SoHoS has a post that casts this all in a very easy to understand light. Go read it. Shoo.
Friday, October 31, 2008
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
Regrettably, we have met. Your barely contained enthusiasm for THE ONE™ is as undeniable as it is unexplainable. Emotion and a belief in vague and hollow promises for things like CHANGE! and HOPE! have propelled a man who believes that he is a messianic figure to the top of the Democratic Party's ticket and reveal just how much you failed to learn in your civics/government classes in high school. Most of you have been sold a bill of goods, and cannot or will not see the mistake you have made. I fear that revelation will not come until you have gotten us all into a fine mess.
I know. You have your reasons, all of which are important to you and motivated you to cast your support to a man who wants to radically alter this country into a nation that our founding fathers would be incapable of recognizing. You see him as the fulcrum to affect those things which have elicited your pledge. You might be right, but if he's elected, you might get what you hoped for, and that will bring results that you neither want nor expect.
For some of you, the war is your issue, and THE ONE™'s statements assure you that the "unwinnable" war will be brought to a close. If you are easily offended, stop reading now, because I'm going to tell you things you are not going to like reading.
To the aging hippies seeking that one last "Hurrah!": You didn't change the world. You wrapped yourself in cowardice, and pushed for a change in policy to prevent you from paying for the liberty that kept you safe and brought you through your adolescence. Your actions brought the change that got numerous people on the other side of the world killed because they took us at our word and trusted us, but you couldn't see past the ends of your own noses long enough to understand that the world isn't about you, and that being right, and standing up for what is good and right requires real sacrifice. You reveled in your "accomplishments" and spit on those who answered when their country called, denying them the honor they earned and so richly deserved. You aren't heroes and the blood of too many people who sought their freedom with our assistance stains your hands. Sleep well. I have it on good authority that cowards serve an eternal watch without respite in the outlands of Hell.
To the dreamers who believe that violence never solves anything: You get to cling to this childish belief because of violent men doing violence to protect this country and its people from those who want us dead simply because of who we are. Your beliefs are yours to hold because of the freedom that these brave realists shed their blood to preserve.
To those who believe that we have engaged in an illegal/unjust war: War is diplomacy by other means. The UN itself passed numerous resolutions in the wake of Desert Storm, all of which were ignored by Iraq, which was paying a bounty to the families of suicide bombers and providing a safe haven for some of the most villainous terrorists on the planet. You can scream about Bush! Cheney! Haliburton! all you want at the top of your lungs. When the rest of the world talks about doing something, it falls on us to actually DO something. The UN was never actually going authorize real action. The kleptocrats of that august body were making too much money from the Oil for Food scam to actually stop Sadam's gravy train. The fact is, we have done yeoman's work in Iraq, the country enjoys a level of freedom today that it has never enjoyed before, and their people are willing to do their own fighting to keep it that way. Another inconvenient fact is that by fighting terrorists there, we have not had to fight them here. Whine all you want. There has not been another attack since 9/11, and taking the fight to the terrorists has had EVERYTHING to do with that.
To those who want to adorn themselves in sackcloth and ashes because of Bush and the war: Get over it, and get over yourselves. Fighting terrorists is not like fighting a conventional army, because although they may receive support from states, they are essentially stateless. Such a battle takes a long time, even under confined conditions. Your childish whining and stomping your feet over the actions of a man who has labored to keep this nation, and you, safe, doesn't make you brave or intelligent. It merely makes you appear to be the worst kind of ingrate, and it makes me embarrassed to call you my fellow countrymen. If you cannot bring yourselves to say the appropriate thank-yous, then at least do the rest of us the courtesy of shutting up, because we're tired of the childish derangement you continually exhibit.
