Friday, August 29, 2008

Obama Offers a Beautifully Packaged Lie

By Robert Tracinski

There was a fair bit of talk about Bill Clinton's speech Wednesday night to the Democratic convention, and Peggy Noonan even went so far as to declare that "The Master Has Arrived." But she is wrong. When it comes to political oratory, the master arrived last night at Invesco Field. Bill Clinton can give a glib speech, but there has always been something missing from his delivery. Try as he might--and he really did try--he was never able to convincingly fake sincerity. Barack Obama can fake sincerity, and that, more than the words of a speech or the pageantry that precedes it, is the key to his power as a speaker.
His speech last night was brilliant and perfect. It is too bad that the whole thing was a lie, which depended on the smoothness and apparent sincerity of Senator Obama's delivery to lull the listener into a state of credulity and prevent him from asking too many questions.
Here's an example that is small but revealing. Obama led with the best sales pitch he has to offer: that he is not George Bush. But of course, Obama is running against John McCain, not Bush. So he attempted to justify the substitution by claiming that "John McCain has voted with George Bush ninety percent of the time." This statistic has been used throughout the Democratic convention, but it makes no sense. Bush is not a member of Congress and casts no votes there--so how can you compare his voting record to that of McCain?
But don't examine this folly; ask only what it accomplishes. It allows Obama to run against an unpopular president who will not defend himself because he is not actually in the race.
When it came to making the positive case for himself, Obama's first goal was to address the public's concerns about his background, particularly his patriotism and how much he identifies with American values. So he drew, not from his own biography, but from that of his family.
[I]n the faces of those young veterans who come back from Iraq and Afghanistan, I see my grandfather, who signed up after Pearl Harbor, marched in Patton's Army, and was rewarded by a grateful nation with the chance to go to college on the GI Bill.
In the face of that young student who sleeps just three hours before working the night shift, I think about my mom, who raised my sister and me on her own while she worked and earned her degree; who once turned to food stamps but was still able to send us to the best schools in the country with the help of student loans and scholarships....
And when I hear a woman talk about the difficulties of starting her own business, I think about my grandmother, who worked her way up from the secretarial pool to middle-management, despite years of being passed over for promotions because she was a woman. She's the one who taught me about hard work....
I don't know what kind of lives John McCain thinks that celebrities lead, but this has been mine. These are my heroes. Theirs are the stories that shaped me.
In addition to identifying himself with the lower-income, blue-collar types who have so far refused to vote for him, Obama is also painting himself as someone with uncontroversial, traditional American values, someone who believes in fighting for your country and improving your life through hard work and perseverance.
This is supposed to make us forget that Barack Obama launched his political career under the spiritual guidance of a pastor who delivered far-left tirades calling on God to damn America--and he launched his first campaign under the patronage of a former domestic terrorist. Theirs are the stories that also shaped Barack Obama--but he wants to write Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers out of his biography.
Worse, he wants us to stop asking questions about this sort of thing.
These are the policies I will pursue. And in the weeks ahead, I look forward to debating them with John McCain. But what I will not do is suggest that the Senator takes his positions for political purposes. Because one of the things that we have to change in our politics is the idea that people cannot disagree without challenging each other's character and patriotism. The times are too serious, the stakes are too high for this same partisan playbook. So let us agree that patriotism has no party. I love this country, and so do you, and so does John McCain.
It's awfully generous of Obama to refrain from questioning the patriotism of a war hero. The real purpose of this statement, of course, is not to protect McCain but to protect Obama. Its purpose is to declare off-limits any further questions or discussion about his past association with Wright, Ayers, and all of the other shady characters from Obama's past.
On another area where he is particularly weak, foreign policy, Obama decided that the best defense is a strident offense. He projected a righteous self-confidence intended to make his viewers forget his opposition to the surge and his weak and stumbling response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. In this section, note again the gap between rhetoric and reality--and the willing suspension of critical thought that he requires of his listener.
For example, here is what he has to say on Afghanistan.
When John McCain said we could just "muddle through" in Afghanistan, I argued for more resources and more troops to finish the fight against the terrorists who actually attacked us on 9/11, and made clear that we must take out Osama bin Laden and his lieutenants if we have them in our sights. John McCain likes to say that he'll follow bin Laden to the Gates of Hell--but he won't even go to the cave where he lives.
Obama criticizes McCain for allegedly going soft on al-Qaeda--it's a good thing he's not going to question anyone's patriotism--yet all Obama can offer is precisely the policies we are already pursuing: more money and troop for Afghanistan and one-at-a-time special forces strikes against al-Qaeda leaders "if we have them in our sights," which we have been doing for years. What Obama is presenting as a tough and visionary new policy is his support for the Bush administration's status quo. Does he really think that no one will notice?
His statement on Iraq is an even more brazen evasion. He boasts that "today, as my call for a time frame to remove our troops from Iraq has been echoed by the Iraqi government and even the Bush administration,...John McCain stands alone in his stubborn refusal to end a misguided war." But all of the current discussion about drawing down troops from Iraq is possible only because of the success of the surge--which John McCain advocated and Barack Obama opposed. He is presenting the success of a military buildup as vindication for a policy of military retreat.
