Thought You'd Never Ask

Just mouthing off -- because I can.

Friday, October 31, 2008

Moderate Democrats should be voting for McCain

Blogger Betsy Newmark says:

[I]f you're a moderate and hoping for a moderate government for the next four years, you're much more likely to get that with John McCain than with Barack Obama.

Read her reasoning.


The very things I don't much care about in McCain are the very things my Democrat friends formerly admired in him as one of the few Republicans they could name favorably. They liked him because he was a compromiser, a bipartisan worker, one who reached out to build coalitions and was often a maverick not hewing to the Republican line.

Meanwhile, the things I admire McCain for are his gentlemanliness, and his honorable character as displayed in this Presidential campaign. I may not agree with his decisions not to bring up Rev. Wright or attack Obama as hard and as broadly as he could, but I can certainly admire, on one level, his principals in refraining from doing so, even at the risk of losing the election.

Obama, on the other hand, has used the race card (as have the left and the media) against McCain and his campaign several memorable times, plus attacked and outright lied repeatedly about the opposition. Obama's broken campaign finance promises and the deliberate disabling of the Obama campaign's AVS online credit card donation checking system (compared to the McCain campaign's dutiful compliance with not only the law, but also the spirit of the campaign funding laws) also persuades me of McCain's better nature and character.

Looking at the record, Obama is a creature of Chicago/Illinois corrupt politics and radical, far-left associations. McCain, while imperfect, has racked up a much cleaner record of deeds consistent with his words, over a much longer period of public scrutiny. McCain's is a record demonstrating moderate, centrist, bipartisan stances; Obama's talking points sound increasingly moderate now, but his record shows nothing of the kind.

I can understand why many black Americans are personally and emotionally overwhelmed by the historic implications of voting for Barack Obama for President. But I cannot understand why other moderate Democrats who formerly admired John McCain as a bipartisan leader now prefer the relatively inexperienced, and "the most liberal senator," Barack Obama, for President.

UPDATE: Why libertarians should be voting for McCain, too (via Instapundit).

And here's why this kind of conservative won't.

Labels:

Thursday, October 30, 2008

"The difference between a gift and a theft"

John Hood on Obama's redistributive policies:

...Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can't seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won't even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That's what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn't understand this, or doesn't want voters to understand it.


As I've said before, this election will come down to whether more Americans are still paying attention to facts, reason, and common sense, or whether they are either not interested in those things, or just gullible.

Last night, while my son and I were watching Obama's infomercial, I got frustrated at the snippets of sob-story views of the Americans featured by Obama who are finding it hard to make ends meet (for various reasons many Americans share, or perhaps for unstated reasons many Americans do not share--who knows?), and how little they had to do with Obama's actual policies--and how little he or his actual policies will help these people. I was frustrated by Obama's "concern" expressed in platitudes and assumptions I do not share. In other words, I resented him exploiting these people and spinning their circumstances for his own political gain.

In fact, Obama has no good track record of helping anybody.

"Plus, is that really the role of the U.S. President--to hold the hands of "the least" of our brothers and sisters? Solve their mortgage problems, their prescription drug problems, their career problems?" I asked my son.

"No it's not. He'd make a better preacher," he said. "Or psychiatrist." Indeed.

As I've said before, millionaire liberals who believe in "giving back," like John Edwards, George Soros, Bill Gates, Ted Kennedy, Ted Turner, Bill & Hillary, and Oprah Winfrey could quickly and easily create and fund a system of private charity to provide access to free health care for life for all needy Americans if they put their minds to it. (Many people across the political spectrum would generously contribute.) Millionaire liberals could, in a handful of years, create a solution by putting their money where their mouths are--and the rest of us who believe in personal liberty and the importance of maintaining a competitive free market in health, medicine, and everything else could remain free of government's clutches. But some of us know that's not REALLY what such millionaire liberals and politicians want, don't we?

Obama, like other sanctimonious, pretend do-gooders in politics (John Edwards, Ted Kennedy, etc.), wants the accolades for seeming to do good with other people's money--without actually having to prove his policies ever have or will do good. And he wants the glory of the political arena, and the big bucks and power politics can bring him. Actually helping people in a community or a church--that's not big enough to reflect his self-importance.

Labels: , ,

Infomercial review, and thoughts on the race

My teenage son and I watched Senator Obama's infomercial last night as self-styled media reviewers. I confess I was snarking and talking back to the television screen, but I didn't need to. My son summed up the production: "All pathos, no logos." That's my boy.

Nice production values, though; the best money can buy. So slick that some viewers might have even forgotten that the whole 30 minutes of sob stories and Obama rhetoric was one long non sequitur. And some viewers might have forgotten all the things Senator Obama didn't mention. As Fouad Ajami in the Wall Street Journal (via Betsy's Page) says,

In recent days, those vast Obama crowds, though, have recalled for me the politics of charisma that wrecked Arab and Muslim societies. A leader does not have to say much, or be much. The crowd is left to its most powerful possession -- its imagination.


In other news, I tried to place a $20 bet on Senator McCain winning the Presidential election. Found out I had to register on Intrade and provide them with credit card info before learning they had a $25 minimum, didn't really process credit cards, and recommended payment by wire or bank transfers (they are based in Ireland). Cancelled my account. Then checked the Iowa Electronic Markets, but that market is now closed, this close to Election Day. So, I'll just tell you: This week I'm willing to lose $20 on the chance that McCain and Palin will pull off a win paying 8 to 1 odds.


Bonus reading: Victor Davis Hanson's "Reflections of a Campaign Now Past (Almost)." Spoken like a true historian.

Labels:

Tuesday, October 28, 2008

Begging to differ with Senator Obama's view of the law

Thomas Sowell this morning, in "Obama and the Law," asks the crying question so many of us want to know:

Didn't we spend decades in America, and centuries in Western civilization, trying to get away from the idea that who you are determines what your legal rights are?

[my bold]

Sowell rightly points out that a President Obama, with the support of his many "revolutionary" minded elected officials, bureaucrats, friends, advisors, and constituents, will seek to appoint justices more willing to "redistribute" "economic justice" and "social justice" to special interest groups instead of those dedicated to upholding the Constitution in providing protection of individual rights.

I don't see why our nation needs "economic justice" and "social justice," when plain, simple justice has served us admirably well thus far.

"Economic justice" and "social justice" are leftist buzzwords for what are basically socialist-Marxist-authoritarian redistributive policies enforced at the point of the government's gun.

Via Betsy's Page, where Betsy says: "Read the rest for some examples of how decisions based on empathy might look."

Just in time for a truly scary Halloween. And, may I say, a betrayal of the principals on which our nation was founded and has prospered. (In other words, it'll hurt the middle class, the children, the poor--and everybody else, too.)

Labels: , ,

McCain and Obama on public education

The National Parent-Teacher Association has put up a chart comparing the views of both Presidential candidates "on issues of public education and child welfare." You can view the chart here.

Labels: ,

Monday, October 27, 2008

Hurricane Obama

"Everyone in the small business community is battening down the hatches in preparation for Hurricane Obama."

Obama says his tax plan is 'not going to raise taxes for 95% of working Americans.' But Ned Barnett details some tax increases Obama's plan will impose on the middle class.

Do you think Senator Obama is counting among that lucky 95% all the poor suckers on the low end of the economic stick who will lose their jobs when his taxes on the "evil rich" cause growth to slow, jobs to be lost, and corporations and businesses to flee to other countries? (You did know, didn't you, Senator Obama, that America and Japan already have the two highest corporate tax rates in the world?).

