The content of this blog has not been approved by the Obama administration and is deemed by the Department of Homeland Security to be a 'rightwing extremist' website.

Wednesday, December 24, 2008

Best Christmas Movie Ever Made

White Christmas

Merry Christmas to all!!!!

Saturday, December 20, 2008

You Can't Teach an Old Dog.....

As the newly elected governor of Illinois, Rod Blagojevich signed an executive order in 2003 requiring all state employees undergo ethics training. This included the governor himself, and he passed. See the story here. Each employee is required to take and pass the training each year. Rod Blagojevich has passed the course each year for the passed five years.

The problem is that the training amounts to 30 to 60 minutes worth of a Computer Based Learning (CBL) session. Many corporations, especially those in retail, use similar systems to train their employees on a variety of subjects, including ethics. As long as one is attentive during the training phase, passing the self examination portion of a CBL is fairly easy. When it comes to situational ethics, most individuals know what the right thing to do is, regardless of whether they would actually do it. This is the classic definition of sin.

"Therefore, to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin." James 4:17 (NASV)

This type of training is no guarantee of the ethical actions of another, nor is it effective in instilling ethics and morals in a person who is not already in possession of them. However, it is effective at identifying those individuals who are unable to discern right from wrong.

The fact that Gov. Blagojevich passed the ethics training program says nothing about his ethical foundation. The old adage is true, that 'you can't teach an old dog new tricks'. It is clear that Blagojevich learned nothing from the ethics training. Having been caught doing the wrong thing, the right thing for him to do now is resign. Blagojevich waved yesterday as that opportunity passed by.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

Jesse Jackson Jr. Should Resign

Since being identifies as Senate Candidate #5, Jesse Jackson Jr. has adamantly denied any involvement in the Blago Scandal. Many Chicago residence are unconvinced. Breaking News reports;

At least some of his constituents want embattled Congressman Jesse Jackson Jr. to resign.

About a dozen protesters stood outside his Chicago office today shouting, "Ho ho ho, Jesse Jr.'s gotta go."

Protest organizer Harold Davis says he believes allegations that an emissary may have offered to raise money for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in exchange for Jackson being appointed to President-elect Barack Obama's Senate seat.

Davis says Jackson has tainted the democratic process and his political career is over.

Others in the south side neighborhood disagree. Several passersby shouted support for Jackson and one yelled, "Leave Jesse alone."

Jackson denies any wrongdoing.

AP story here.

An emissary, acting on Jackson's behalf, offered Rod Blagojevich $1 million to appoint Jackson as Obama's Senate replacement. The standard politicians denial of having any knowledge of the activities of individuals acting on their behalf is one which has been looked upon with great suspicion since Watergate. Yet the concept of plausible deniability is always a factor in whether a politician can withstand the public scrutiny and survive. Barring any federal indictments against Jackson, he will most likely weather this storm.

While there may be some who are calling for Jackson to resign, others will try to calm the clamour by appealing to our sense of justice, i.e., that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
Still others will come to Jackson's defence in a more enthusiastic fashion. Perhaps Chis Crocker will even produce another video on youtube crying, "Leave Jesse alone!"

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

U.S. Senate Seat for Sale

Illinois Dem. Gov. Rod Blagojevich and his chief of staff, John Harris were arrested this morning by agents of the FBI on allegations of trying to sell Obama's vacant Senate. See the details here.

U.S. Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald describes the nature and the details of the complaint against the Governor in this video;

I would not have believed that any Governor, Republican or Democrat, could be this stupid, this arrogant, and this corrupt. Unbelievable! Bribery, extortion, abuse of power; this story has everything. Kind of reminds me of the Clinton administration. How many heads will roll over this? Will the Governor resign or be impeached? Who is Senate Candidate number 5? This is really going to be interesting.

Tuesday, December 2, 2008

Are Bloggers Lobbyists?

Now that the Democrats are in power, one of the things on their priority list is, how to keep it. Those of us who are keeping a watchful eye on our government are aware that the Democrats are strongly motivated to regulate conservative talk radio out of existence. I have been wondering when they might try to silence the blogosphere and what form that attack might take. I did not have to wait long.

The Washington State Public Disclosure Commission is currently examining the concept of defining and regulating bloggers as lobbyists. If you blog about a legislative session, urge readers to Email legislators to support or oppose a specific bill or rule, actively oppose or campaign for specific candidates, you may be engaging in reportable activities. Among the questions currently being discussed;

Lobbying Emails
-Are expenditures related to lobbying emails to legislators concerning possible legislation, or lobbying emails to state agencies concerning possible rules, reportable?
-Are expenditures related to grassroots lobbying directed to the public via email reportable?

Lobbying Websites
-Are websites established to provide lobbying information, and to encourage others to lobby for or against a particular bill or rule engaged in a reportable activity?
-Is staff time and other expenditures for lobbying websites (creation, maintenance, etc.) reportable? If so, what else is reportable?

Lobbying Blogs (Web logs)
-Are lobbying postings and responses on blogs reportable?
-Are funds provided to "tip jars" (donation links) on lobbying blogs reportable?

"State officials are downplaying any possible media rights conflict, pointing out that regulators have already exempted journalistic blogging from previous guidelines for online campaign activity."

With one hand they pat themselves on the back for protecting the freedom of the press clause of the First Amendment, while violating the free speech clause with the other. Typical.

Wednesday, November 26, 2008

Thanks for Giving

A special thanks to members of our military this Thanksgiving. Thank you so much for all that you do to keep America safe. We owe you a debt that we can never repay.

Friday, November 21, 2008

US Senator Al Franken, By Hook or By Crook

Conservatives may have thought that it would be a cold day in hell when Al Franken, the buck tooth moron, would become a U.S. Senator. Al Franken is a far left socialist, a scumbag, and a liar. I personally thought there was no way, even in Minnesota, that someone like Franken could win a Senate seat. Well, it has been unseasonably cold of late, especially in Minnesota.

Consider the following quote reported in the Minnpost,

Even the observers and lawyers have been instructed by their respective campaigns to not talk to the media. But Minneapolis lawyer Bill Starr, who is volunteering for the Franken campaign, was willing to say a few words. He said he thinks Franken will prevail.

His hunch is based on a theory he has."People who voted for Coleman are more likely to have taken the SAT in their lifetime," he said. "They've filled in circles. Franken voters are probably not college-educated. They're new voters and immigrants. They've been brought in by groups like ACORN, from the inner cities. They're more likely to make mistakes. I've bounced this off of minority people, and they agree with me."

It does not get much colder than this, but this has to be a first. Democrats like to think of themselves as the smartest people in the room. Perhaps they are now willing to admit that this characterization is not altogether reflective of the reality. Franken, however, is less optimistic. He is working hard to manufacture as many votes during this recount as possible, and challenging Coleman votes for the flimsiest of reasons. Take this ballot for example.

Reason for the challenge? Because there is both an 'X' and a 'squiggle' in the bubble. The argument is that the voter intended to cancel their vote and leave the voting booth with no vote at all for Senator. Absurd! If the voter wanted to cancel this vote, all they needed to do was obtain a fresh ballot. Where paper ballots are used, this is a option which is clearly posted in the booths.

With only 18% of the ballots counted so far in the recount, Franken is closing the gap, from 215 to 174. The Star Tribune reports that;

Campaign monitors from both sides had challenged a total of 269 votes statewide, with Coleman observers disputing 146 ballots while the Franken camp challenged 123.