Perhaps his worst line, however, is this one: "You can't truly stand up for Georgia when you've strained our oldest alliances." This is a reference to NATO--which has been conspicuously useless in the Georgian conflict, refusing even a symbolic resolution to suspend military cooperation with Russia. This statement is evidence that Obama is not even paying attention to world events. But he expects the viewer to be carried forward by the certainty and stridency of his tone. He asserts with an air of conviction, "don't tell me that Democrats won't defend this country"--but he depends on the air of conviction, not any actual evidence, to sway the listener.
Addressing criticisms that he offers soaring rhetoric with no specifics, Obama replies "So let me spell out exactly what...'change' would mean if I am president." But what he presents is mostly a list of aspirations, such as "Change means a tax code that doesn't reward the lobbyists who wrote it, but the American workers and small businesses who deserve it." Or: "for the sake of our economy, our security, and the future of our planet, I will set a clear goal as president: in ten years, we will finally end our dependence on oil from the Middle East." How is that to be achieved? Is it even possible to achieve it? Obama offers no answer.
Obama's list of specifics continues in this vein, promising everything to everyone in a way that would make the Clintons blush--but with such an earnest sincerity of delivery that it somehow doesn't seem like pandering.
In foreign policy, he promises the miraculous: "I will rebuild our military to meet future conflicts. But I will also renew the tough, direct diplomacy that can prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons and curb Russian aggression. I will build new partnerships to defeat the threats of the 21st century: terrorism and nuclear proliferation; poverty and genocide; climate change and disease." He's going to defeat terrorism with "partnerships"; face down Russian and Iranian aggression with diplomacy; and while he's at it, he will end poverty, disease, and changes in the weather. All of these promises are equally implausible.
As to domestic issues, here is what he promises on energy policy:
I will tap our natural gas reserves, invest in clean coal technology, and find ways to safely harness nuclear power. I'll help our auto companies re-tool, so that the fuel-efficient cars of the future are built right here in America. I'll make it easier for the American people to afford these new cars. And I'll invest 150 billion dollars over the next decade in affordable, renewable sources of energy--wind power and solar power and the next generation of biofuels; an investment that will lead to new industries and five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced.
Five million new jobs that pay well and can't ever be outsourced! He'll just snap his fingers and the laws of economics will bend to his will.
Oh yes, and he will "cut taxes for 95% of all working families," but he'll "pay for every dime." How? "I will also go through the federal budget, line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work and making the ones we do need work better and cost less--because we cannot meet twenty-first century challenges with a twentieth century bureaucracy." Does anyone remember the Grace Commission in the 1980s or Al Gore's task force in the 1990s? Eliminating "waste, fraud, and abuse" is a perennial promise made by politicians, but it will never produce significant results, because you can't pare down a $3 trillion federal budget by squeezing out dimes.
But the biggest contradiction papered over in Obama's speech is not about Obama's background, his record, or his policies. It is an ideological contradiction. The theme of his speech is "The American Promise." Here is how he defines it.
What is that promise? It's a promise that says each of us has the freedom to make of our own lives what we will, but that we also have the obligation to treat each other with dignity and respect.
It's a promise that says the market should reward drive and innovation and generate growth, but that businesses should live up to their responsibilities to create American jobs, look out for American workers, and play by the rules of the road.
Ours is a promise that says government cannot solve all our problems, but what it should do is that which we cannot do for ourselves--protect us from harm and provide every child a decent education; keep our water clean and our toys safe; invest in new schools and new roads and new science and technology....
That's the promise of America--the idea that we are responsible for ourselves, but that we also rise or fall as one nation; the fundamental belief that I am my brother's keeper; I am my sister's keeper.
So we'll be free to run our own lives--except that we are also required to be our brothers' keepers. We will have a free market--except for the vast network of regulations needed to force businesses to live up to a long list of "responsibilities." We will take responsibility for solving our own problems--except those relating to roads, education, health care, water, toys, science, and so on and on.
In essence, Obama is declaring simultaneous loyalty to individualism and to collectivism, to independence and to dependence, to free markets and to state control.
If you wonder which half of this self-contradictory agenda will win out, Obama doesn't leave you in suspense. He criticizes McCain because "For over two decades, he's subscribed to that old, discredited Republican philosophy--give more and more to those with the most and hope that prosperity trickles down to everyone else." The references to "two decades" and to "trickle-down economics"--a derogatory term for Ronald Reagan's pro-free-market policies--make his meaning clear. It is the free market that he wants us to regard as "discredited."
What he wants us to forget is what was actually discredited two decades ago by the collapse of the Soviet Union. What was discredited was socialism, not capitalism.
That is what makes this the most dangerous election in many years. It has been almost half a century since the left's ideas have had such an intelligent, charismatic, and appealing advocate. He is now preparing to lead the left's effort to reconstitute itself in the first serious way since the Fall of Communism. He must be defeated.
Obama's acceptance speech is likely to be effective, and we should expect him to have a solid "bounce" in the polls now that the convention is over. But there is a way to defeat Obama. His whole campaign is a beautifully presented illusion, and the way to defeat it is to keep hammering on the difference between illusion and reality. Because the more grandiose the illusion, the more thoroughly it will be rejected when it is revealed as a lie.