Yeah, I guess that makes sense. Unemployed workers and laid-off workers won't have their taxes raised. Good promise.

Meanwhile, what about the "evil rich" employers and small business owners making over $250,000--including doctors, dentists, plumbers, and oh, many more people we need to be there for us? They are bracing for Hurricane Obama and making their escape plans (via Instapundit).

Just one facet of the "spread the wealth" policy of Senator Barack Obama.

If you haven't read Atlas Shrugged, now might be a good time to do so.


Meanwhile, John McCain said today:

That is what change means for Barack the Redistributor: It means taking your money and giving it to someone else. He believes in redistributing wealth, not in policies that grow our economy and create jobs. He is more interested in controlling wealth than in creating it, in redistributing money instead of spreading opportunity. I am going to create wealth for all Americans, by creating opportunity for all Americans.

Seems obvious to me that Barack Obama's policies will kill jobs, drive away business, deepen any recession, and have dire consequences he seems ignorantly unaware of.

It also seems obvious to me it would be better for the country to have a President who wasn't waging class warfare against "the rich" in favor of "the middle class" (as defined by him and/or his party or his other associates) but who wanted to, and could, be the President of all Americans.


Labels: , ,

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Life in the U.S.A. -- Riverwalk Jazz

My Dreamboat kindly sent me this link to the Jim Cullum Jazz Band performing "Avalon" at their club on the Riverwalk in the heart of San Antonio, Texas, just across the street from the Alamo (you can see the tourists strolling along the river in the background). It features young guest clarinetist Dave Bennett and appears to show Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson on piano. It's a great reprise of, and homage to, the sublime Benny Goodman/Lionel Hampton version of this tune.

This song is also memorable for making atmospheric appearances in the film "Casablanca" and in the background of "It's a Wonderful Life," in the scene where Jimmy Stewart looks longingly at the travel brochures of all the places around the world he'll never get to go. These are two of my top favorite movies, and this happens to be one of my favorite swing songs, which also reminds me, a former die-hard Californian, of the storied Avalon Ballroom on Santa Catalina Island I've been fortunate enough to visit myself a few times.

It's another great day in the U.S.A. Enjoy!


Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 25, 2008

Why I'll be voting against Obama--and that means for McCain/Palin

I've been reading a number of well-written, well-reasoned essays lately whose views I share in making the case against electing Obama as President. Here are a few of the latest:

"Point of No Return" by Mark Steyn

also quoting Thomas Sowell, "The Point of No Return" by Peter Robinson

(I find Thomas Sowell's arguments much more to the point than Colin Powell's evasions.)

"McCain for President" by Charles Krathammer

"Is America Really Going to Do This?" by Melanie Phillips via Little Green Footballs

"To the Undecided Voter" by Neal Boortz


And then there's this eloquent man (video). (UPDATE: And Fred Thompson's speech--he speaks the truth and the common sense.)


The problem with well-written, well-reasoned essays and arguments is that not everyone is interested in facts or reasons.


But, as Winston Churchill once said: "Never give in"--

"This is the lesson: never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never—in nothing, great or small, large or petty—never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy."

HarrowSchool, 29 October 1941.


Especially never give in when the force you are opposing is so obviously a fraud--in so many aspects--and anti-American in so many associations.


UPDATE: Never give in--even and especially when and because the mainstream media is helping cover up for the bad guys.

Texas Rainmaker:

Notice the pattern yet? Are you seeing the whole picture being painted of this racist, socialist, radical, inexperienced empty suit? Are you finally understanding how he’s going to use his power in the White House, combined with a majority (potentially filibuster-proof) in Congress to institute the apparatus of socialism in order to redistribute wealth from producers (of all races, though he’ll demagogue it as “rich, white folks”) to the non-producers? Get the feeling he’s going to use the power of the government to get some “payback” for anyone who feels they’ve been oppressed or suppressed?

The reason all of his past associations matter (aside from the fact that his lying about them all goes to his lack of character and integrity) is that these radicals that he’s associated with throughout his life and limited career have shaped who he is and how he thinks… and by extension, how he’ll govern.

Convicted felon Tony Rezko - cheat America. Unrepentant terrorist Bill Ayers - bomb America. Race-baiting Reverend Jeremiah Wright - “God damn” America. PLO-sympathizer Rashid Khalidi - death to America. All packaged neatly into one polished, “clean and articulate” political candidate.


No, thank-you.


UPDATE: Finally, Laura Hollis writes:

John McCain will not be a perfect President. But it is not necessary for the leader of a free, righteous, and entrepreneurial people to be perfect. I can support John McCain because he asks only that I vote for him, not that I worship him. And I will vote for John McCain on November 4th, not because he would be a better king, but because he does not claim to be one at all.

Labels: ,

Okay, so the WORLD is buying the U.S. Presidential election

I understand it now. All those people around the world who've said they'd prefer Obama as President over McCain? They've been voting with their illegal campaign contributions to Obama's campaign--which accepted the money.

“The American people deserve to know the origin of the over $600 million that may help elect a President of the United States..."


Can we stop this farce right now and take a look at this for the sake of our country?

[Obama] may now be running the biggest underground finance operation since Nixon deployed the plumbers as his key operatives in 1972.

Via "Obama's Fundraising Fraud" with hat tip to Instapundit.

Labels: , ,

Friday, October 24, 2008

Obama's education policies much like Bush's: more spending with few results

Andrew J. Coulson, director of the Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom, writes and proves with graphs in "Vouching for Obama" how Obama's proposed educational policies of more spending without any rational expectation of quantifiable results in higher student achievement will accomplish exactly nothing, beyond increasing the national deficit.

Throwing more taxpayer money at what hasn't even worked in the past.

Not smart!

At least McCain's policies promise to try to spend the same amount of money more efficiently and effectively. As in so many things, McCain intends to be a reformer, and not so much a tax-and-spend Washington insider amassing more power and currying favor with teachers' unions and the education lobby at the expense of the students.


Labels: ,

Thursday, October 23, 2008

WOW. Another Obama campaign scandal

I wrote yesterday about the Obama campaign being "awash in money" and how it looked like a large portion of it was from illegal, fraudulent, or foreign donations.

Today Power Line takes it up a notch with a must-read post claiming evidence of fraudulent credit card charges to the Obama campaign reproduced by various readers.

How is this allowed to happen? What's going on? Who is going to answer for this?

What does Obama have to say?

"This is not the online campaign contribution system I thought I knew?"

Seems like there's a heckuva lot Obama doesn't know. Speaks to poor judgment. This is not the man I want as the head of our country's military armed forces--or the head of our country's diplomacy. Or the head of our country's financial status.


UPDATE: The Obama campaign's modus operandi seem similar to ACORN's (I wonder why?)--

"They took addresses from homeless shelters, used fake birthdays and Social Security numbers and took names from baby books to create voters out of thin air.”

"Every day I'd go to the library and get a newspaper," Mitchell said. "I had one guy who'd go to the phone book. Everyone had different methods."


TODAY's (Friday's) UPDATE: At Power Line; here's an excerpt:

Campaign contributions under false names are illegal, as are contributions by noncitizens. Federal campaign law also limits the amount any one citizen can contribute to the presidential campaign to $2,300. The acceptance of campaign contributions via credit card without AVS protection facilitates illegal contributions. This is what the Obama campaign has chosen to do, and what the McCain campaign has chosen to avoid.