If that pace continues, challenged votes could wind up being a major factor in a race where the margin is down to hundreths of a percentage point. Challenged votes will be set aside until mid-December, when a five-member state Canvassing Board will review them individually.

I can't imagine that this guy as a US senator, but if it were to happen, how much of a boon could it be to the Republican party in 2010?

Sunday, October 26, 2008

Comrade Obama Hot Over Biden Grilling

On Thursday Obama's VP candidate Joe Biden was asked some very tough questions by Florida WFTV anchor Barbara West.

The Obama campaign is livid over this interview. They immediately cancelled a scheduled WFTV -9 interview with Jill Biden and made it clear that further interviews with members of the Obama campaign by the Florida TV station were very unlikely.

Again, the Obama exhibits his tendency toward being thin skinned when it comes to tough questions and close scrutiny of his socialist policies and radical associations. When Samuel 'Joe the Plumber' Wurzelbacher dared to ask his 'Excellency' a question regarding the socialistic nature of his tax plan, the left leaning media went out of it's way to try to discredit an average Joe. Now it seems that government resources have been misappropriated in the effort to discredit Joe according to the Columbus Dispatch.

"Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher’s driver’s license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate. Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department. It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver’s license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business."

Denying interviews is one thing, illegally invading the privacy of a private citizen for political purposes is quite another. When Obama's passport information was illegally breached people lost their jobs over it. Those individuals who looked at and released the illegally obtained information on Wurzelbacher should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Wednesday, October 15, 2008

DSA Members in Congress

One of the political parties has published a list of goals which it feels need to be urgently addressed. Please read the list below and see if you can guess which party is responsible for this list.

- Universal prescription drug coverage administered by Medicare.
- Universal health care system.
- Restore social safety net. Welfare reform that includes job training, supports and living wages.
- Full funding for equal, quality, bi-lingual public education. No vouchers.
- Repeal tax cuts to the rich and corporations.
- Strong regulation of financial industry.
- Labor law reform to remove barriers to workers who want to join a union.
- No privatization of Social Security. Increase benefits.
- End military interventions.
- Cut military budget and fund human needs.
- End racial profiling.
- Repeal the death penalty.
- Enforce civil rights laws and affirmative action.
- Repeal USA Patriot Act.
- Legalization and protection of immigrant rights.

I recently read this list to a friend and asked her which party's point of view they best represented. She immediately responded with, "The Democrats!" If you have come to the same conclusion, you are both wrong, at least technically. This list actually comes from the website of the Communist Party USA.

The idea that Democrats are socialists is not merely a smear campaign orchestrated by far right conservatives, it is a matter of fact. As a former Democrat and socialist, it pleases me immensely that many Americans are now coming to that realization. The "s" word is being used on the campaign trail by John McCain often and effectively. It is long past time that American confront this issue and decide which ideological road America should take. For far too long Democrats have subversively implemented their socialist agenda while denying their socialist ideology. It is now becoming very difficult for them to do so, especially as Americans become aware of the Democrats close associations to socialist groups and organizations. Of the Democrats in Congress, 73 of them are members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC), of these members, at least 33 are also members of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). I use the words 'at least' because the DSA website no longer publishes a list of DSA members serving in Congress. The most recent DSA list of its congresstional members is from 2002.

These are the CPC members who are also DSA members;

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (CA-8)
Senator Bernie Sanders (VT)
Lynn Woolsey (CA-6)
Neil Abercrombie (HI-1)
Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Corrine Brown (FL-3)
John Conyers (MI-14
Danny Davis (IL-7)
Peter DeFazio (OR-4)
Chaka Fattah (PA-2)
Bob Filner (CA-51)
Barney Frank (MA-4)
Luis Gutierrez (IL-4)
Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-2)
Marcy Kaptur (OH-9)
Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
John Lewis (GA-5)
Jim McDermott (WA-7)
James McGovern (MA-3)
George Miller (CA-7)
Jerrold Nadler (NY-8)
John Olver (MA-1)
Ed Pastor (AZ-4)
Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Pete Stark (CA-13)
Bennie Thompson (MS-2)
John Tierney (MA-6)
Nydia Velazquez (NY-12)
Maxine Waters (CA-35)
Mel Watt (NC-12)
Henry Waxman (CA-30)

It is high time that we gave the socialist in Congress the boot.

Thursday, October 9, 2008

"Socialist Taking Over Our Country"

The Presidential Debate last Tuesday night was supposed to be in a "town hall meeting" style. It was a real snoozer! The problem was that the questions were too heavily screened. McCain does exceptionally well in a real town hall style forum and had the debate been a more impromptu format, John McCain most certainly would have won it handily. The video below is from a real town hall meeting recorded earlier today in Wisconsin.

Certainly this type of lively interaction between the audience and the candidates is something that the Democrats wanted to avoid. Obama is ahead in the polls and they just needed to maintain the status quo. Tom Brokaw's performance as moderator was very helpful to that end. The tight constraints that Brokaw insisted upon hampered real debate and forced the candidates into a positions in which each was giving miniature stump speeches.

With regard to the comments by the angry man in the video, he absolutely hit the nail on the head. The socialist are trying to take over our country and Barack Obama has an agenda which will take us further to that end. Some time back I published a post on Obama's socialist connections. In it, I referenced Obama's association with and endorsement by the New Party (a socialist fusion group). It has recently come to light that Obama was actually a member of the NP and signed a contract promising to maintain a visible relationship with the group. The proof is a document which was scrubbed from the NP website but was archived by Web archive .org. This document lists Barack Obama as a member of the NP in Illinois.

To my knowledge, Obama has not, as yet, denied the charge, but make no mistake, he will deny it.

Saturday, October 4, 2008

O.J. Simpson's Rendezvous With Providence

On Sept. 12 1994, Nicole Brown-Simpson and Ronald Goldman were brutally stabbed to death. Law enforcement found O. J. Simpson's hair on Goldman's body, placing Simpson at the scene. Nicole's blood was found on socks in Simpson's home. Blood was found in Simpson's Bronco, in his driveway, in his home, on a pair of gloves of the type that Simpson was known to wear. Bloody size 12 shoe prints were found in Simpson Bronco. Simpson wore a size 12 shoe. O. J. Simpson was eventually charged with double homicide. After a 'dog and pony show' of a trial, Simpson was acquitted. Following the verdict, polls showed that 56% of Americans believed the jury arrived at the wrong verdict and 74% of Americans believed that O. J. is 'probably' guilty of the murders.
Finally, O. J. Simpson has finally been found guilt of a capital crime and will possibly be serving a life sentence behind bars. Today, Simpson was found guilty of all 12 charges related to kidnapping and robbery. Sentencing has been scheduled for Dec. 5th.
Many people feel as I do that justice has finally caught up with O. J. Simpson. And there seems to be some Providence at work here. Check out the creepy numerological connections. The crimes that he has now been convicted of were committed on Sept. 13, 2007. The Jury deliberated for 13 hours which started 13 years to the day after he was acquitted of double murder. Simpson was charged with 12 counts. The murders took place on June 12, 1994.
Providence is not finished with O. J. Simpson. Another trial awaits him someday. This time there will be no jury, no lawyers, no television cameras, no endless media coverage. Only a Judge rendering a final and eternal verdict. But, in the here and now, Americans may take some comfort in the fact that justice did not fail today.