Robert Tracinski writes daily commentary at TIADaily.com. He is the editor of The Intellectual Activist and TIADaily.com.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Supporting Obama - Emotion or Logic?

By: David Kilpatrick

Senator Obama is, arguably, one of the most motivational speakers in the Democratic party. His words motivate crowds and touch hearts. His words inspire us to look past our current problems and imagine a better tomorrow. His words make us believe in a greater good and a united planet where peace, love and harmony unite with the environment. Where greed is a thing of the past and the possibilities are limited only by the power of our imaginations. He tells us that the only people that need to pay are the richest among us and that a free ride awaits everyone else. All we need to do is trust him and his judgment to lead us to a brighter tomorrow and if we do, “…the levels of the oceans will drop and the Earth will begin to heal itself.” Truly, only a great, great man would be capable of healing the wounds that have plagued mankind for so long.
The emotional reasons for following Obama on this journey are many, but unfortunately, the logical ones are few. If we examine beyond the great speeches and grand platitudes, we find that his positions are not as savory as many of us would prefer and some of them are downright silly. Is this because of profound inexperience? Many believe so. What are the logical reasons we should elect Barack Obama to the White House? What has he done, where does he stand and what does he want to do?

TAXES as a SAMPLE ISSUE:

We know that he wants to raise a variety of taxes, especially on the wealthy, but is that smart? The wealthy provide jobs and spend the most money. Will taxing them simply cause them to cut jobs and wages and/or spend less? History shows us, time and again, that that is exactly what will happen, but even as Obama denies the success of the surge in Iraq, we find that our constitutional scholar is ignoring this historical fact.
Under the Clinton tax rates that Obama wants to return to, tax revenues actually dropped starting in 2000 from $2.4 trillion until 2003 when they bottomed out at just above $2 trillion. What happened in 2003? The Bush tax cuts took effect and going into 2008, revenues have recovered to their highest levels in history at $2.5 trillion. Lower taxes did not hurt the country. The solution to our economic problem is not nearly as simple as a slight tweak of out tax burden to a lucky few among us, but it’s not so difficult to understand either.
Incomes for average Americans has increased by 35% since 1965, yet discretionary government spending has increased by 152% and non-discretionary spending has increased by a whopping 759%! How can any society maintain these types of spending increases without matching increases in wealth? The answer is simply that we cannot.
In 1850, Alexander Tyler wrote, "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policies followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been 200 years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence:
From bondage to spiritual faith; From spiritual faith to great courage; From courage to liberty; From to liberty to abundance; From abundance to selfishness; From selfishness to complacency; From complacency to apathy; From apathy to dependency; and, From dependency back to bondage.”

Obama’s promise to lead us to dependence may sound great to the unwashed and uneducated masses and even many of the wealthy elite who stand to enrich their companies by serving the needs of the people at the request of the government through a variety of new programs, but to those of us who step back and think for a moment, the deals don’t sound so sweet.
Looking at his current positions and gathering from his statements we can put forth the following and ask ourselves if these are positions we can all agree to stand behind:

Obama's solution to illegal immigration: You need to teach your kids Spanish.