For some of you, race is the issue. While I do not agree, I can at least understand. However, voting for race in this campaign may set race relations back a great deal, rather than achieving a pinnacle in the Black Experience in America. For white people who have this feeling that they are somehow responsible for slavery and subsequent injustices, I assure you, you are not. The last 40 years brought an end to Jim Crow, segregation, and inequality of opportunity. Good people, black and white, sacrificed, and in some cases, died to bring these promises to fruition. Not only was opportunity opened to all, remediation was imposed in education, admission to colleges and universities, and the job market in the form of lowered standards, quotas, and affirmative action, and today's trendy belief, diversity. Add these to the blood shed in the Civil War, and the debt is paid. Guilt is not a good reason to make a decision, because you end up making the decision for the sole reason to assuage that guilt, oblivious to other facts or information that would inform you that choosing that person would be a bad choice. If your guilt prevents you from being honest with yourself when you ask "If everything about him was the same except he was white, would I still vote for him?", then you are not thinking clearly.
To those who would vote for him because they too, are black:
Time for some hard truths here. The years since the Civil Rights Movement have not seen all the promise that everyone might have hoped. The good news is that this can be fixed. The bad news is that you have to decide to step up and claim your birthright as an AMERICAN, and reject your victim rights as African-Americans. The doors were opened to you, but by and large, you decided to continue to select leaders who put their best interests first, and their lip service to your needs as the bones they will toss to you. Many of you chose the slavery of the attitude that the government owes this or that, and when members of your own community step outside of that mindset and build success, and then tell you that you can do the same, you berate them and belittle them as sellouts, or call them "Uncle Tom's". The real pioneers of the civil rights movement, the ones who shed blood to give you the chance would be horrified at how you rejected the hand up for the hand out, and chose on your own to re-segregate yourselves at various levels of society. Voting for him because primarily he is one of you spits in the eye of Dr. King's dream of men being judged by the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. Why do I attack his character? Because he has demonstrated time and again that he does not have any. He has friends of dubious character. Because he has a preacher who has preached racial hatred for more than 20 years. Because he has been the candidate talking about race, and using it to make himself out as the victim in this campaign. Do you want a leader, someone who represents you, to be someone who claims to be a victim, or someone who decided to overcome history and succeed in spite of it? What does that choice say about you? If doing it because he is black is your standard, then you validate the racist aspect of the nation's past, and it will never be washed from Liberty's Garments. You will have failed those who fought for the promises of this nation to be extended for all citizens, and more importantly, and sadly, you will have failed yourselves. History has been made by this election, and I have every confidence that we will someday elect an African-American President. I think we all deserve to have one that we can all be proud of and look to as a great leader. This first-term Senator who's greatest accomplishments are writing two memoirs is not that man.
To the ones who believe that Obama and a Democratic Congress will fix the economy:
The evidence is there for the finding. You just have to look carefully. Fannie Mae? Freddie Mac? These two entities mushroomed because the Democrats under Clinton thought that it would be a wonderful thing if people who could not afford homes got to buy them anyway, because Fannie and Freddie would be there to back the loans. Only thing is, WE THE PEOPLE backed Fannie and Freddie. While companies like Countrywide got to originate these loans and pocket the exorbitant fees that went with them, the taxpayers were left holding the bag when the music stopped. For the last eight years, Bush and McCain both made multiple attempts to call this impending disaster to the attention of Congress so that the bomb could be defused before it went off. Democrats, like Senator Obama, blocked any attempts at reform. Why? Because there was still money to be made. The former head of one of those agencies, Franklin Raines, walked away with tens of millions of dollars...for sticking US with the bill. This same man is one of Obama's campaign advisers.
Other prominent Democrats also bailed out of these entities before the crash, but not before they received compensation packages in the Millions of dollars. And the Senator himself? He was the second largest beneficiary of Fannie/Freddie campaign dollars in the Senate...in his first term. This man has proposed a ruinous tax plan that will punish success, discourage small businesses from hiring more employees, and will cost this country jobs and opportunities. He has proposed that by mandating certain technologies, he will create jobs, but this is an unsuccessful strategy whenever it has been tried. He proposes measures that will strengthen unions and impose tariffs. These measures succeed in stripping working Americans of more of their pay and opportunities, while robbing workers and businesses of the incentives to be innovative and productive. He has advocated for redistribution of wealth, under the guise of social and economic justice. This will simply remove any incentive for producers to produce if they cannot be the beneficiaries of their labor. Equality as enforced by the state kills merit and ambition, and robs us all of the benefits that they bring.
