update: The BBC decides it's a good time to explain why fire doesn't have to melt steel to make buildings collapse.

Update: Apparently bin Laden and the gang have decided to take my advice. From the Jerusalem Post:

Seven years after September 11, 2001, al-Qaida as an organization is seen by many analysts to be in some disarray. One prominent observer of the network depicts it as having been reduced to a core of 200-300 operatives. Yet al-Qaida as an idea and as a franchise remains healthy and is still a threat.

Responding to this changed reality, the al-Qaida leadership is investing increased resources in propaganda, with the intention of radicalizing large numbers of young Muslims throughout the world. And these efforts are proving successful, though it is doubtful whether this success will produce real-world political benefits for al-Qaida.