Obama's solution to the energy crisis: You need to check your tire pressure.

Obama's solution to abortion survivors: Let the abortionist pretend to be a pediatrician.

Obama's solution to health care: Free health care for all, including illegal immigrants.

Obama's solution to a sluggish economy: Raise taxes on the people who provide jobs and spend the most.

Obama's solution to the war on terror: Withdraw and wait for them to come to us again.

Obama's position on abortion: Government funding for all, up to and including partial-birth, with or without parental consent.

Obama is a community activist with no experience in governance, military, health care, finance, management, or business who got elected to the Senate and even now, rarely attends hearings and has never written any legislation of his own. Clearly he has no relevant experience and is not qualified under any standard we would normally hold someone to if they wanted this job.

I'm not saying he isn't a nice guy, but his support is largely among people who have more of an emotional attachment than a logical one. They believe he cares about them and will work to make their life better, but if he has yet to help his own brother who is living on a dollar a month and has made over $4 million of which less than 5% has been donated to charity, I again see sheer emotion over-riding factual evidence among his supporters.

When we vote, we need to think more about a person’s deeds and LESS about the grand platitudes they speak in. Will the ocean levels really drop if we elect Obama? We the Earth begin to heal itself upon his inauguration? Is this really the moment we've all been waiting for? OR are these all just words designed to move us emotionally?

When asking a supporter why they intend to vote for Obama, typical responses are, "I like him," or, "I think we need a change." When asking the same people what kind of change they look for from Obama, the answers start to get a little odd and if you ask them what Obama has done in the past that they really admire, the answers start to lose cohesion completely. It generally boils down to the emotion of hope while losing all logic of experience or qualification. As Joe Biden said, the White House is no place for on-the-job-training, yet that is exactly what Obama would need.

Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama Votes to Withhold Care from Abortion Survivors

by David Kilpatrick

The more we learn about this junior senator, who would be president, the more unsettling he becomes. He carefully dances around questions with a style and grace that momentarily leaves us with a feeling of satisfaction, but that satisfaction is short-lived when we ask the dangerous question, "What did he really say?"

Obama says he is a long-practicing Christian with strong family values and an all-around good guy with a sense of morality, making him a good judge of what would be right and wrong. We should feel safe putting him in charge of the free world, making him the most powerful man on the planet and allowing his moral compass to direct the winds of change that blow across our country, but when we look at the positions he has taken, we don't see the moderate bridge-builder that he wants to brand himself as.

Obama, as an Illinois state senator, voted against a state version of the federal Born Alive Infants Protection Act, which passed the U.S. Senate in 2002 by a unanimous vote. The law prevents the killing of infants, usually by denying them medical care, when they are mistakenly left alive, outside the mother's womb after an abortion.

When Obama was speaking against this measure, he was particularly convoluted and vague in comparing as similar the "pre-viability" status of a fetus and a very viable, breathing, thinking infant with his words, "Number one, whenever we define a pre-viable fetus as a person that is protected by the Equal Protection Clause or the other elements in the Constitution, what we're really saying is, in fact, that they are persons that are entitled to the kinds of protections that would be provided to a child, a 9-month-old child that was delivered to term. That determination then, essentially, if it was accepted by a court, would forbid abortions to take place. I mean, it -- it would essentially bar abortions, because the Equal Protection Clause does not allow somebody to kill a child, and if this were a child, this would be an anti-abortion statute."

His statement makes perfect sense, except for the fact that it was issued on a measure that was not addressing extending rights to a "pre-viable fetus". It would be easy to write off his statement as a simple mistake made by a junior senator who slept too late and hadn't read the measure. When confronted with his position on the measure, Obama replied that he would support the measure if language would have been included in the bill specifying that it would not encroach on a woman's right to choose an abortion.

When given the opportunity to clarify his position, critics note that in 2003, when an Illinois lawmaker again introduced a state Born Alive Infant Bill, it came with a proposed amendment that included language on protecting abortion rights identical to the federal version. The bill was never brought up for a vote in the Health and Human Services Committee, which Obama chaired because in Obama's view, it was not important enough an issue to spend the committee's time by voting on.

Obama's vote against the measure still stands and he made no effort at all to clarify his stand when given the opportunity. The current procedure supported by Obama is to take the living infant to another room and leave it there to die on its own. Is this a "mainstream" position? Is this a "Christian" position? Is this a "good morals" position? I would venture to say that even the most heartless and cruel among us would find it difficult to stand in a room with a dying infant under orders to do nothing, except let it die.