Does Obama accept responsibility as the captain of his campaign ship--his major executive experience? Is this reflective of his values, his character, and of his Presidency to come? I say yes. Are any journalists asking him these questions?

Meanwhile, according to the same Power Line post, Michael Luo of the New York Times does the usual pro-Obama song and dance:

By this time "Della Ware" had contacted the New York Times to report her experiment. Here, one might think, is a story. At the least, it provides an important sidebar to the heralded Obama online fundraising operation. Yet when Times reporter Michael Luo wrote it up for the Times's campaign blog, he somehow missed the point. "To be fair to the Obama campaign," Luo wrote, "officials there have said much of their checking for fraud occurs after the transactions have already occurred. When they find something wrong, they then refund the amount."

But, to repeat, the Obama campaign has chosen to establish an online contribution system that faciliates illegal anonymous or falsely sourced contributions, illegal foreign contributions and the evasion of contribution limits. Why has it chosen to do so? Why has it not availed itself of the AVS protection that would expose or prevent such illegal contributions? Luo does not grasp the heart of the story.

I wonder why. And I wonder why "The New York Times = Junk." Meanwhile, have any other journalists besides bloggers and Kenneth Timmerman covered this mess?

JammieWearingFool asks: "You suppose this sudden drop [in Obama fundraising] has anything to do with all the credit card fraud stories popping up? It doesn't occur to the Associated Press to inquire."


Don't you think the American voters have a right to know?

Or do you think, like someone I spoke to about it thinks, that the Federal Election Commission can and should properly sort it all out after the November 4 election?


ANOTHER even more SHOCKING UPDATE: "Yes, I think we are looking here at the biggest political conspiracy since Watergate." Is this the standard online campaign policy for ALL DEMOCRATS?



Labels: , ,

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

The Stop Obama Tour Bus is rolling

Some photos and a report from Pueblo, Colorado with the Stop Obama Tour, organized by the Our Country Deserves Better PAC (via Little Green Footballs). Is the bus coming to your town next? If so, get out there and show some support.

This organization is also producing and airing broadcast ads too.

I've sent a donation. I don't want to look back someday when our health care system is totally wrecked and nationalized, and have to tell my children I didn't do all I legally could to prevent Barack Obama from becoming President.

Labels: , ,

I can agree with this, too

The Manifesto of the Silenced Majority

Except that I don't feel "silenced." Yet.

Via Ace.


UPDATE: Another statement I agree with: Neal Boortz's "To the Undecided Voter." Here's just one excerpt:

One thing for sure ... the Republicans deserve exactly what is happening to them in this election. It's just too bad the rest of the country has to suffer the lion's share of the punishment the Republicans so richly deserve....

It's not that the Republicans did everything wrong. They got the tax cut thing right, and they responded correctly, for the most part, to the radical Islamic attack on our country. They just did so much wrong at the same time. They got drunk with power, and the hangover affects all of us....

Read the whole thing.

Labels: ,

Never thought I'd agree with Joe Biden

...on anything. But I agree with him on the probability of this:

"It will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy....Watch, we're gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy."

And I thought I was just succumbing to the politics of fear. If even Democrat Biden and conservative/libertarian me can agree that Obama is a know-nothing dupe, a clear, walking target to test by every tinhorn would-be world dictator, we're in a heap of trouble.

You've just gotta ask youself though, what's Biden doing running in support of this guy Obama then? Talk about "erratic."

Via Bookworm Room.

Bill Kristol translates Biden's remarks.

Sarah Palin elaborates.

Colin Powell agrees too, evidently. Some journalist should ask him what he meant. Could it be an Israel-Iran scenario? (Via Ace, who says: "So there you go. They're already telegraphing their punches. Against Israel.")

Rudy Giuliani Blasts Biden: "He Was Right in the First Place That Barack Is Not Ready"

Labels: , , ,

Can the Presidency be bought?


Obama raises stunning $150 million in September

Obama had initially promised to accept public financing if McCain did, but changed his mind after setting primary fundraising records. His extraordinary fundraising is bound to set a new standard in politics that could doom the taxpayer-paid system. Many Republicans have begun to second-guess McCain's decision to participate in the program.

With his money, and a favorable political wind at his back, Obama has secured his foothold in states that have voted for Democratic presidential candidates in the past. But he has also been able to expand the contest to reliably Republican states, forcing McCain and the Republican Party to spend their money defensively.

Plouffe pointed out that the campaign is now spending resources in West Virginia. Obama running mate Joe Biden was scheduled to campaign in Charleston, W.Va., on Friday and the campaign has secured television advertising in the state for the next two weeks, according to ad data obtained by The Associated Press. Plouffe hinted at further expansion, noting that public opinion polls show the race tightening in Georgia and North Dakota.

As much as Obama raised, he needed a big fundraising month to justify his decision to bypass the public finance system. Financially, he has been competing not only against McCain, but against the GOP, which raised $66 million in September.

The combined Obama and DNC totals for September now give the Democrats a distinct financial advantage going into Election Day, just 16 days away.




Wondered why the Obama campaign is 'awash with money' and able to pay for saturation campaign advertising all over the country--because "Obama has a $37 million advantage going into the crucial final weeks of the presidential race. Obama's fundraising prowess has been unlike anything before in presidential politics" according to ABC News:

Obama's bonanza became possible because he was the first presidential candidate to forgo public financing for the general election since the system was put in place after Watergate. By not accepting public funding for his campaign, as McCain did, he is not bound by spending limits....

He has come under sharp criticism for abandoning a September 2007 pledge to enter the public financing system for the general election if his Republican presidential opponent did.

While Obama's use of the Internet to tap into small-dollar donors has revolutionized campaign fundraising, Republicans claim he is abusing a loophole in the campaign finance law.

Campaign donors who give less than $200 are not required to disclose their identities, raising questions as to whether some small-dollar Obama donors have given more than the $2,300 individual limit.

On Monday, McCain campaign manager Rick Davis accused Obama of violating his own personal standards of transparency by not making public his small-donor database. Republicans estimate that Obama has hundreds of million of dollars in contributions tied to people who did not have to identify themselves.

[my bold]



Fundraising prowess or fraud?

"Obama Ignores Credit Card Donation Fraud"

"Secret, Foreign Money Floods Into Obama Campaign"



Via Michelle Malkin.

Labels: ,

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Orson Scott Card's open letter to journalists

"Would the Last Honest Reporter Please Turn On the Lights?"


So I ask you now: Do you have any standards at all? Do you even know what honesty means?

Is getting people to vote for Barack Obama so important that you will throw away everything that journalism is supposed to stand for?

You might want to remember the way the National Organization of Women threw away their integrity by supporting Bill Clinton despite his well-known pattern of sexual exploitation of powerless women. Who listens to NOW anymore? We know they stand for nothing; they have no principles.

That's where you are right now.


Read the whole thing here.

UPDATE: ABC News hides and lies about the Biden quote. Just more of the same, piled ever higher and deeper. Do they really think people don't notice? Or are they only thinking about the next two weeks before the election, at the expense of their ultimate reputation?

UPDATE: "The Comprehensive Argument Against Barack Obama." This is what journalists should be doing, if they have an opinion or an axe to grind in the Presidential election--they should be marshalling facts and presenting them. Now bloggers are filling that role.

Labels: , ,

With Obama and Democrats in charge

"Sadly, though, there is a possibility that Americans have become so stupid that they’re going to get a socialist government even though they wouldn’t vote for it if they had the minimal intelligence to know what’s going on."