To those of you who are seeking something to believe in, or a government to give you things: Grow up. Really. I mean that. If your life is so empty that you need to have a politician to believe in, then you need to work on yourself, because something is sorely lacking in you. Politicians, and especially Obama are not to be trusted. They will whisper pretty words in your ear, and tell you all the things they will do for you, in order to get your vote. They will make you slaves for that all-important vote. If you think that the government's purpose is to provide you with things, then you too, have a problem, because you get what you pay for.
You want guaranteed employment? Move to Europe. See how that works for them. You want government health care? Be ready for rationing and poor quality of care. Don't listen to what the man with the teleprompter tells you. It will be rationed. It will have to be, because if a cost benefit analysis is not applied, then there simply will not be enough to go around.
What it comes down to is this. Obama believes that you can't. You can't be successful without his help. You can't overcome bad things in your life without his help. You can't provide for your families without his help. You can't be trusted to make your own decisions without his help. This is not what America is about. If everything is handed to you, then you value nothing, and only want more to be given to you. America is about the freedom to decide what you will do, about how you will do it, about who you choose to help out with your money and your time, about how you will live. America is about choosing how to live your life without state interference. Obama believes you can't be trusted to make your own choices, and that government can spend your money better than you can.
Stand up next Tuesday and cast a vote for your own choices. You can choose to continue to choose, or you can choose to surrender all rights and responsibilities and settle for what the government chooses to give to you. It really shouldn't be a difficult decision.
More transcript from that 2001 interview with Barack Hussein Obama:
The court’s just not very good at it and politically it’s very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard. So I think that although you can craft theoretical justifications for it legally. Any three of us sitting here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.
He can think of a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts???
Still think he isn't a Socialist? There is nothing in the Constitution, its Amendments, or interpretive caselaw that would justify a ruling encompassing "economic change" as BHO envisions in this interview.
As I pondered this on the drive in, along with his slip in front of Joe The Plumber, his past association with radicals, and his wanton interference with the last elections in Kenya, which contributed to many deaths there as a result of tribal violence, a thought occurred to me. Zimbabwe.
In 2000, Robert Mugabe, the country's only leader since independence embarked on a program to redistribute the wealth of his nation, that wealth being the farm land that helped Zimbabwe actually produce enough food to feed its people and contributed to a functioning economy. However, it was seen as necessary to promote "social and economic justice" to redistribute this once productive farmland from the largely white land owners to black citizens who lacked the requisite knowledge, equipment, and resources to maintain the farms as successful going concerns, especially since many of them were more interested in furthering their own social justice programs, which included rape and murder of many former white land owners. Criticism of Mugabe's administration has adverse consequences for those who dare oppose him, especially after the 2002 elections which he rigged in his favor. Opposition voices are silenced, and violence against those who do not favor his rule is widely sanctioned. His policies have been ruinous for a nation that was once considered one of Africa's successes, and strangely enough, it appears that some parallels could be drawn with the vision for this nation that Obama has shared, and his past activities in African politics. I'd like to think that I'm wrong, but frankly, anyone who thinks that he can justify court mandated wealth redistribution under the Constitution as written, and has been caught lying as many times as he has, and continues to arrogantly refuse to acknowledge that he has done so, and to "punish" any journalist who even dares to ask a "difficult" question is capable of many unthinkable things, and we have people in this nation who are willing to empower him to do more. I see some scary things ahead.
Monday, October 27, 2008
From a radio interview with the 'community organizer':
“If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Team Obama is, predictably, using the "it has been taken out of context" canard. The problem with this lame justification is that I can think of no context where such words would be appropriate for someone running for President of the United States of America. If you can think of one, please feel free to let me know.
Sunday, October 26, 2008
The media has kicked fully into spin cycle., doing their level best for their candidate, Barack Hussein Obama. The days till the election are almost gone. The pollsters are calling two and three times a day with their obviously slanted questions. And they all hope that the American People have forgotten The Secret™. What's that, you ask? Wow, you must be a journalist. I guess I'll have to tell you. No amount of pictures drawn in crayon will help you get it otherwise. The Secret™? Character and judgment matter.