Followers of Obama will not want to think about this, of course, but as more of Obama's positions become known, we will all be asked to "not think about" more and more of them. It would be crazy to imagine that any presidential candidate would ever match any one of us on every issue and there are many more issues that will confront us over time, BUT we need to examine them all and consider each one as a piece of the puzzle which makes up the man who wants to lead our country and too many conflicts in his position still exist. He talks about extending medical care to all uninsured and includes illegal immigrants in his numbers, yet he doesn't support taking an abortion survivor to the nursery. Regardless of your politics, those are difficult positions to reconcile.

Obama has demonstrated time and again that he does not wish to govern for all, but only for those who are on the far left of the political spectrum. He has never worked in a bi-partisan way and to assume he would suddenly start would be irrational. Obama very rarely lets his rhetoric influence his actions and while he speaks well, he needs to know that the man who would be president needs to be president of all, not just his followers. The survival of our union depends on it.

On this issue, Obama demonstrates a VERY dangerous position. He has decided not to represent the interests of ones who cannot speak for themselves, when those are the ones who would need him the most.

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Spinward Launches Presidential Campaign

By Odds Botkins

What started as an internet fluke has become a grass-routes movement to put a virtual unknown in the White House. Both political parties are finding themselves wondering if they did, indeed, put their best candidates forward as neither can draw the crowds or have the command of the English language that the mysterious "Spinward" seems to be so comfortable with.

CLICK HERE TO VIEW LATE BREAKING NEWS VIDEO

It's truly a wake-up call for both parties as Obama seems to be completely distressed when his teleprompter is not working and McCain seems to be completely distressed when Obama's teleprompter is working. Is this election going to be based on sound bites from candidates that are incapable of producing the words they speak on their own? When asked about his thoughts on the issue, Spinward graciously replied, "I don't want to point out weaknesses in my opponents when there are so many things that we could be focusing on that would actually benefit our great country. Any references to Obama's frequent and ongoing drug use or references to the issue of McCain being older than cotton will NOT be used by my campaign." With that statement, he smiled in a way that communicated a warm feeling of sincere compassion felt by all of the members of the attending press corps, some of whom were visibly moved to tears.

Spinward seems to be well versed, unlike his opponents, on a wide variety of issues and has a common-sense approach that spans the divisions between Republicans and Democrats. One senior Democratic official, who agreed to be quoted on the condition of anonymity, said, "Well, you can't argue with the guy and sound clever at all."

On energy, Spinward is quoted as saying, "I refuse to declare war on American oil until the Saudis declare war on Saudi oil. American oil companies are more environmentally friendly than any of their foreign counterparts. While my administration will tirelessly pursue alternative, renewable energy sources, we will need to expand our capacities to acquire and refine as there is currently no such thing as a solar powered passenger airplane." He then equated this approach to being able to "Walk and chew gum at the same time," and said, to the approving laughter of those present, that he invited anyone who couldn't do both simultaneously to step forward in disagreement... nobody did.

On the war on terror, Spinward said, "While me must strike fear into the hearts of those who plan to harm us, the uniformed members of our military must adhere strictly to honorable codes of conduct." He then went on to outline an impressive shift of military spending to the CIA and Secret Service. When asked what he would hope to accomplish, he replied, "James Bond times ten thousand. Can you picture that?" Again, the crowd applauded approvingly, several noting that CIA and Secret Service don't wear uniforms... while Spinward smiled and winked in acknowledgement. Under his breath he was heard saying the words, "Plausible deniability."

The only gaff so far was attributed to a staffer who promised that Spinward would be available to "Kiss some gents and give cigars to all the babies" at an upcoming rally. Spinward denied his willingness to do either, claiming that facial hair was a personal turn-off and also noted that babies were not likely to fully appreciate a fine cigar. It later became known that the staffer was a plant from the McCain campaign, but after being in Spinward's presence for a short period of time has switched allegiances and is now fully supporting Spinward's candidacy.

As the crowd was leaving, this reporter noticed Democrats and Republicans alike were lining up for buttons and bumper stickers...

Thanks for the fun, my friends. Sometimes we all need a break.