Bookworm Room writes a superb essay on "the virtues of less government intervention, not more" in the cases of medicine, welfare, and crime. Since Obama and the Democrats propose to vastly expand government intervention, regulation, and funding in these three areas, an informed citizen should be aware of what may be coming down the pike.

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 16, 2008

Post-debate roundup

For what it's worth, I thought McCain did a fairly good job in last night's debate. His brain seemed to be firing on all cylinders this time (unlike as in the previous debate, when he seemed tired and uneffective). Last night he successfully brought up many issues against Obama and Obama's policies that he, McCain, hadn't mentioned to the nation at large before. I especially liked the references to Joe the Plumber, who gives hope to all Americans who still believe in the American Dream and quite acurrately sees it dying in the face of an Obama Presidency. Obama successfully threw out a few more lies that will be taken as truth by voters who don't know any better.

Here is your handy-dandy cheat-sheet chart of the debate (via Ace).

Here is a conscientious evaluation of the debate, via Power Line.

Here is Michelle Malkin's blow-by-blow liveblogging of the debate.

Here is the Communist Party endorsement of Obama for President (via Little Green Footballs).

Gotta go pack the kids' lunches for school.

BONUS: Joe the Plumber = John Galt? There are millions of John Galts in this country, and a good many of them may shrug if and when Obama and his class-warfare-waging, punitive socialist policies are elected. The rest of the country may not know it yet, but they really don't want that to happen.


Labels:

Monday, October 13, 2008

Most bizarre election run-up ever

Lots of news coming out today...

Obama really was a socialist and "Why Obama's Socialism Matters" (via Bookworm Room)

Not all of the "rest of the world" will herald an Obama Presidency as a good thing. Melanie Philips in England and Mervyn Bendle in Australia point out some rather shocking facts about Obama's past. Meanwhile Mark Steyn notes that if Obama is elected, he will be to the Far Left of most European leaders. How embarrassingly passe the U.S. will appear then!

Jack Cashill at American Thinker believes he has a case for believing that Bill Ayers helped ghostwrite Obama's memoir, Dreams of My Father. Nothing wrong with ghostwriting, only with covering it up and pretending you did it all yourself. (Via Neal Boortz)

The National Enquirer strikes again by exposing Obama's mentor as a sexual pervert and child molester. (Via Ace)

Stanley Kurtz shows the links among the present financial crisis, ACORN, and Obama (via Power Line). See also "Obama Campaign Involved in More Coverups in ACORN Scandal" at the Cleveland Leader (via Little Green Footballs).


Obama--
Empty suit.
Bad friends.
Bad judgment.
Cover ups.
Subversive, radical leftist goals achieved "by any means necessary"?

Want more of that brand? Elect him President.


But be careful what you say. (UPDATE: Really! Be careful what you say!)


UPDATE: More and more bizarre: "...from his position as board chair at the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, Barack Obama was funneling hundreds of thousands of dollars to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Jeremiah Wright." (via Stanley Kurtz at The Corner). Connecting the dots....

BACKGROUND: "Why Obama's Communist Connections are Not Headlines" - terrific essay by a college teacher explaining why average people don't question or care



Labels: ,

Sunday, October 12, 2008

Obama's bad baggage

There are so many troubling questions about Barack Obama that it is incredible to me that this candidate still has a viable chance (according to polls, at least) of winning the election and becoming President. The only reason for this that I can see is that the media has not been doing its job in thoroughly investigating and putting to rest these questions (with or without Obama's cooperation)--and informing the voters why these matters are important. It may be understandable that busy citizens aren't aware and don't care, but that hardly excuses well-educated journalists, publishers, and broadcasters who are living off the economy supposedly by serving democracy and informing the populace of the truth so that we can decide for ourselves.

What are these troublesome questions? Here are a few:

1. If Obama is a natural-born American citizen, what is he hiding? McCain has released his birth (and medical records). Why won't Obama? The birth issue becomes important if it’s demonstrated that Obama was ineligible to become President, if he knew he was ineligible (even if he knew he was technically an illegal immigrant!) but he proceeded to run anyway, aided and abetted by the Democratic National Committee. It is not so much the technical legalities that are the issue as it is the cover-up, if there is one. Why won't Obama address this by being forthcoming about releasing his birth records?

2. Does Barack Obama agree with Bill Ayres? If Barack Obama has no problems working with William Ayers to "reform" education, does he agree with Ayers' revolutionary aims (as "a radical, Leftist, small 'c' communist") to "overcome the failings of capitalist education"? What were they actually doing and aiming to accomplish (since they didn't raise students' achievement scores) in disbursing all of those Annenberg Challenge funds together? And by the way, when did Obama (and his wife, Michelle) first meet Bill Ayers and Bernadine Dorhn, and what influence has Bill Ayers' father, the don of Illinois Democrat politics, had on Obama's career? What is the full extent of the relationships among these people? Why did Obama first say his relationship with Bill Ayres was so minimal when it clearly was not? And why did Obama choose to go to Chicago, of all places--was it because his friend, Bill Ayers, was there?

3. Was Barack Obama a socialist? And if so, why did he not admit this in his books? What socialist tenets does he still ascribe to? Why did he run as a New Party candidate and what was the New Party's relationship to ACORN?

4. Do Barack Obama and his wife still ascribe to "black liberation theology"? It is essentially a Marxist and a racist philosophy. Obama may have renounced his connection to the race-bating Rev. Jeremiah Wright (when it became politically expedient to do so), but has he ever spoken at length on his current views of black liberation theology? As Glenn Beck and many others marvel, "This would destroy anybody else's career." Why is Obama still viable as a Presidential candidate?


Obama can keep throwing past associates under the bus and airbrushing them out of his life.

As Tony Blankley has said, "The public will be voting based on the idealized image of the man who never was."


The final question is one for all of us: Will we let Barack Obama get away with it?

I think there are too many Democrats and Republicans and Independents and Libertarians who will recognize that electing the mysterious and smooth Barack Obama as President will just not be at all good for the country we all love.


"Why Obama's Past Associations Matter" -- Thank-you to bloggers like Betsy Newmark who continue doing the work the mainstream media won't do.

UPDATE: And after asking Obama about the foregoing obvious questions, the media might finally get around to quizzing him about some of his campaign statements. I mean, don't you think that might be wise, given how close the election is?

As Sean Hannity says, 2008 was the year journalism died.


Labels: , ,

Saturday, October 11, 2008

Sarah Palin abused her power...

so says the headline, anyway, but as Kathryn Jean Lopez says after reading the full report--

She did nothing wrong, but the Democratic investigator, who is friends with the fired commissioner who doesn't like in retrospect that Todd made a few phone calls. Maybe that last thing didn't happen, but it doesn't sound like he was playing her strongman. More concerned citizen and family man. The only question thing that bothers me about this incident is: How many kids does a cop have to taser [before] he gets fired?


Thank-you! So much for that October surprise.

Power Line: no confidence in the report.

Labels: ,

Reading the tea leaves on Obama voter fraud

Are Republicans and centrist Democrats sharing evidence for a RICO case against the Obama campaign? (via Ace of Spades HQ):

Republicans and centrist Democrats are joined together on this effort to get the truth out about Obama before the November election. We firmly believe in McCain’s victory and do not believe it hinges on any developments with RICO. The polls, in our opinon, are wrong, and the internal numbers we see coming out of NC, VA, PA, OH, IN and FL show McCain wins in all of those states (there is no mathematical possibility for Obama to win without taking PA, OH, or FL). We believe after McCain’s win there will be a continued prosecution of Obama and members of the Democratic party for voter fraud under RICO statutes in the months and years ahead. ACORN and leftist Democrats have gone too far this time — for years ACORN has engineered deliberate election fraud using taxpayer dollars funneled to it by Democrats. This time, with both Democrats and Republicans joined against them, ACORN Is going down…and we believe it will ultimately take Obama, Axelrod, and most of today’s Democratic leadership down with it. ...