Monday, September 29, 2008

Pelosi Plays Politics and Loses

The 700 billion dollar bailout bill went to the House floor for a vote today. It was expected to pass, although narrowly. But prior to the vote Nancy Pelosi, the most mentally challenged House speaker in American legislative history, went to the House floor to play politics. Here is the video of what she said.

The vote failed to pass the bill 228 to 205. Twelve Republicans who were expected to vote in favor of the measure flipped and voted against it. In the aftermath of the vote Democrats continued to play the blame game and excoriated the 12 Republicans who had flipped because their "feelings were hurt". This, dispite the fact that Democrats could have passed the measure by themselves if it were not for the fact that 95 Democrats voted against it as well.

Republican Rep. Mike Pence had this to say;

“Today Congress took a stand for the American taxpayer and free markets. The American people rejected this corporate bailout and today the People’s House did likewise.
“It is now imperative that Congress come together and develop a response to the crisis facing our financial markets that reflects the American people’s belief in personal responsibility and fiscal discipline.
“There are alternatives to the massive federal bailout that Congress rejected. I look forward to working with my colleagues in both parties to develop a response to this crisis that puts taxpayers first and preserves the essential freedom of the American marketplace.”

But, where was the Messiah, the crowned prince of change, Barack Obama? Was he in Washington trying to get support from the other 95 Democrats that were not on board? Did he offer any suggestions which might make for a more palatable bill, both to the American people or his colleagues in the House? Did he even make public his feeling about the bill and how he intended to vote on it? None of the above! He was out on the stump polishing his phony Presidential Seal.

Saturday, September 20, 2008

Liberalism IS a Mental Disorder

Check out this video of San Fransisco peace protesters.

The President needs to send a full battalion of psychologists into San Fransisco now.

Saturday, September 13, 2008

New York Times is Clueless

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, the only U.S. civilians ever executed for espionage, were convicted in 1951 primarily on the testimony of Ethel Rosenberg's brother, David Greenglass and his wife, Ruth. The Rosenbergs were accused of persuading Greenglass, who worked at the Los Alamos, New Mexico, atomic bomb development facility, to divulge design details for the implosion device needed to trigger the bomb, which the Rosenbergs then passed to the Soviets. Also convicted along with the Rosenbergs was fellow conspirator, Morton Sobell, who was sentenced to 30 years.

The conviction of the Rosenbergs outraged the American Left. The Rosenbergs had been communists since the 1930's, so there was the predictable charges of malicious prosecution based on 'red' paranoia. For over forty years the Left has staunchly maintained that the Rosenbergs were innocent.

Belief in the innocence of the Rosenbergs began to fade in the 1990's. The first blow to the 'exonerate the memory of the Rosenbergs' crowd came with the publication of an expanded edition of Nikita Khrushchev's memoirs in which the former Soviet premier said that the Rosenbergs "provided very significant help in accelerating the production of our atom bomb."

Then, in 1995, the National Security Agency began to declassify files from the Venona Project.

These files, like the one pictured at right, along with biographical details, implicated Julius Rosenberg beyond credible contradiction. They reveal that Julius Rosenberg, code named 'Liberal'- I'm not making this up-was actively engaged in the acquisition of U.S. atomic secrets and was an energetic recruiter for the Soviets.

Morton Sobell served 18 years of his 30 year sentence. Throughout those years, and in the face of all of the revelations that I've just recounted, Sobell had maintained his innocence. However, in a recent New York Times interview, Sobell finally came clean.

There is nothing really very surprising about this but for the way in which the Times reported it;
"In 1951, Morton Sobell was tried and convicted with Julius and Ethel Rosenberg on espionage charges. He served more than 18 years in Alcatraz and other federal prisons, traveled to Cuba and Vietnam after his release in 1969 and became an advocate for progressive causes.
Through it all, he maintained his innocence. But on Thursday, Mr. Sobell, 91, dramatically reversed himself, shedding new light on a case that still fans smoldering political passions. In an interview, he admitted for the first time that he had been a Soviet spy. And he implicated his fellow defendant Julius Rosenberg, in a conspiracy that delivered to the Soviets classified military and industrial information and what the American government described as the secret to the atomic bomb."

Once again, the Times writers and editors prove that the New York Times is behind the times.

Friday, September 5, 2008

Bikini Pics of Sarah Palin: Update

In a previous post I reported that the Left was diligently searching the Internet for the Miss Alaska swimsuit photos of Sarah Palin. They searched in every nook and cranny of the Internet and put the word out on various want lists. It looked as though they were going to come up empty handed for a while. Then, finally, the photo to the right turned up on The Huffington Post.

And, WHAT A PICTURE! The Left could not have asked for a better photo even if they had made it themselves. John McCain's VP, in a patriotic bikini, holding a GUN, and wearing a crazed expression. And check out the two guys behind her. One is drinking a beer and smoking a cigarette and the other is also in possession of a firearm. And one has to ask, especially if you are a member of the Left, what is she doing hanging out with these two guys? Where is her husband? Is he the man with the gun? This picture proves that she is reckless, loose, and not the type of person the right-wing fundamentalist Christians should be supporting. Yes. This is more than the Left had hoped to find when they embarked upon their quest for a swimsuit photo.

One problem! It's a fake! The Left did make it themselves. Here is the original.

And this of course, is the photo from which the manufacturer of this fraud took the face of Gov. Palin. Curiously, the expression on her face does not look so crazed without a gun in the photo.

So, what is the big deal? Even if they found an actual photo of Sarah Palin in a swimsuit, what difference would it make? Everybody wears a swimsuits. Even fundamentalist Christians go swimming and they wear swimsuits when they do. Even Bill and Hillary have been photographed in swimwear. Maybe, it is a modesty issue? Hillary is wearing a one piece in the photo after all. What if she had been wearing a bikini? Would it have damaged her career, I mean beyond what damage she does every time she opens her mouth?

But, a fake photo! That can't do any damage at all. In the Liberal world where lies are truth, and truth are lies, it does. Remember the left-wing battle cry;

"The nature of the evidence is irrelevant, it's the seriousness of the charge that matters".

Well, in that case! Obama's career is over!

Saturday, August 30, 2008

Bikini Pics of Sarah Palin

When the left heard that John McCain had picked Sarah Palin to be his running mate they knew they were in trouble. The Democrats immediately began to criticize McCain's choice. "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency," said Obama spokesman Bill Burton. "Gov. Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil, and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same." Senator Boxer pretty much echoed these words as did a myriad of left wing pundits.

None of this Palin bashing has worked. The Republican party base has been invigorated both by the choice and by how well McCain pulled it all off. The dems are in a panic. Here is one excerpt from a blog at PumaPac.org.

"Goodbye Howard Dean. Goodbye Barack Obama. Goodbye Nancy Pelosi. Goodbye Donna Brazile. You have not only lost the White House for the Democratic Party. Today you have brought the Democratic Party to the brink of irrelevancy altogether. John McCain has played you all like a piano.
Today we say GOODBYE to the OLD Democratic Party. The OLD Democratic Party has led us to DISASTER. John McCain and Sarah Palin will win in November by a landslide."

So what do they do now. Look for anything and everything they can find on Sarah Palin that will diminish her in the eyes of core Conservatives. For some reason they believe that that would be a picture of Palin in a swimsuit. The left is scouring the Internet looking for the swimsuit pictures from when she was a beauty contestant.