Wednesday, August 6, 2008

"Obamamania" Appears More "Hitleresque" Every Day

by David Kilpatrick

Normally, I'm not much of an alarmist and I dismiss out of hand conspiracy theories all the time. There is no boogyman waiting around every corner, Bush did not know about 9/11 ahead of time, there are no war crimes trials of Dick Cheney warranted, and Nanci Pelosi is not the devil with a red dress on. In today's world, that makes me more of a moderate than most. I also like to hear both sides of an argument and gather all of the facts I can on my own before I make a decision on a given issue so that I can form an opinion that is not based on ideological bias, but on intelligent reasoning. Moreover, I maintain an open mind and am always willing to alter my view if new information is available that would prove me wrong. There is nothing wrong with being wrong if one is willing to acknowledge the error, make a correction, and move forward. We're all humans and none of us know everything. All that said, I am getting more and more disturbed with some of the things I'm seeing in Obama, whose full birth name is Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama. No spin, just reporting the truth.

First, this man of questionable origin and history has submitted a false birth certificate as proof of U.S. citizenship. As long as he is very popular, it's ok to overlook that, according to my liberal friends. When shown the evidence that proves the certificate was made with a graphics design program which was unavailable in 1961, we are quickly told that it is just not important if nobody really cares. That said, I'm content to let it go. I believe that the dangers in the water ahead are much greater than the idea of electing a person who would, in any other case, not be eligible for the position. You can watch a YouTube video showing the birth certificate problem if you would like, but if you are a follower of Obama, you won't care anyway.

Obama's Fake Birth Certificate

If you're wondering about his "Duel Citizenship" status, you may also like knowing that he can't be a duel citizen of the U.S. and Indonesia (the country he does have citizenship in) OR Kenya, the country he could claim citizenship in. In order to become a U.S. citizen, he would need to renounce his Indonesian citizenship... something he hasn't done. If you care to see another video on the legality of his duel citizenship conflict, you can, but again, if you're a follower, you won't allow it to influence you in any way and that's expected.

Obama's Duel Citizenship Conflict

Let's proceed on the premise that neither of the two issues I've just mentioned will ever amount to anything due to lack of interest. That's fine. What concerns me on the next note is the blind devotion of the followers coupled with the wild abandonment of all logical reasoning. If you are an Obama follower, you have likely quit reading by now, as most of the followers I've encountered have no interest in learning anything that could call into question the rationale behind their loyalty. The rest of you may like some examples of well-founded concern.

Recently, Obama said that we could replace ALL of the oil we would get from new drilling by inflating our tires and getting tune-ups. There is an element of truth to his claim in that if your car is running at peak efficiency, it will get better gas mileage. That is undeniable and your car's owner manual will back this claim up very nicely. The fictional element is that, in order for his statement to be true, ALL of our cars would need to be currently running on flat tires with poorly performing engines. Obvious to everyone, that's not the case at all and Obama's claim is utterly fictitious - unless you're a follower. If you're a follower, you have praised him for his awesome insight into automobile maintenance and you now believe that oil drilling is not necessary if we would all simply line up at Jiffy-Lube as instructed. I am amazed at the naivete of the educated liberal who seems to be accepting of the idea that he was not smart enough to maintain his car prior to Obama's advice. The follower simply accepts the words of Obama as truth and does what he's told.

Obama's race is not white or black. According to all accounts, he is of mixed race. While "playing the race card" is getting to be a tiresome tactic, Obama and his followers are very quick to point out that Obama "doesn't look like other presidents". That is true, but why? Is it because of his ears? Is it because of his build or the shape of his head? Is it his clothing style? No, none of the above... they are clearly pointing out his race and his followers will openly say, "I'm excited to be voting for our first African-American president." The thought that crosses the balanced mind is simply, "Should I vote for or against someone because of their race?" At the risk of sounding judgemental, this could easily lead a non-committed observer to say that the "race-based" supporter is a racist. Surely, if a person said they were voting for a candidate because they were white, that person would be labeled as a racist - and rightly so. Is it not also racist to vote for a candidate because they're not white? If you're a follower, you simply accept the double standard with a smile because the racist label is not directed at you. In your mind, the racist is the one NOT supporting Barack Hussein Mohammed Obama. After all, as long as someone else is being attacked, it's ok to permit it. As a follower, you either engage in the ridiculing and attacking of the non-followers or simply turn away and ignore it.

As I have brought out my concerns and made public the fact that I am not an Obama follower, I have been called a racist daily. I don't support Obama because I either can't understand his position on most issues, as he has not taken many solid stands, and on the issues he has taken stands on, I simply don't agree. Do I have to vote for someone I don't agree with to have the "racist" label removed?

In the days of Adolf Hitler, supporters were loved by all... detractors were labeled, hated, ridiculed, humiliated, abused... and many were killed.