There IS a RICO investigation of ACORN and the Obama campaign underway - this has now been established by the mainstream media. Right now it’s rumored here in Chicago that Patrick Fitzgerald is heading it (confirmation on that has not come yet). There is a lot of activity in Chicago right now, with a lot of IRS agents looking into the finances coming in and out of this city, and across state lines (this was established on Monday when the GOP issued emergency press releases that much of Obama’s campaign contributions could very well be illegal foreign contributions - what appears to be deliberately poor record keeping designed to hide the true identities and monetary sources of online donors is at issue here). We see in 15 states now that ACORN is being busted for attempted voter fraud, and for fraudulent, illegal voter registratons in the hundreds of thousands, if not a million. The article below states, and we have confirmed this with people who know for sure, that the people who gathered evidence of Obama’s fraud and voter intimidation techniques during the primaries against Hillary Clinton are sharing everything they have with the Republican Party and the federal government.

What’s happening here is something we have never seen before: centrist Clinton Democrats and Republicans are working together to expose the DNC and Obama campaign’s illegal activities and orchestrated, coordinated fraud. Both parties are working with federal agents to investigate ACORN, which has been funded with upwards of $800,000 in questionable donations from the Obama campaign (in what appears to be the expressed and explicit direction to engineer voter fraud in the general election). The tactics being employed now in the 15 states currently under investigation are the VERY SAME TACTICS we saw on the ground in Iowa, Texas, Colorado, Nebraska, Indiana, and other states working for Hillary Clinton in the primaries....


Interesting! And may I say, long overdue.

Labels: , , ,

The Canadian freespeech bullies blinked--this time


"The bottom line is that while it's great Steyn is off the hook, free speech in Canada still does not exist in any meaningful way."


Writer Mark Steyn has been ajudicated "not guilty" of "Islamophobic" "hate speech" in a kangaroo court (aka "human rights commission") in British Columbia.

Mark comments on the verdict here.

My earlier essays:

"Widespread fear of free speech prompts Canadian human rights commissions to criminalize it"

"I Can Has Freedom of Speech"

And there is a new book out: The Tyranny of Nice - about Canada's drift to the fascist side.

Labels: , ,

Friday, October 10, 2008

Economists against Obama

The Corner points out that 100 distinguished and experienced economists at major American universities and research organizations, including five Nobel Prize winners Gary Becker, James Buchanan, Robert Mundell, Edward Prescott, and Vernon Smith, have signed a statement explaining why Barack Obama's proposals will "decrease the number of jobs in America." The list of economists also includes Anna J. Schwartz, Milton Friedman's co-author of the meticulously documented landmark book, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867-1963. These economists conclude that "Barack Obama's economic proposals are wrong for the American economy" and that they "defy both economic reason and economic experience."


I'll say. Maybe that's why the stock market is tanking. People who understand finance and economics are afraid to be holding investments with Obama about to become President. They can see increased taxes, including capital gains taxes and death taxes, on the horizon as Obama continues his lead over McCain.


UPDATE: Joseph Stiglitz, also a Noble-Prize-winning economist, disagrees.

UPDATE: "FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate" (via Instapundit). Let's do it again, shall we?

UPDATE: This is a must-read! Kimberley Strassel explains "Obama's Magic" (via Bookworm Room).

UPDATE: More and more economists sign on to warn against Obama's tax policies (via Instapundit).



Labels: , ,

Our trip to Alaska, part 4 (final)

Continuing with a final few selected pix from our vacation in July.

Part 3 is here. Part 2 is here and Part 1 is here. Click photos to view at larger size.


DAY 14:

Boat marina at the port of Valdez


Black bear and seagulls
preying on salmon
at Solomon Gulch


View along Thompson Pass on Richardson Highway
from Valdez back to Anchorage

DAY 16:

View atop Flattop Mountain, Chugach State Park


Overlooking Anchorage from Flattop Mountain


Pre-prandial artwork at the Moose's Tooth


DAY 17:


Salmon fishing along Ship Creek, midmorning,
downtown Anchorage
(photo shot from the bridge)


Port of Anchorage mudflats, low tide


DAY 18 (Homeward bound):


Celebrity spotting:
Jennifer Aniston in the Las Vegas Airport




Labels: ,

The Fair Tax would help restart and restimulate the economy

The revenue-neutral Fair Tax is one reform that we know would work in not only restoring, but stimulating our economy. Among other benefits, the Fair Tax would instantly make America the world's investment haven.

For those who haven't yet heard about or considered the Fair Tax, I'm posting below an excerpt from a letter from Ken Hoagland, National Communications Director of Americans for Fair Taxation at FairTax.org. Please read it and contact your Congressional representatives for their support of this tax plan. It's time Americans exerted some intelligence to solve the roots of our economic problems, and stopped letting our politicians just react blindly and ineffectually to a succession of ever-more dire crises.

At the heart of the financial meltdown now bedeviling Americans is a simple and profoundly ignored fact that does not require an advanced degree in economics to understand: Our government spends more than it takes in—a lot more.

Sure, regulators could have done a better job but, in truth, politicians at every level have frustrated attempts to blow the whistle on bad loans, bad reporting and bad ethics. Why? Because politicians have been buying our votes with our money—and our future earnings—for a long time. And they don't want any interference from those they are "helping."

It's not just the naked bribes represented by "earmarks" for hometown voters; it is new entitlement programs like the prescription drug benefit, new rules governing the behavior of favored banks and investment houses and a headlong rush to buy the votes of the poor by guaranteeing home ownership, irrespective of one's financial ability to repay a loan. Lest we forget, let's also add up all the special tax breaks for favored contributors that have bloated income tax code rules to 67,500 pages. It's a bi-partisan betrayal of our future cloaked as concern for the common good.

Although our nation was founded on the principle that the citizen was sovereign, government spending increases and more and more taxes taken from our earnings, savings and investments have effectively transformed the American citizen into a serf working another's land for the privilege of taking a fraction of the fruits of his or her own labor.

Just Trust Us

"Trust us," we are told. "We have the best interests of the nation at heart." Citizens are now left with no rational choice to protect savings, college plans, and investments but to accept the new aristocracies' trillion dollar picking of our pockets to prop up institutions that must function. It is not the first time in recent years that we have accepted the grasping hand of the federal government in our wallets to avert a disaster not of our making.

In 1983 a "Blue Ribbon" panel of similar leaders including Alan Greenspan, Daniel Patrick Moynihan and others "saved" Social Security from another big collapse by dramatically raising taxes on earnings of up to $97,500 annually. The promise, then, was that Baby Boomers would actually "pre-fund" their own retirement with astoundingly increased taxes, decades ahead of time. It was also promised as relief to the coming generations so they would be free of crippling taxes. Sounded good.