Is this what passes for serious political discourse in this country. The ability to hold up a picture of your opponent's running mate in a swimsuit. Will someone please find me an adult in the Democratic party.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Strange Bed Fellows

In the previous post, Liberal anti-Semitism, Chuck from Chuck Thinks Right, brought up a valid point with this comment;

"I have always been puzzled by the level of anti-Semitism on the left. It could be the religion issue, but this does not explain why they tend to defend Muslims."

The fact that Liberals defend and, at least tacitly, support the Islamo-fascists is very evident. Even the top two contenders for the Democratic party's presidential nomination have both supported Muslim fundamentalists groups. Obama had to fire an advisor, Robert Malley, after it became public that Malley was meeting with Hamas leaders. There is also the matter of Obama's relationship with the pro-Palestinian, terrorist sympathizer, Rashid Khalidi. Hillary Clinton's associations with Islamo-fascists goes back to the 1980's. The alliance between Liberals and terrorist is a mutual one. Hamas endorsed Obama. So what is with these strange bedfellows? Why would one of America's two major political parties ally itself with America's enemy? You can put the answer on a bumper sticker.

"The enemy of my enemy is my friend."

Ironically, this is an old Arabian proverb. If you think about it makes sense. Liberals and Muslim fundamentalists have a great deal in common.

They both hate Zionism.
They both hate George W. Bush.
They both hate the 'war on terror'.
They both hate America's interest in Mideast oil.
They both oppose the war in Iraq.
They both hate the restrictions imposed by the 'Patriot Act."
They both have a profoundly negative message.
They both believe that it is America's freedoms which promote America's immorality.
They both have common enemies, namely the United States (as it is currently constituted) and Israel.

So what is the 'quid pro quo'? What is each of them getting out of this unofficial, unannounced alliance? The Isamo-fascists see clear advantages to an America led by the Democratic party, not the least of which is a weaker, less vigilant America. The Democrats would secretly like terrorism to be a greater threat. An environment in which Americans would be all to willing to trade liberties for security is a Leftists dream.

Democrats always get bent out of shape when anyone suggests that they may be less than patriotic. Just once I would like to hear someone respond, " Oh, how clumsy of me! I really did not mean to question your patriotism, I meant to accuse you of treason!"

Monday, August 11, 2008

Liberal Anti-Semitism

The following is an anti-Semitic rant that was posted on an official Obama website;

They fear peace By Kate Smythe-Blake - July 19th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
EDT Comments Mail to a Friend Report Objectionable Content

The kike filth are trying to steal this election from us. But this is our time. The kike live in fear of peace. They fear happiness. The thought of people living happily in peace without killing each other frightens the horde of kike that runs our government. But when pieces of kike use their kike manipulation tactics to stop Barack, it is time to strike back. There is nothing a kike army can do when faced with progressive people who are determined to achieve peace. We will achieve lasting peace.

This extremely bigoted post is not an isolated incident. Back on June 8th, a post entitled How the Jewish Lobby Works was published on the same website by Juan Carlos (see webshot below).

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for the webshot. Blogs, such as Little Green Footballs, have been instrumental in exposing these hate filled posts. They have since been removed from the Obama site.

Liberal anti-Semitism is nothing new and it has been expressed by even prominent liberal Democrats. Former Democratic Senator Fritz Hollings was denounced by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) for his statements in opposition to the Iraq war. Hollings had said, "With Iraq no threat, why invade a sovereign country? The answer. President Bush's policy to secure Israel....[S]preading democracy in the Mideast to secure Israel would take votes away from the Democrats." House Democrat James P. Moran (VA) had to step down from a party leadership post after he expressed similar opinions.

Jesse Jackson called Jews "Hymie" and referred to New York as "Hymietown." Jackson friend, the anti-Semitic Minister Louis Farrakan publicly threatened the life of the reporter who exposed Jackson's anti-Semitic remarks and warned Jews not to harm Jackson. Al Sharpton called Jews "diamond merchants" during an uprising in the Crown Heights district of New York, and said, "If the Jews want to get it on, tell them to pin their yarmulkes back and come over to my house."

In 1974, Hillary Rodham called Bill Fray, the campaign manager of then boyfriend Bill Clinton, a "f---ing Jew bastard." In 1986, when Clinton consultant Dick Morris asked for a raise, Hillary screamed at him, "Money! That's all you people care about is money." Arkansas state trooper Larry Patterson claims that during the Clinton's numerous verbal brawls, " it was quite common" for both Bill and Hillary to refer to one another as "a Jew bastard" or "a Jew motherf---er."

Jimmy Carter also got a lot of heat following the release of his book, Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid. The title itself was enough to raise eyebrows. The ADL's Abe Foxman wrote to Carter that "In both your book and in your many television and print interviews you have been feeding into conspiracy theories about excessive Jewish power and control. Considering the history of anti-Semitism, even in our great country, this is very dangerous stuff." Carter, apparently not deterred at all by the controversy, traveled to Damascus, Syria earlier this year to meet with the exiled Hamas leader Khaled Meshaal in spite of Israeli and U.S. objections.

Liberals love the United Nations (UN). To them the UN is the first and last stop in resolving all international disputes. They do not seem the least bit bothered by the fact that the UN is also notoriously anti-Semitic. On Sept. 7, 2001, just days before the 9/11 attacks, the UN World Conference Against Racism began in Durban, South Africa. Contrary to it's name the conference gave a global stage to pro-Palestinian anti-Semites. The unfolding hate fest included the distribution of leaflets depicting Jews as Nazis, fanged beasts, and bloodsucking money-hungry parasites. Despite the Sudanese genocide in Darfur, the UN General Assembly has issued no resolutions condemning Sudan, but has condemned Israel 22 times for how it deals with anti-Israeli terrorists, the Palestinians. There are those, and I count myself one of them, who believe that the UN supports the abolition of the state of Israel.

There are undoubtedly numerous anti-Semitic blogs and websites on the Internet. I have had the misfortune to have come across couple of them. Nogw.com is an extensive website totally devoted to the conspiracy theory that the President, along with the Israelis, engineered and executed the 9/11 attacks. Liberal white boy claims in the description of his blog to be a self loathing Christian. I can believe that since he is also a hate filled bigot.

How is it that egalitarian, open minded, and tolerant Liberals become hate filled anti-Semites. The answer is; they are Marxists. Marxist believe that religion is the 'opiate of the masses.' Religious people are not willing to trade their spiritual faith for the secular Marxist faith in dialectical materialism. The Jewish people have always suffered persecution because of their faith. Mohammad originally viewed the Jews as potential allies. However, when the Jews of Medina refused to convert to Islam, he had all the Jewish men slaughtered and the women and children taken as slaves. Liberals view Jews, as well as Christians, as a bar to achieving their goals.

Liberals, as Marxists, fall prey to an age old stereotypical view of Jews as a money hungry people. Since Liberals accept this stereotype, they view Jews as the movers and shakers in our capitalist society, the oppressors of the masses. They, the Jews, are a deeply entrenched part of a system that Liberals are trying to overthrow. They are the enemy.

Finally, Liberals have bought into the notion that there is a Jewish conspiracy to exert power and control over the governments of the world. This stereotype has been around since the Protocols of the Elders of Zion was being circulated in the 19th century. This publication was extremely useful to Hitler in justifying the Holocaust and has been run in a 41-part series on state run Egyptian television. The Protocols have long been proven to be both fictional and a hoax, but it has not deterred those who need it as an excuse for hate.

Given the long and terrible history of persecution which the Jewish people have suffered, it is inexcusable for any sane and civilized person to be a party to it's continuation. Then again, liberals are neither sane nor civilized.