In the days of Barack Obama, followers are loved by all... detractors are labeled, hated, ridiculed... more to come? I hope not, but the unfounded love of a man who brings nothing but unidentified change sold as nationalism to the table is not rational.
Hitler ran on a platform of unidentified change sold as nationalism as well, and the similarities we see now to the support of Hitler in pre-Nazi Germany are chilling.

"Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!" is the same as, "Hail Victory! Hail Victory! Hail Victory!"

If you prefer German, it's pronounced, "Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil! Sieg Heil!"

With all of the "racist" (Jew) labels flying, this "typical white person" is starting to feel uneasy.

Dems Attack McCain VP Pick as Similar to Cheney - But Don't Know Who It Is Yet.

by AmerPundit
John McCain hasn’t even announced his choice for VP yet, but that hasn’t stopped Democrats from launching an entire site dedicated to attacking his top potential nominees. How? They’re already equating each and every one of them with Dick Cheney.
The top quote on the site is from John McCain, who had this to say about to the current VP:
“With a little more luck, I might have been able to ask you to be my Vice-President.”
The quote’s date? October 2001 — a time when Bush was enjoying some of the highest approval ratings in American history and Democrats were standing solidly by the Bush Administration.
Anyway, the attack centers on the following people: Mitt Romney, Tim Pawlenty, Charlie Crist, John Thune (how man people have mentioned him?), Carly Fiorina, Fred Smith, and Eric Cantor. They accuse Crist of calling Bush his hero, though they’re apparently unable to provide a quote substantiating that. Romney gets slammed for changing positions, which probably isn’t a great line of attack when your own nominee is flip-flopping by the day. Fred Smith gets attacked for saying this back in July:
‘I don’t think we’re in a recession,’ Smith said Monday in a Bloomberg Television interview. ‘We’re in a period of extremely low growth brought on by high fuel prices and the financial meltdown.’”
I don’t mean to get technical here, but we’re not in a recession. We continue to experience positive growth and the numbers just released by the feds are better than the previous month’s. We happen to be in, uh, a time of extremely low growth that was sparked by a financial meltdown and high fuel prices. Apparently Smith is wrong because he doesn’t agree with the DNC’s unsubtantiated talking points.
But remember: It’s the Republicans responsible for negative campaigning. That damn Karl Rove!

Tuesday, August 5, 2008

Whitey Need Not Apply

By Patrick Buchanan
"Will race be an issue in this campaign?"
Hearing the cable talk-show host solemnly pose the question, I could not suppress a belly laugh.
For the anchor was fearful that some white folks might reject Obama because he is African-American -- even as a Rasmussen poll was reporting that Barack is beating McCain among black voters 94 to 1.