Lo and behold, the trillions of dollars taken in since then—far exceeding promised payments to senior citizens—have since been spent on everything else. Turns out, that it was nothing more than a new tax levied on those with earnings below $97,500 a year so executive and legislative branch office holders could have more of our money to spend extravagantly on "us" so they could win new terms in office. The FICA payroll tax has become a major factor in keeping the poor that way, retarding new business growth and keeping middle-class earners from moving up. Worst, it also turns out that our children and grandchildren will, in fact, still be burdened an ever-growing and mind-numbing national debt AND unbelievably high FICA taxes to support their parents.

In yet another example of playing fast and loose with politics and our money, 1986 saw Congress reject the tax policies of the Reagan administration and as consequence, the Savings and Loan industry collapsed. Turns out the definition of the tax value of real estate holdings had been changed overnight by the House Ways and Means Committee and banks no longer met liquidity rules. That politically inspired cat fight cost American taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars. And worse, we didn't learn.

It is past time--way past time--for hometown America to save America from our well-intentioned but criminally incompetent, at best, and cynically corrupted , at worst, national leadership. Do we have a moment to lose? Do we really need any more examples of how the new aristocracy can—and will—destroy the pursuit of happiness?

The reform that can save the nation and restore our identity as citizens who have empowered and limited government (instead of the other way around) is called the FairTax.

Because the FairTax allows every American to take home everything that is earned without any federal withholding, millions of distressed homeowners could actually afford home mortgage payments. The elimination of FICA taxes eliminates the highly regressive Social Security and Medicare tax but the FairTax provides a far broader stream of revenue into these faltering programs. Because the FairTax eliminates all exemptions, gimmicks and loopholes, Congress would be removed from the ability to buy votes with tax giveaways and billionaires pay taxes when they spend money. Because the FairTax makes nearly all federal government taxes entirely transparent, the sovereign citizen can know the score and put the brakes on extravagant new spending. Because the FairTax eliminates the price advantage now enjoyed by overseas producers, American jobs won't be leaving our shores. In fact, because the FairTax makes the USA the most favorable tax environment in the world, we can expect trillions of dollars of investment rushing into the US economy. With the FairTax, our money is ours first and only secondly devoted to government. Savings growth, investments and business decisions are guided by opportunity and real progress instead of tax avoidance tactics.

We've lost more than $2 trillion of our retirement savings in a week's time and our kids' future at college is in serious jeopardy. This didn't happen by accident but at the hands of the very same people who have given the FairTax a cold shoulder. Those candidates and incumbents of either party who would spend our future earnings to stay in office and who reject the FairTax for similarly self-interested reasons now need a strong reminder from voters about whose offices they occupy. Please pay attention to our voting guide and send that message.


For more information:

FairTax.org


Fair Tax: The Truth: Answering the Critics

The Fair Tax Book: Saying Goodbye to the Income Tax and the IRS
#1 New York Times bestseller

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 09, 2008

"For a man with a short track record, Barack Obama spends a lot of time disassociating himself from political partners."

Incredibly unsavory. Unseemly. If a Republican had half this record, he'd be under investigation, not running for President.

Here are three newsworthy articles you must read:

"The Obama/Ayers Timeline" at Nice Deb. Obama is not being honest. Will anyone call him on it? Will he address it?

"Obama Video Shows Pattern of Socialist Lingo, Socialist Ties." Those of us who recognize "social justice" and "economic justice" as far-left socialist buzzwords have already recognized and understood the code. How about the rest of America?

"What Does Obama Know About ACORN Fraud?" at Hot Air.

What is Obama hiding (yet again)? When did he first meet William Ayers? When did he first meet Bernadine Dohrn Ayers? Besides having once been ACORN's lawyer and trainer, what connections does Obama have with ACORN now? How many more un-American radicals from his past will Obama have to disown and throw under the campaign bus in the next few weeks to win the election?

Or will the remaining few red-blooded Americans in the mainstream media finally wake up and realize what they've done in not vetting this candidate properly. Will they and the American voters care who's about to take off with the keys to the country?

UPDATE: Power Line states, and I agree:

It is reasonable to ask whether ACORN is in fact a criminal conspiracy to subvert the voting rights of Americans. Which makes it all the more remarkable that Barack Obama paid ACORN $800,000 to register new voters, and then lied about it, falsely telling the Federal Elections Commission that the $800,000 went to a group called Citizen Services Inc. for "advance work."

In another post, Power Line also states:

Just over a month ago, it was falsely claimed that Sarah Palin had been a member of the Independence Party during the 1990s. Media outlets jumped on that false claim and reported it as fact. The New York Times, to take just one example, printed the report and subsequently had to run a correction.

There is now strong evidence that during the 1990s, Barack Obama was a member of the socialist New Party, an arm of the Democratic Socialist Party of America. So far, to my knowledge not a single "mainstream" news outlet has followed up on this report, let alone immediately report it as fact, as they did with Sarah Palin.

Why do you suppose that is?

There are far too many serious questions surrounding Obama that aren't being answered. Can Americans really be willing to elect as President someone they know so little about, but who is surrounded by so many recurring negative clues and associations?

How much more blind are people willing to be to put Barack Obama in the White House?


As Power Line pointed out back on July 10, 2008:


It was Bill Clinton who first used the term "fairy tale" in conjunction with the Obama campaign. The former president has never been closer to the mark. And since the MSM appears to have decided that references to Obama's relationship with Rev. Wright are off-limits, it's possible that Obama may once-upon-a-time himself into the White House


Now it is so much more than Reverend Wright, but it is still a fairy tale.



Labels: ,

Will Americans elect a Socialist for President?

All of his campaign money can't scrub the evidence that Barack Obama ran for election as a Socialist in Illinois in 1996. But the media/press are not interested in exploring this or much else about the real Barack Obama.

So much for healthy public debate in a free society. Do we still have it? Will we have it for much longer? How about free and honest elections?

There is a lot more at stake in this election than just electing someone for the color of his skin to "prove" to the rest of the world that America is not racist.

Victor Davis Hanson writes:

For all those who write in adoration of Obama’s hope and change mantra, I hope that they can at least see why others are worried about his candidacy. The problem is not an Ayers or Wright per se, but the succession of such odious figures—the bomber Ayers,the racist Pfleger, the Palestinian zealot Khalidi, the crook Rezko, the hyper-racist Wright, etc.—that in aggregate cement the notion of a young hip radical who ingratiated himself with suspect characters, all of whose ideas Obama wishes suddenly to downplay rather than publicize....

Even all that would be tolerable if Obama did not almost serially make the most astounding statements, from calling (before chastised) for reparations, ethnic studies charter schools, and more “Oppression Studies” to demonizing the white working class of Pennsylvania....

But even his associates and his own admissions would not be fatal, had Obama himself not been involved in suspect organizations like ACORN, like the Woods Foundation, and like the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, that typically squandered someone else’s money to help radical organizations undermine existing institutions in service to some utopian vision of what they wish the United States someday to become....

The Anoited Do as They Please

But even all that might be tolerable had Obama not engaged in questionable politics that reveal the Old Left’s doctrine of the noble ends always justifying the dirty means—suing to get an opponent off the ballot, his friends leaking, or in collusion with others leaking, sealed divorce records, not once, but twice to eliminate his primary and general election favored rivals, and now legions of Obamaniacs swarming radio shows to intimidate critics, fund raising millions of dollars illegally from foreign donors and the nonexistent, or his efforts to shut down free speech by seeking to sue or intimidate officials to stop unfavorable opposition ads.

Is this the future Americans want for our country?

I sure hope not.