Friday, August 1, 2008

Heil Obama

Senator Obama's recent overseas tour is being viewed by Democrats as a huge success and by Republicans as completely irrelevant. In my opinion, it was way over the line. As a candidate for President it is appropriate for him to visit the theaters of military operations in order to obtain a first hand impression of the situation. However, for Obama, or any candidate, to arrange meetings with foreign leaders and to make political speeches on foreign soil is both arrogant and presumptuous. Obama is not in a position as, as yet, to make U. S. policy or to represent America's interests abroad. He is a U. S. Senator and his powers of representation ends at the border.

I am particularly offended by Obama's visit to Germany. The privilege of speaking at the Brandenburg Gate is one that is earned, not granted. Obama has done nothing to warrant being given that opportunity. In addition, he chose to speak to thousands of German citizens, but chose not to visit wounded U. S. troops in the hospital at Landstuhl. This speaks volumes about where his loyalties lie. To date, the Obama campaign has offered seven separate and distinct excuses as to why he did not go to Landstuhl. The DOD has said that he was both expected and welcome as long as his visit was in his capacity as a U. S. Senator. In other words, he could not bring his campaign staff and hangers-on along with him. It seems clear that this is the reason that Obama chose not to go.

That Barack Obama was able to draw thousands to hear him speak in Germany has certainly reinforced his 'rock star' persona. The thought of Obama standing before and ocean of people chanting his name is filling the hearts of liberals with such joy that they can hardly contain their glee. There have been many leaders, some quite evil, who have had the charisma to draw thousands to hear them speak. Hitler is a good example. Undoubtedly, the most charismatic chancellor that Germany has ever known, but when he finally ended his political career (by putting a bullet in his head), Germany was a heap of smoldering rubble.
What has Obama done to deserve all of this nearly messianic adoration? His campaign slogans are rather generic. On his campaign posters we read things like, "Yes we can", "Change", and "Progress". 'Yes we can' do what? Nationalize one seventh of the U. S. economy with universal health care. How is that a good idea? What has the government ever been able to do better and cheaper than the private sector? Most government social programs swallow up seventy percent of every tax dollar coming into them just to run the bureaucracy. Think about it. Seventy percent of one seventh of the U.S. economy disappearing into a huge bureaucratic black hole. I am not going to try to do the math, the figure would be in the trillions of dollars. The Europeans know this. They have had government run health care for some time. Perhaps that is why they came out in such huge numbers to hear Obama speak. Misery loves company.
When Obama speaks about change, in large part he is talking about changing the way things are done in Washington. This is certainly appealing to most people, myself included. The most corrupting practice in
Washington today is legislative earmarks. Many in Congress, on both sides of the aisle, have used earmarks to enrich themselves and their family members. It is a practice with needs to end if we are going to really change the way Washington does things. But, Barack Obama has not come out strongly in favor of ending the earmarks, only the public disclosure of them. Obama has not given full disclosure himself as to his earmarks. However, those which have been disclosed reveals that one of his earmarks benefited the hospital which employed his wife. How can we believe that he will clean up Washington when he has clearly been part of the problem.

Obama speaks of 'progress'. Conservatives know exactly what he means by progress. One would have to be more than a hundred years old to be able to recall a time when a political progressive was something other than a socialist. When Obama was being criticized recently by McCain on his flip flopping, Obama said this; "I am someone who is no doubt progressive." Since he has said it himself, all of America should have no doubt as well.

The ability of a leader, or potential leader, to draw thousands of people to hear him speak is no indication that said leader will lead well. The popularity of a message is no guarantee that the message is sound and will bring the expected results. Barack Obama's notions of governance are not new, they are the same old socialist ideas, dusted off and polished up to look new. They have all been tried with disastrous results.
America's answer to Barack Obama on election day should be a simple one.

Friday, July 25, 2008

Harry Reid Blows a Gasket

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's frustration over the energy bill came to the surface when he lashed out at reporters covering the Senate proceedings yesterday. The reporters apparently became somewhat confused during the proceedings. (In a Democrat controlled Senate? Go figure). During the exchange Reid told one reporter she should "watch the [Senate] floor more often. ... You might learn something." Asked another if she "spoke English" and then added, "Turn up your Miracle Ear".

I really don't know what ol' Harry's got to be frustrated about. Congress' job approval number is 17.3, a new Zogby poll shows that 75% of the American people favor immediate drilling off shore to increase our domestic oil supply, those evil Republicans keep bringing up the issue of drilling every damned day, we're winning the war in Iraq, and there is the picture of that stupid dog circulating on the net.

Gosh, Harry! Lighten up. Look on the bright side. Once the Congressional approval numbers hit bottom, the only way to go is up!

Saturday, July 19, 2008

Unwarranted Criticism

In a recent interview, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had this to say about George W. Bush;

"You know, God bless him, bless his heart, president of the United States, a total failure, losing all credibility with the American people on the economy, on the war, on energy, you name the subject."

A “total failure”? I don’t think so. George W. Bush has accomplished a number of very difficult tasks.
  • His leadership through the very difficult period immediately following the attacks on 9/11 was nothing less than inspirational. While other American Presidents have shied away from the challenge of actually dealing with the problem of international terrorism, President Bush dealt with the problem comprehensively and effectively. As a result, we have not seen another attack on U.S. soil for almost seven years.
  • President Bush established the ‘Bush Doctrine’ which declared as enemies all terrorist organizations and countries which harbor them. To conduct this ‘war on terror’ President Bush put together a 30 nation U.S.- British led coalition.
  • In the process of conducting the war on terror, President Bush has deposed two oppressive regimes and replaced them with pro-American democracies in a part of the world where we need them most, the Middle East.
  • The attacks on 9/11 severely damaged our financial system. Al Qaeda intended to cripple it and might have been successful if it were not for the great optimism that George Bush communicated to the entire financial community. The financial chaos that Al Qaeda had intended to create never happened. Additionally, the President’s economic recovery policy not only helped us to recover economically within a year of the attack, but has spurred an economic boom that lasted five years. The down side was that in 2006 the American people grew weary of hearing the term ‘all time high’ in connection with the stock market.
  • President Bush nominated and successfully received Senate confirmation of two ‘originalist’ justices to the Supreme Court of the United States. This stands out as a major accomplishment when one considers the fact that the majority of Bush’s lower court nominees have been waiting most of his presidency to receive an up or down vote from the Senate.
  • The Bush Presidency has been such a huge success that even Liberals regard him with a certain amount of reverence. I have spoken to Liberals who say to me that George Bush knew about the attacks on 9/11 before the fact. When I ask them why they think that, they respond; “He’s the President”. This response clearly indicates that they believe George W. Bush to be omniscient, a trait heretofore ascribed only to God!

Now, I could have addressed Speaker Pelosi’s comments by pointing out the failures of Congress under her leadership. I have not done that. In fact I intend now to address the accomplishments of Speaker Pelosi.

  • First, Speaker Pelosi’s leadership has given new meaning to the term ‘do nothing Congress’. So far this year the 110th Congress has passed only four pieces of legislation. Now, admittedly most Americans would think of this as a negative, but as a conservative, I can’t help but be very pleased when a liberal dominated Congress does nothing.
  • Second, Ms. Pelosi and her cohorts, in the process of trying to drive President Bush’s job approval numbers down, have managed to drive the approval numbers for Congress even lower. Now, again, some would view this as a negative and I don’t believe that to be fair. The Democrats set out to shake the confidence of Americans in their government and since the numbers have fallen dramatically across the board, there is no doubt that it was a successful endeavor.