What, other than race, explains how Barack rolled up 90-10 margins among black voters while running against Hillary Clinton, wife of the man novelist Toni Morrison dubbed "our first black president"?
Indeed, so one-sided was the primary coverage in favor of Barack as the first African-American with a real chance to be president, even "Saturday Night Live" took to mocking the mainstream media.
As for black radio, on "The Tom Joyner Morning Show," "Michael Baisden Show" and "The Steve Harvey Morning Show," which together may reach 20 million folks, there is "little pretense of balance," writes Jim Rutenberg of The New York Times. "More often than not the Obama campaign is discussed as the home team."
Black Entertainment Television plans to carry Barack's speech to the Democratic convention live, but has no plans to carry McCain's. Barack's speech "is an historic occasion," says BET Chairman Debra L. Lee, "so that demands some special treatment from us."
As the mainstream media have moved left and talk radio right, and cable is breaking down along political and ideological lines, there is something else afoot now -- the racial Balkanization of the newsroom.
Consider. On Sunday, 6,800 folks showed in Chicago for the 2008 quadrennial convention of UNITY: Journalists of Color. McCain declined an invitation. Bush had been booed at UNITY 2004, while John Kerry got a standing ovation. Featured speaker: Barack. Major concern of the journalists running the show: that their colleagues would lift the roof off the McCormick Place convention center when Barack arrived.
Said Luis Villareal, a producer of NBC's "Dateline," "I don't think it's such a bad thing if for 15 minutes you take off your reporter hat and respond to (Obama) as a human being at an event where you're surrounded by people of color and you're here for a united cause."
And exactly what "cause" might the 10,000 members of UNITY be united behind? The hiring and advancement of journalists of color in all major news organizations in America.
For, as its emblem depicts, UNITY comprises four alliances: the Asian American Journalists Association, the National Association of Hispanic Journalists, the Native American Journalists Association and the National Association of Black Journalists.
"A New Journalism for a Changing World" is UNITY's motto. And the title of its July 22 press release reveals what the "new journalism" is all about. "Aim of New UNITY Initiative Is More Diversity in Top Media Management."
"With more than 50 percent of the population projected to be people of color in less than a generation," says UNITY President Karen Lincoln Michel, "the nation's news organizations continue to generate dismal diversity numbers year after year. ... 'Ten by 2010' is a significant step in the right direction."
What is Ten by 2010?
UNITY is demanding that 10 major U.S. news organizations, by mid-2010, elevate to a senior management position in the newsroom at least one journalist of color and provide "customized training to help prepare them."
The journalist may be Asian, African-American, Native American or Hispanic, which rules out journalists of Irish, English, Polish, Italian, German or Jewish ancestry, since they are white.
Is this what we have come to 50 years after the triumph of the civil rights movement? Flat-out demands, by American journalists, for the hiring and promotion of colleagues based on race and color?
Is there any evidence major news organizations in this country have engaged in systematic discrimination to keep out men or women of color this last half century? The reverse seems true. They have bent over backward to advance minority journalists.
And if journalists have been hired and promoted based on ability and merit, why in the 21st century should these criteria be thrown out as the standards for advancement -- in favor of race and color?
Isn't this what they did in the days of Jim Crow -- hire and promote based on race? What UNITY is calling for is a return to the old rules but with new beneficiaries -- blacks, Hispanics, Asians and Native Americans -- and new victims, all of whom will be white.
On Sunday, McCain came out in favor of an Arizona civil rights initiative that would outlaw any state discrimination either for or against folks, based on race, gender or national origin. Barack said he was "disappointed" with McCain and told UNITY he favors affirmative action "when properly structured."
The Arizona referendum banning preferential treatment based on race is also on the ballot in the swing state of Colorado. It won in California in 1996, in Washington in 2000 and in Michigan in the great Democratic sweep of 2006. It has never lost, and may just win McCain Colorado, and with it the nation.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Al Gore’s Carbon Empire: Cashing in on Climate Change

Download a copy of the entire report here:
http://www.capitalresearch.org/pubs/pdf/v1217525953.pdf


By Fred Lucas, Capital Research Foundation Watch

Al Gore says everyone will benefit when new government rules require companies to pay to reduce global warming. But some people will benefit more than others, as will some companies. Benefiting most are those like the ex-vice president who can set up and invest in companies that will profit from the federal regulations imposing heavy costs on others.
Who pays for Gore’s crusade? In accounting for the $300 million in costs for the public education campaign of the Alliance for Climate Protection, the group’s website says that Al Gore pays for much of the project himself using the proceeds from his film and book, An Inconvenient Truth, and the $750,000 cash prize attached to the Nobel Peace Prize. It adds that he “has since received additional support in the form of private donations from those concerned about solving the climate crisis.”
Andrew C. Revkin of the New York Times reported on the newspaper’s Dot Earth blog March 31 that the Alliance raised half the sum - $150 million - for the ad campaign. But from whom? Gore says he put up about $3 million, but when asked the question on TV’s “60 Minutes,” he would not identify other funders. Solar and wind power companies? Hedge funds and venture capitalists? Gore’s own company, Generation Investment Management?
Gore and the global warming crowd are usually quick to challenge the credibility and sincerity of any scientist, climatologist or policy organization skeptical of man-made global warming. They call skeptics “shills” for Big Oil or, worse, “deniers,” invoking the term used against anti-Semites who deny the Holocaust. But they refuse to acknowledge their own growing financial interest in the carbon control industry. Barack Obama has said if he is elected president, he will be sure to find a prominent role for Al Gore in his administration. If that happens, will anyone raise questions about Al Gore’s conflict of interest?
Since leaving public office, Al Gore has become a one-man conglomerate: He writes books, stars in a movie, commands massive speaking fees, and sits on numerous corporate boards. According to Bloomberg News, Gore had less than $2 million when he left the vice presidency in 2001. Today his fortune is more than $100 million (Fast Company, July 2007) and the prospects are that he will grow even richer mounting his crusade against global warming.
The prospect of carbon regulation is why major corporations have latched onto Gore. He is the environmental movement’s bullhorn to the world, proclaiming the crisis of planetary warming. But the truth is that Gore also has become a bullhorn for corporations that are ready to cash in on the hysteria.