Labels: ,

Wednesday, October 08, 2008

Ugh. I'm voting for Palin

Last night's debate disgusted me. Obama blah-blahed the same old lines, no change and no hope there. He continued to dodge the softball, non-followed-up questions about how he plans to pay for his vastly expanded nanny-state empire, denies he will raise taxes at all on 95% of Americans (beyond laughable, to ignore the disastrous consequences of his "economic plan"), and kept blowing the same old nonsensical lines that seem to resonate so feelingly with ignorant citizens mesmerized by the gloss and the mellifluous voice.

Meanwhile, McCain refused to make points about how bad Obama really is. Time and again he let Obama's deceptive and sophomoric comments go effectively unchallenged. Not long after McCain advocated renegotiating mortgages to keep people in their homes (by fixing prices, breaking contracts and destroying the mortgage market and all incentives and expectations with it), and started babbling about global warming, I had to turn off the television. This man, McCain, who supposedly is running a reformist, anti-big-government campaign, can't seem to understand fully what he's even proposing. This is no surprise, as McCain is still being McCain, as his record has always reflected. It is just depressing that these two candidates are the "best" choice we have in this election while we wage war on two fronts, parry with international jihad, and try to mince our way through the current financial landmine.

As a Wall Street Journal review more or less says today, if this is the best John McCain can do, he deserves to lose the election. Sadly, true. Except that Obama as President would be immeasurably more clueless and infinitely worse as a loose cannon on the domestic and the international scenes. Add in his probable appointees, and a Democrat-controlled Congress unleashed and led by the current insane clown posse of Pelosi, Reid, and such Dems as "Fannie is fine" Barney Frank and "What taxes?" Charles Rangel, and it's time to hunker in the bunker and kiss the American Dream goodbye.

I'm voting for Sarah Palin. I'm giving no blanket mandate to John McCain's policies, now or forever. And I'm not looking to government to solve any of my problems. I'm just praying government stays out of the way, out of the business and out of the personal lives and decisions of my law-abiding family and me. I guess that's kind of a vote for no hope and no change. But it does explain why conservatives like me advocate for as little government as possible. We need to contain all these Washington reps, both the corrupt, ambitious poseurs and the honest ignorants, to having as little power over Americans' lives as possible.


UPDATE: Here's a Presidential Townhall Debate Cheat Sheet for those (like me) who didn't watch. And here are some alternate responses McCain could have offered (by Neal Boortz)


Labels:

Friday, October 03, 2008

Something about Obama

"Some of his comments that he has made about the war that I think may — in my world– disqualifies someone from consideration as the next commander in chief....Some of his comments about Afghanistan and what we are doing there supposedly–-just air raiding villages and killing civilians. That’s reckless." --Vice-Presidential Candidate Sarah Palin

"If, God forbid, we live to see [Barack] Obama president, we will live through a socialist era that America has not seen before, and our country will be weakened in every way." --Actor Jon Voight

"So where are the colleagues? The buddies? The political or spiritual soul mates? His most important spiritual adviser and mentor was the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. But he’s out. Then there’s William Ayers, with whom he served on a board. He’s out. Where are the others? The oddity of this convention is that its central figure is the ultimate self-made man, a dazzling mysterious Gatsby...." --Columnist Charles Krauthammer

"Obama is a wholly untested Illinois state senator with less than 200 actual days on the floor of the U.S. Senate. Obama has never run anything or faced any significant political crisis in his life requiring the expert exercise of wisdom and judgment, much less this perfect storm of crises.
Obama's rise has been because of machine politics and hard-left coalitions, and his past is checkered with the most radical and the most corrupt sort of characters imaginable --Ayers, Rezko and Wright to name just the big three....Obama would be a huge risk in even placid times of peace, full employment, and robust growth, a radical break with America's political traditions even as measured against the McGovern candidacy of 1972. In a time of war and precarious economic unce[r]tainty, it would be near suicidal to turn the world's most important job over to him. --Radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt

"This is not a man who sees America as you and I do - as the greatest force for good in the world. This is someone who sees America as imperfect enough to pal around with terrorists who targeted their own country." -- Sarah Palin

"...the worry is that Obama has had some kind of relationship with an unrepentant domestic terrorist, which even Shane must admit Obama has downplayed. And that Obama has promised, and continues to promise, to meet with would-be genocidal killers like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad 'without preconditions.' And that Obama has the most liberal voting record in the Senate. In short, we question his values and his honesty and his judgement — especially his judgement. --Blogger Stephen Green

"Obama was funding Ayers’ "small schools" project, built around this philosophy. Ayers’ radicalism isn’t something in the past. It’s something to which Obama gave moral and financial support as an adult. So when Shane says that Obama has never expressed sympathy for Ayers’ radicalism, he’s flat wrong. Obama’s funded it." --Journalist Stanley Kurtz

"Now, how about the question of whether Bill Ayers has a hard-left educational philosophy shared by Barack Obama? My guess is that soccer moms (and dads) would be interested to learn about that." --Blogger Tom Maguire

"In fact, there are dozens of voter groups which claim outright that Barack Obama’s nomination was garnered illegitimately and with decidedly undemocratic methods. These are the PUMA people, the NoBama folks, the caucus-fraud investigators, and a whole lot of others who fervently believe that Barack Obama is not the legitimate nominee of the Democratic Party electorate, but the nominee of the party elite and caucus strong-arm tactics." --Columnist Kyle-Ann Shiver

"What worries me is not that Palin could not do the job of Vice President, but that Obama may well be President, a man of dubious associations, a hyper-partisan voting record, a disturbing if not vicious campaign history in Illinois, with large lacunae in his past at Columbia, and before and during Harvard, and a record of very little accomplishment if not frequent failure as an ambitious community organizer, while a politicized professor at Chicago Law School without a trace of scholarly publication...." --Historian Victor Davis Hanson

"Obama's dividends and capital gains proposals appear to be a major attempt at redistribution of income rather than a serious attempt to pay for the spending that he has proposed." --Washington reporter Robert D. Novak

"So, can we fight global poverty? Of course, we can and already do. The question, then, is whether we want to be forcefully taxed to do it, or whether we wish to continue to do it our own way....As in many other Obama policy proposals, this man seems to believe that no matter what the issue, government does it better than individuals. Whether it’s a politician telling a general how to fight a war, or telling a mother and father how to educate their children, or telling doctors how to treat illness, or telling businesses how to hire, Barack Obama favors the old socialist do-gooder model of trusting government over individuals." --Kyle Ann Shiver



ADDENDUM/UPDATE: And don't forget Chicago-style politics writ large:

"Mr. Good Will - who lists his employer as "Loving" and his profession as "You" - has contributed 1,000 times to the Barack Obama campaign. All the contributions have been in amounts of $25 or less. But they add up to $17,375 - far more than the legal limit of $4,600. That's $2,300 each for the primary and general election campaigns....Mr. Obama has raised a whopping $223 million in contributions of less than $200. Candidates are not required to disclose the names of those who contribute less than $200, and Mr. Obama has not. John McCain has made his complete donor database available online...." --Colunnist Jack Kelly

"In July and August, the head of Nigeria's stock market held a series of pro-Obama fund-raisers in Lagos," Mr. Timmerman said. "At one event, a table for eight went for $16,800. Nigerian press reports claimed sponsors raked in an estimated $900,000....the fact is that U.S. federal law bans any foreigner from donating to a U.S. election campaign." --Journalist Kenneth Timmerman


UPDATE: "CNN Ayers Investigation - Obama Lied in Debate" (via Ace of Spades HQ)



Labels: ,

Sarah sparkled, Biden lied

Still excited by last night's Vice-Presidential debate. Sarah Palin has proven herself to be a quicker study than Obama, and just as intelligent, if not more. It would really be a horse race if Sarah were running against Obama. She would clean his clock. Especially if she had hit the campaign trail at the same time as he did. That she could emerge last night looking and being as professional and confident as she was after only five weeks on the campaign trail is astounding.