In the interview, Speaker Pelosi also said regarding President Bush, "God bless him". To that I wholeheartedly agree. God bless George W. Bush. God Bless everything that he has tried to do, successful or not. And, God bless our service men and women who have put their personal lives on hold and dedicated themselves to accomplishing the task the President has given them.

Thursday, July 17, 2008

Impeachment is D.O.A.

On July 11th, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hinted that the House Judiciary Committee may take up Dennis Kucinich's articles of impeachment against George W. Bush. House Republicans have been looking forward to having the debate on impeachment since Kucinich first introduced them in a four hour tirade on the House floor. A quick review of the 35 articles reveals them as a collection of accusations supported by subjective opinion rather than objective facts.

But, as much as confident Republicans and Bush-hating Democrats would love to have the Committee take up impeachment proceedings, it is not going to happen. On July 15, the House voted 238-180 to dispense with the notion of moving forward on impeachment. In it's place, Democrats are planning an election year 'dog and pony show' consisting of hearings on the question of Bush's reasons for going to war in Iraq. These hearings, possibly televised, will likely trot out scholars ( like Cindy Sheehan), experts ( like Rosie O'Donnell), and other administration critics ( basically, the other usual suspects) to testify at will as to President Bush's abuse of power.

I am sure that the American people will view these hearings as critically important as they shell out thousands of dollars to fill their heating oil tanks just before the elections. In recent years , with so many Republicans bowing out of the fight, I am forced to rely on the stupidity of Democrats. It has already been one of the most interesting and entertaining election season that I have witnessed, and it holds out the promise of getting even better.

Saturday, July 12, 2008

Tony Snow 1955-2008

It is with a heavy heart that I report that former White House press secretary Tony Snow lost his battle with colon cancer and passed this morning at 2am. He was 53. The President Bush said in a statement from Camp David, "America has lost a devoted public servant and a man of character. It was a joy to watch Tony at the podium each day. He brought wit, grace, and a great love of country to his work." Tony had served as President Bush's press secretary for 17 months.

Tony Snow was the first host of Fox News Sunday and was always on Rush Limbaugh's short list as a replacement host. Tony was and able defender of both the principles of conservatism and the President's policies. He was a great American and he will greatly missed. My thoughts and prayers are with his family and friends.

Wednesday, July 9, 2008

Bradley-Obama 2008

In 1982 Los Angeles mayor Tom Bradley seemed certain to become the first black governor of California. Pre-election polling gave Bradley a double digit lead over his white opponent, George Deukmejian. Bradley lost.

Several high profile races since 1982 in which a black candidate has run against a white opponent have followed the same pattern. This phenomenon has been dubbed the Bradley Effect, and the possibility of it being a factor in the polling of likely voters in the current presidential race has pollsters frantically trying to come up with a way to negate it.

It has already reared its ugly head in the primary race between Obama and Clinton. Hillary Clinton won the New Hampshire primary despite exit polls indicating a sizable lead for Barrack Obama. Currently, the polls show Obama leading McCain by 5.2. If there is a possibility that the Bradley Effect is a factor in the polls, a 5.2 lead is no lead at all.

Sunday, July 6, 2008

Obama's Patriotism

On Monday, June 30th, Barrack Obama gave a speech in Independence, Missouri. In this speech Obama said, "I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign, and I will not stand idly by when I hear others question mine." This line has gotten a lot of media coverage. However there are other statments by Obama in this speech which should have gotten more coverage.

There is this,

"I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, I listened to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.' "

What Obama had quoted is actually the first few lines of paragraph two of the Declaration of Independence. The first few lines of the Declaration begins, "When in the course of human events it become necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another,..."

Again, from Obama's speech,

"As we begin our fourth century as a nation, it is easy to take the extraordinary nature of America for granted."

Excuse me! Our forth century as a nation? The Constitution of the United States was ratified in 1789, which means that we have barely begun our third century, not our forth. Add this to the fact that Mr. Obama believes that we have 57 states in our union by virtue of the fact that he has visited them all, and one wonders how well he might do on the popular game show, "Are you smarter than a 5th grader".

These gaffs do not add up to a question of his patriotism as much as his ignorance. Patriotism is a difficult concept to define comprehensively. Many people define it very differently. The best definition which I have heard comes from Samuel Clemens, "Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it." I believe this definition is one to which our nations founders whould have subscribed.Mr. Obama's political history as a socialist leads me to believe that his administration would be one which I could not support. It is on this basis that I question Mr. Obama's patriotism.

Friday, July 4, 2008

Obama is 'Dr No!'

A new McCain campaign ad dubs Obama as Dr No, complete with James Bond theme music.

With respect to energy independence, the 'yes we can' candidate is rapidly becoming the 'no we can't' candidate. This will add up to a big 'yes we can' for the GOP. Recent polls show that Americans overwhelmingly support U.S. energy independence. On this our nation's Independence Day we need to begin a revolution which will result in energy independence for us now and secure a prosperous future for all Americans. We have plenty of oil in this country that we are not being allowed to utilize. In addition, the U.S. is the Saudi Arabia of coal. Adolf Hitler conquered territory larger that the continental U.S. without a single oil well. He did it through the gasification of coal. Vehicles which burn gas derived from coal yield fewer tail pipe emissions which will lead to better air quality. Coal gasification can also be used to reclaim decades of coal waste.

Barrack Obama opposes new drilling, coal gasification, nuclear energy, new refineries, and the extraction of oil from oil shale. In fact, the only thing that Obama has said that he is in favor of, is raising gasoline taxes to encourage conservation. Barrack Obama is Dr. No and America needs to say no to Barrack Obama.

Thursday, June 26, 2008

Move On.Org Ad Gets Parodied

Move on.org is one of the most offensive left wing websites on the net. They are notorious for running generally offensive, always un-American ads. The most recent one to get a great deal of media attention was the 'baby Alex' ad.

This ad, directed at John McCain, failed to mention that Mr. McCain was speaking simply of a lengthy military presence much the same as has been seen in Japan and Europe after WWII. Also, it ignores the fact that the US military is an all volunteer force.

Now, a patriotic American has created a parody of this ad which addresses a real threat to the American people posed by an Obama presidency.

Amen to that. Viva la free speech!!!

Monday, June 23, 2008

Obama Copies Presidential Seal

The Obama campaign debuted a new emblem on Friday at a round table discussion with Democratic governors. The symbol, as anyone should notice, bears a strikingly similar appearance to the Presidential Seal. Amid a firestorm of criticism over the blatant mutilation of the one of America's revered symbols, the Obama campains has wisely chosen to drop the logo.

A spokesman for the Obama campaign told The Atlantic.com that the campaign decided to stop using the logo because it did not want to give the press a reason to label Obama as arrogant. I am sure they meant 'another' reason to label him as arrogant. The fact that Obama is arrogant is well established. What really bothers me about this logo is not that it is an arrogant attempt by Obama to symbolically lay claim to an office that he has not yet won, but that is shows a great disrespect for that office.

One more point about this logo. It may be crime. According to Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 33, Sec. 713 of the U.S. Code, it is a crime to use the likeness of, or any facsimile of the Presidential Seal. If Obama is trying to 'seal' the election deal, perhaps he should rethink his energy policy rather than engaging in arrogant, disrespectful, and criminal stunts.