"So what?" you ask. "Americans know this" is my answer. When properly informed, everyone in this country can make a smart choice. And despite the best efforts of the press in this particular election, people still have more than enough evidence of both candidates' character and judgment before them to come to the conclusion that Barack Obama sufficiently lacks both to be a reasonable choice for President.
In the article fisked below, Jonathan Alter makes the accusation that the Republican party has become "the party of cynicism." In so doing, he adopts the first part of the Democratic playbook for this election: Projection. Their chosen candidate sat in the same church with a "Hate Whitey" pastor preaching this message for twenty years, doing his part to retain victimhood and the bondage that goes with it instead of rising above it. When exposed, we got an idiotic rationalization and a trusted figure in his life for over 20 years got flung under the bus. The message: You know that associations matter, but I think you're stupid enough to believe a silly excuse and the sacrifice of someone who had been an important figure in my life for over 20 years. The real meaning: I think you're stupid enough to believe my outlandish reassurances, and I do not have the courage to openly be who I actually am in public. And the press, seeing that Obama's pastor was a problem, decided to play moral equivalence and attack prominent pastors who had endorsed John McCain. It wasn't the same, but the press has never been above implying what it could not prove, as long as the message was served.
The lack of the two necessary traits became painfully obvious again when the question of William Ayers came up. Ayers, a member of the Weather Underground, participated in a series of bombing across the country with the intent of bringing down the US government and replacing it with a marxist-hippiocracy that would stick it to "the Man", and imprison and kill those who did not conform to their "new" way of thinking about America. Ayers escaped prosecution, has admitted to his guilt, and has publicly regretted not doing more. Obama's spin on this association would be entertaining if it was not so telling. As the inconvenient facts keeps sprouting up like daisies, Obama continued to change his story on the campaign trail while brazenly lying about it in the last debate with McCain. Ayers was a guy in his neighborhood. Then, they served on a board together. But they also shared an office...for three years. They served on two boards together. Obama, his protests to the contrary in the last debate, kicked off his political career in Ayers' living room. Obama wrote a blurb for Ayers' book. We know these things. They have been proven. And yet, he refuses to own up to these things, preferring the lie, spoken reassuringly but firmly, in his ordering an arugula and lobster voice. This demonstrates bad judgment in choosing his friends, regardless of what he wants to call them, and it demonstrates an appalling lack of character to get caught in a lie, repeatedly, and only alter the lie to accommodate the finding, rather than the whole story.
But perhaps the most callous lies are those Obama has uttered with regard to his record on abortion. As an Illinois state senator, Obama did not just stake out a pro-life position, he actively advocated denying any health care to babies who survived their mothers' attempts to abort them. Think about that for a minute. He didn't just want women to be able to kill their kids as a method of birth control. He wanted make sure the ones who survived still died. This from the man who doesn't want his kids "punished with a baby if they make a mistake". These are people. These are citizens who are unable to speak for themselves, and if they somehow survive the attempt to kill them, he still wanted them dead. Is this the person you want making decisions that could influence your life? When he finally could not deny his position on the matter any longer, he elected to lie again, stating that he would not support a measure requiring that such children receive health care because "there was already a law requiring it". Except there wasn't, and even if there were, he elected to go on record as declining to vote for a law giving these children any such lifesaving treatment. No character at all.
On the campaign trail, candidates have so few opportunities to do anything that demonstrates their judgement. Perhaps the most illustrative event is when the candidate chooses their running mate. For Obama, it was a career politician with a history of saying mildly racist things and a track record of being wrong on very nearly every foreign policy matter he has offered an opinion on. A selection who had made remarks endorsing his opponent earlier in the campaign and who had referred to Obama himself as "Clean" and "articulate." A candidate who continues to say things on the trail that do not help his boss, and embarrasses anyone who is listening.