It makes my head hurt just to imagine how much she must have successfully crammed--and she still looked happy. She is one amazing woman. Makes me proud that America produces such people. Powerline says:

She was calm, commanding and articulate. She repeatedly knifed Biden with a smile and showed why she is one of the most effective communicators in American politics. I've been watching Presidential debates since 1960, and I can't recall a more one-sided matchup than the first 30 minutes of tonight's debate. It was all Sarah Palin.

...One of my favorites was her "shout out" to her sister's third grade class back in Alaska, who got extra credit for watching the debate. This was one of many reminders that, to the average television viewer, Palin is one of "us" and not one of "them."

Biden on the other hand (one of "them") was--unbelievable. My son and I horselaughed when he talked about hanging out at the local Home Depot to talk to normal people so he knows what's up in America. He goes to Home Depot to politik and find out what the common folk are doing; Sarah and Todd are the common folk who go to Home Depot to get things done right the first time by themselves.

What's worse and not so funny: Biden lied. I am no wonk who keeps close track of these things, but even I have seen proof all over the internet that Obama did say earlier in the campaign (before he wised up and got cagey) that he would sit down and talk as President face-to-face with Ahmadinijad without preconditions, but Biden claimed he didn't say that. Unbelievably stupid in the age of digital tracking. As Obama was unbelievably stupid to insist in his last debate with John McCain that Henry Kissinger supported him in such madness--which Kissinger, on the phone next day with Fox News, vehemently and unequivocably denied.

So now we know it's a combined front for the Lying Party (Democrats).

It also angered me to hear Biden touting his philosophy of "Borking" Supreme Court nominees. In Clarence Thomas's autobiography, My Grandfather's Son: A Memoir, Thomas describes how Joe Biden assured him he would be getting a fair shake during the confirmation process, and then double-crossed him and ambushed him with Anita Hill. As one Amazon.com reviewer puts it: "I think any objective reader will be hard pressed to read this account and not come away with a sense that what happened to Justice Thomas ranks among one of the most low down, dirty things our elected officials have done to any one individual." Joe Biden engineered that dirty work, and he is still proud of it.

So it was a clear match-up between Sarah Palin, a breath of fresh air blowing into Washington, and Joe Biden, Washington Business As Usual. Hope the voters see it that way and make the right decision for the country.


Meanwhile, Roger L. Simon says the mainstream media got shown up last night. Seems right to me, but will the average person at Home Depot detect that?

AFTERTHOUGHT: And what was that where Sarah's microphone was turned up so loud that her comments to Biden before the debate and to her family after the debate were picked up clearly to the TV audience while Biden's comments were all but inaudible? Was somebody trying to set her up for an open-mic gaffe? If so, it didn't work. "Can I call you Joe?" she said. She took sweet command right from the start. Sarah Palin is a formidable opponent.

ADDITIONAL AFTERTHOUGHT: Did Biden really say this? That ticket really is into "fairness" over law and order--into "fairness" as a cover for socialist class warfare and income redistribution.

It really is an important election. I hope the voters are paying attention.

UPDATE: Biden's lies -- the list grows. "My question... Is he on drugs?"

Labels: ,

Thursday, October 02, 2008

Good luck, Sarah

Of course I'll be watching the Palin-Biden Vice-Presidential candidates debate this evening, along with my 17-year-old, who is newly interested in the details of this, his first consciously noticed Presidential political campaign. Both of us will be baldly rooting for Sarah, and hoping she not only performs well, but seems to enjoy the process as well. She might as well enjoy it, and put the outcome in God's hands--because whether she wins or loses, she can only do her best, with His help, and the rest is up to Him. Either way, it will be a landmark and a turning point of sorts for her, for the rest of her life. What a ride.

Meanwhile, my Dreamboat is out of town tonight on business, and he said he may or may not bring himself to watch the debate, being more fainthearted than we are about politics. He said if he watches the debate and Sarah does poorly, he then might have to vote for Obama. Heh heh; joke. I know that he might want to ignore it all and watch the Turner Classic Movie Channel, but it'll be pretty hard not to take a peek at a match-up this important.

I contend every voter should watch this debate, as the Democrat post-debate spin machines will spin it so falsely and even so viciously, over-the-top wrong, that you really have to see it with your own eyes to know the truth and draw your own honest conclusions. Sound bytes, splices, and clips after the fact will not be good enough to give the whole picture (especially in the hands of the mainstream media).

I would like to see Sarah clean Biden's clock. I would like to see her take charge of the debate, answer simply, forthrightly, and genuinely what she knows (which covers a considerable area of philosophy, if not Trivial Pursuit details), and deflect attention from what she doesn't know to what Obama doesn't know either (or to what Obama doesn't want known). I would like to see her name names (Ayers, Rezko, Wright), take the traditional Vice-Presidential candidate's prerogative to go negative (in her very skillful and disarming way), and challenge Biden to justify his running mate's fitness for office. After all, both of them represent their parties and their candidates, and tonight can act as surrogates for the Presidential candidates, if the focus is not obsessively and unfairly placed on Sarah to justify her own candidacy to the overshadowing of all else.

I would also love to see Sarah "go over the heads" of the pundits and the politicos and speak directly to the people as one American to another, just as Reagan did, and as Sarah herself can do so well. I am sure she knows exactly why she is running and what she plans to accomplish, and I hope she makes an opportunity for herself to express that in her own articulate and passionate way. There is nothing wrong with an ordinary person running for Vice-President, and Sarah is both reassuringly ordinary (not a Washington insider) and extraordinarly gifted. She will be a fine representative of the people and I think she can convey that idea to large numbers of them tonight.

I would like to see Biden rattled by Sarah throwing off his timing and his expectations. I would like to see Biden boxed in by trying not to look condescending or bullying of her, and then forced into telling one of his doofus trademark whoppers. I would like to see Biden trip over his own tongue, lose his cool and come across as the rambling windbag and professional gladhanding Washington pol he is: the kind of career politician we've had enough of.

What I'd really like to see would be Fred Thompson debating Joe Biden in tonight's match-up. Now that would've been delightful red meat.

But we can't always get what we want.

Go Sarah, we are rooting for you!

For laughs: Instapundit points to Jim Treacher's advance copy of Gwen Ifill's questions for the debate tonight

UPDATE: Post-debate exhileration! Sarah Palin's performance exceeded all my dreams. She actually fulfilled my wishes for what I wanted to see in the debate against Joe Biden. After only five weeks on the campaign trail, she is a total professional. In fact, I think she was even more exciting tonight against Joe Biden than Fred Thompson would have been, after all. As Michelle Malkin puts it in "Sarah Rocks!" --

She matched — and trumped several times — a man who has spent his entire adult life on the political stage, run for president twice, and as he mentioned several times, chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Sarah Palin looked presidential.

Joe Biden looked tired.

Sarah made history.

Biden is history.

***

Prediction: Watch for a whole new, severe strain of Palin Derangement Syndrome to begin tonight.

They hated her before tonight. They are going to pour on more unfathomable hate at a level we have never seen before.

Sarah, we’re praying for you.


Amen to that!


Labels: ,