Wednesday, June 11, 2008

Obama: The Socialist Connections

I have been thinking about old 1960s songs lately. Today's political climate seems to have a similar revolutionary feel to it. One song in particular seems to be playing over and over in my head, "For what it's worth" by Buffalo Springfield.

"There's something happening here. What it is ain't exactly clear."

There is most definitely something happening, and under the threat of being accused of 'McCarthyism', the mainstream media will not be spending much, if any, time clarifying exactly what it is. Under the cover afforded by the 'threat', Democrats are beginning to 'come out of the closet' and be more open about their true ideological connections. One of the most straightforward of these is Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, who openly admits to being a socialist and a member of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). The DSA is the largest socialist organization in America.

In the early 1990s House Democrats established the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC). ‘Progressive’, as any student of political history should know, is a form of socialism, and the CPC certainly has socialist ties. Up until 1999, the DSA hosted a website for the CPC. Of the 72 members of the CPC, 58 are also members of the DSA.

Howard Dean, the Democrat National Committee chairman, was honored at a dinner sponsored by the Chicago chapter of the DSA in 2000. In 2006, Dean spoke on the Global Challenges for Progressive Politics before the Party of European Socialists (PES). Additionally, PES President Poul Nyrup Rasmussen reported in 2007 that European Socialist had met with Democrat members of Congress in Washington. Some of these Democrats were Howard Dean, Bernie Sanders, and Ben Cardin. According to Rasmussen’s report, an agreement was made at this meeting that Democrats and PES activist groups in various US cities would begin to work together.

The man who would be President of these United States and the current standard bearer of the Democratic Party, Barack Hussein Obama has verifiable ties to socialists as well. Obama was influenced by socialist ideology from his childhood. Obama’s father, a Harvard-educated economics professor, wrote an academic paper in 1965 for the East Africa Journal entitled, Problems Facing Our Socialism. In it he expressed Marxist and anti-western ideals. In Barack Obama’s book, Dreams of my Father: a Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama wrote of the admiration he feels for the ideals of his father. He also mentions his boyhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis. Davis was a poet-activist who was also a member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Obama admits to having attended the annual Socialist Scholars Conferences at The Cooper Union in Manhattan while he was a student at Columbia University in the 1980s.

Beginning in 1995, (at least that is the earliest confirmable connection between Obama and the DSA), the Chicago chapter of the DSA began grooming, sponsoring, and in 1996, endorsed Obama for the 13th Illinois Senate district. In addition to the DSA endorsement, Obama actively sought and received the endorsement of the New Party (NP). The New Party is a Marxist ‘fusion’ group. The NP’s Chicago chapter includes a large contingent from the Committees of Correspondence, a Marxist coalition of Maoist, Trotskyist, and the Communist Party USA members. Also, in 1996, Obama was a panelist at New Ground 45: A Town Meeting on Economic Insecurity at the University of Chicago. These meetings were sponsored by the U of C DSA Youth Section and the Chicago DSA.

If Barack Obama’s connection to socialist organizations is insufficient to convince one that Obama is a socialist, there is the fact that he has socialists working for him inside his campaign. At his Houston HQ, a campaign worker displayed a Cuban flag with the image of radical icon and mass murderer Che Guevara printed on it. There are two socialists working on Obama’s staff. One is Cornel West, an african-american studies professor at Princeton University, who serves on the Obama presidential campaign’s black advisory council. West denounces America as racist and patriarchal and describes himself as a “progressive socialist”. The other is Cass Sunstein, a professor at University of Chicago’s Law School. In his book The Second Bill of Rights: FDR’s Unfinished Revolution and Why We Need it More Than Ever, Sunstein argues that the government should grant rights to citizens on a discretionary basis.

And then there is William Ayers. In the early 1970s Ayers was a leader in the Marxist terror group ‘The Weather Underground’. Ayers, along with his current wife Bernadine Dohrn bombed the Pentagon, the Capital Building, and the NYPD HQ. In a New York Times interview which was published on Sept. 11, 2001, Ayers is quoted as saying, “I don’t regret setting bombs,….I feel we didn’t do enough.” When asked if he would do it again, Ayers said, “I don’t discount the possibility.”

In 1995 Ayers and Dohrn hosted a fundraising event in their home for Obama’s Illinois Senate run. Obama and Ayers have also worked together on various community organizing projects in Chicago. They have an ongoing relationship which David Axelrod, Obama’s chief campaign strategist, describes as “certainly friendly.”
While Barack Obama does not claim to be a socialist and his supporters are laboring diligently to deny that he is a socialist, it is difficult to believe that he has been ideologically unaffected by the groups and individuals that he has associated himself with. A man is known by the company he keeps.

Sunday, June 1, 2008

No Need to Lie About Liberals

Last week, someone handed me a hard copy of an e-mail that they received which reads as follows:

"Hot on the heels of his explanation for why he no longer wears a flag pin, presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama was forced to explain why he doesn’t follow protocol when the National Anthem is played.
According to the United States Code, Title 36, Chapter 10, Sec. 171, During rendition of the national anthem when the flag is displayed, all present except those in uniform are expected to stand at attention facing the flag with the right hand over the heart.
‘As I’ve said about the flag pin, I don’t want to be perceived as taking sides,’ Obama said. ‘There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression. And the anthem itself conveys a war-like message. You know, the bombs bursting in air and all. It should be swapped for something less parochial and less bellicose. I like the song ‘I’d Like to Teach the World to Sing.’ If that were our anthem, then I might salute it.’
Is this the person we want for President? One who will not even respect our National Anthem and is more worried about the feelings of other countries then what our country stands for. I think it is time to send him to those other countries he seems to love so much. And please take your wife who has not ever been proud of this country before."

End transcript.

I am typically dubious of e-mail circulations, so I investigated the claims presented in this particular e-mail. It did not take me long to determine that the claims were completely false. All but the last paragraph were lifted from a piece written by John Semmens which he calls "Simi-News" at The Arizona Conservative. "Simi-News" is not intended to be taken seriously, it is satire.

This is not the first politically conservative e-mail that I have seen that was considerably less than factual. So, I am beginning to wonder why it is that conservatives feel the need to lie about liberals. Conservatives occupy the moral high ground. Why give any of it away by lying about political opponents. It is not necessary. Liberal positions are so weak that many of them practically refute themselves. If conservatives feel that they are losing the debate, then they need to reinforce their argument. Let the libs do the lying.

Monday, May 26, 2008

Liberal Tyranny

The original intent of the liberal ideology of 'political correctness' was to curtail speech and actions which might offend someone. Through it, the left has been able to declare that particular ideas, expressions of speech, and behavior, which are legal, should be forbidden. While most, so called, 'politically incorrect' speech and behavior are unwritten prohibitions, some have been written into law in many jurisdictions; i.e., hate speech statutes. Today, 'political correctness' has grown far beyond its original design. PC is the rule of law on the vast majority of university and college campuses in the U.S. where it is being used to marginalize conservative ideology and activities.

In a free society the people have a right to speak and to write freely. They also have the right to support the advocates of ideas and policies which best represent their interests with their time and their money. Tyranny begins with the suspension of these basic human rights.

In 1949, the FCC adopted a general policy to ensure that all coverage of controversial issues was fair and balanced. This policy was interpreted by many to require station owners and operators give persons with opposing viewpoints equal time to air those viewpoints, usually free of charge. Because broadcast stations were not disposed to giving away air time and were also not to fond of having the FCC breathing down their necks, the 'fairness doctrine', as it came to be known, had the effect of limiting free speech.

Since the FCC was an agency of a Democratic party controlled government, broadcasters soon learned that avoiding government scrutiny was simply a matter of avoiding the airing of conservative Republican opinions. Conservatives found themselves in a crippling situation. Broadcasters were unwilling to give them a forum and the vast majority of publishers were liberal. Free speech effectively suspended! That is, until the 'fairness doctrine' was abandoned during the deregulation of the Reagan administration.

When Rush Limbaugh exploded onto the airwaves in the late eighties, broadcasters all over the country realized that there was a huge market for conservative talkers. Today, there are enough conservative talkers in so many markets, that one can literally listen to conservative talk all day long, even while traveling. Additionally, the popularity of conservative talk has opened up many other opportunities for conservatives to get their message out.

Liberals are in a panic. They desperately need to stop all this unwanted free exchange of ideas. 'Political correctness' works well to suppress free speech in the microcosm of a university campus, but it can hardly be applied to the same extent to the whole of a free society. Liberal Democrats in Congress are currently trying to reinstate the 'fairness doctrine', as well as using 'campaign finance' law to again suppress free speech.

Fortunately, I believe that that horse has been too long out of the barn. Conservative authors are turning out a great number of best selling books each year. Conservative bloggers are confounding the efforts of the left wing media to misrepresent the facts. Newspapers lose subscribers when they publish blatant left wing opinions. Fox News Channel is now the #1 cable news network, and it already has an arguably fair and balanced format. And, worst of all, at least as far as the left is concerned, conservative students have begun to organize to fight the PC system on our nations campuses.

The monopoly that the left has held over public discourse is diminishing, and they are understandably frustrated. They know, or ought to know from their experience trying to compete with conservatives on talk radio, that in a 'real' fair and balanced atmosphere, their ideas will not prevail. They have no choice but to return to their radical revolutionary roots. In fact, they have already begun. Conservative speakers have been attacked during their lectures by left wing radicals at universities across the U.S. Bill Kristol, Ann Coulter, David Horowitz, and Pat Buchanan are a few of those who have been attacked with a pie in the face or doused with salad dressing.

It is the beginning of what will eventually become a campaign of domestic terror, the purpose of which is to intimidate Americans into allowing a return to the tyranny of the past. However, the movement at present is to small. The radicals need an issue, a catalyst which they can use to recruit thousands of young idealist across America. They may have just what they are looking for very soon. Should Barack Obama fail to be elected President of the United States, the radicals will have the catalyst they are looking for. In fact, I would be willing to bet that they are counting on it.

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Peace With Honor?

The fact that the Democratic Party is fully vested an American defeat in Iraq should come as no surprise to anyone who is a student of American history. The Democrats have a long and dishonorable history of capitulation to the enemies of America and its' allies, and a serious distaste for victory in military conflicts.

President Franklin D. Roosevelt sold millions of people in eastern Europe into communist bondage at the Yalta Conference. On Roosevelts' watch, the Soviets took eastern Poland, Moldavia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Albania. Between 12 and 20 million Europeans were murdered and at least 10 million were sent to slave labor camps.

Under President Truman the Soviets took the rest of Poland, Bulgaria, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia, East Germany, Romania and North Korea. Truman abandoned our ally, Chiang Kai-Shek and supported Mao Zedong. Truman believed that Mao Zedong was an "agrarian reformer". This "agrarian reformer" murdered between 34 and 65 million Chinese.

President Truman fired General Douglas MacArthur over differences on how to conduct the war in South Korea. General MacArthur wanted to win it. Truman's precedent setting policy of non-victory was continued by Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. At a point when America could easily have had a victory in the Vietnam conflict, President Kennedy refused to order an invasion of the north. President Johnson escalated the ground war in Vietnam and refused to bomb the North Vietnamese, preferring instead, to have thousands of American soldiers come home in body bags.

When Republican President Richard Nixon brought the communist to their knees with continuous bombings in the north, a truce was finally negotiated in 1973 at the Paris Peace Accords. However, the Democrats were determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. The Democratic congress took full advantage of the watergate scandal and refused to allow Nixon the wherewithal to enforce the truce. Not surprisingly, the North Vietnamese invaded the South. The Democratic congress continued their policy of abandoning South Vietnam into the Ford administration, and in late 1975, South Vietnam fell to the communists. As a result, 2.5 million innocent people in Indo-China were murdered. The Democrats have long referred to this abandonment of our ally as "peace with honor".

President Carter abandoned our pro-American ally, the Shah of Iran and allowed the Ayatollah Khomeini to take power in Iran. The Ayatollah repaid Carter by allowing a mob of Islamic students to seize 52 Americans and hold them hostage for 444 days, releasing them on the very day on which Ronald Reagan was inaugurated as President. It would seem that the tender ministrations of Democrats only work when a Republican is elected who has threatened to bomb them.

During the Clinton administration there where numerous terror attacks on Americans and U.S. Forces both at home and abroad. Clinton did nothing in response. In addition, Saddam Hussein was thumbing his nose at the United Nations and Clinton gave only lip service to taking action until the day before he was to be impeached by the Congress. Then he ordered air strikes in Iraq. Saddam was undeterred. President Clinton continued the Democratic Party's tradition of capitulation when he coaxed Israel into offering the PLO everything they wanted in the way of concessions, save one; the destruction of Israel. The talks failed.

Since the Iraq war began, the Democrats have been trying to sabotage the effort. Even though they saw the same intelligence reports that the President saw, and, on the basis of that intel, voted in favor of the operation, they insist that the President deceived to them. They have mis-categorized the war in every conceivably heinous way imaginable. They have falsely accused our troops of atrocities. They have insisted we are bogged down, in a quagmire, and that we cannot win. They draw repeated comparisons to the war in Vietnam. An apt comparison indeed. Just as in Vietnam, the Democrats are determined to achieve an American defeat in Iraq and abandon yet another ally. If they are successful, they will no doubt call it 'peace with honor'. There is nothing, whatsoever, honorable about it!

Saturday, May 3, 2008

The Myth of Bipartisanship

I recently saw a poll online which showed that nearly ninety percent of Americans want the two major parties to work together in a bipartisan way to solve problems in America. I was really surprised by that number. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans do not understand how widely divided the two major parties are ideologically. Probably the only issue in the past year that Republicans and Democrats could agree on is that Michael Vick is a really bad person for running a dog fighting ring and being party to the death of a few dogs.

Americans need to come to an understanding of the fact that for the last fifty years there has been an ideological civil war going on in this country. The battle ground of this war has been the hearts and minds of the American people. There is a 'right' and a 'left', a 'conservative' and a 'liberal', a 'capitalist' and a 'socialist' viewpoint for every single issue, and, they are as far apart as they can be. Bipartisanship can only maintain the status quo. It isn't as if the two parties are trying to get to the same place and are just in a disagreement on how to get there. They are trying to go in opposite directions. Republicans want less government and Democrats want more. Republicans believe in a uninhibited free market economy and Democrats want more government control bordering on socialism. Republicans believe that Americans know better how to spend their own money and Democrats think that the government would do a better job. Republicans believe in supporting America's interests abroad and Democrats seem to be more interested in supporting the interests of our enemies.
Where is the common ground?

In this election season there has been a lot of clamor about change. Americans want change and are sick and tired of the status quo. If Americans want change they need to join the fray. They must stop sitting on the fence. They are going to have to examine the ideologies of both parties and pick a side. "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke. It is time to choose!