In contrast, John McCain chose a fresh young face, one with real executive experience, and a track record of conservatism, and challenging corruption,even when it was in her own party. The left and the press decided that they had to attack her on the issue of experience, despite the fact that Obama has none, other than the dubious "running for office" experience that they tried to transmute into serious credentials.
On McCain's credentials, they decided to imply that he was a disaster in the cockpit as a Navy pilot. An implication that did not find an audience. They tried to diminish his POW experience, one that left him crippled and broken to this day into a liability by saying that he aided the enemy with a bamboo confession, despite the fact that he turned down an early release, knowing others had been in captivity longer than he. They tried to turn his divorce upon his return from Vietnam into a character issue. This particular issue demonstrates they did get one thing right, but still fail to identify redemption of the same sort that they so desperately want to confer on William Ayers with their "It was 40 years ago" comments. McCain has remained married to the same woman since that time, and has expressed regret. Ayers has emphatically denied regret for his actions, instead regretting that he had not done more. As for the moral failing that the act symbolized, it was somewhat disconcerting to hear it from the same quarters defending Bill Clinton for getting blowjobs in the Oval Office from an intern while he was married. And then there is the allegation of racism. Obama himself raised this spectre himself, telling us that if we don't vote for him, the only possible explanation is racism. He is the one who trots out this straw man and makes him dance whenever anyone wants to have a discussion about facts. He can't do this with world leaders. They will not give him a pass, and they are delighted at the prospect of an America headed by someone with his bad judgement and poor character. Let's not give them the chance to roll him, and us, in the process.
BETWEEN THE LINES
Why McCain Won
Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory: how that scenario could (but likely won't) play out.
By Jonathan Alter | NEWSWEEK
Published Oct 25, 2008
From the magazine issue dated Nov 3, 2008
The conventional wisdom, which I share, is that Barack Obama will win this election, perhaps by a healthy margin. But Democrats are nervous wrecks; they're having nightmares that defeat will be snatched from the jaws of victory. To add to their misery (and guard against complacency), here's how that horror film could play out:
Of course, having done everything you could to get us to this result, including joining with campaign in a cabal dedicated NOT to report or to minimize any accidental reporting of stories that might not go away, including the candidate's scary and crazy friends, and all the votes that they paid ACORN work long and hard to register for them.
In the end, the problem was the LIVs. That's short for "low-information voters,"
And yet again, it is time to insult the voters for not "seeing the light" and voting Obama.
the three fifths of the electorate that shows up once every four years to vote for president but mostly hates politics. These are the 75 million folks who didn't vote in the primaries. They don't read newsmagazines or newspapers, don't watch any cable news and don't cast their ballots early. Their allegiance to a candidate is as easily shed as a T shirt. Several million moved to Obama through September and October; they'd heard he handled himself well in the debates. Then, in the last week, the LIVs swung back to the default choice: John McCain. Some had good reasons other than the color of Obama's skin to desert him; many more did not. In October, a study by the Associated Press estimated that Obama's race would cost him 6 percent. The percentage was smaller, but still enough to give the presidency to McCain.
I don't suppose that you might consider that all of Obama's wrapping himself in the cloak of racist victimhood could have been something of a self-fulfilling prophecy? Oh, yeah. I forgot, he is divine, but his failure is our fault. We dumb voters who have managed to elect persons of color who have character, and were pleased when the current President appointed other persona of color to his cabinet.
Obama's field organization was superb, so it was no surprise that most of the 18 million Hillary Clinton voters came home to the Democrats; the person-to-person voter contact (and significant resentment about the selection of Sarah Palin) made a big difference. But the huge swath of more than 30 million independents broke heavily for McCain. By piling up overwhelming margins in big blue states like California, New York and Illinois, Obama carried the popular vote, but he ended up like Al Gore in 2000—denied admission to the Electoral College.
More hating on Sarah. Listen Johnny, we know why you and the Democrats hate her so. She destroys the carefully cultivated perception that we have to have a "ruling class" which has trained their entire life to lead us. She is beautiful, has a family, and is pro-life. If the ruling class isn't a necessity, then maybe the Fourth Estate is no longer a necessity either, and with that responsibility goes great power. We get it. She threatens you and your friends. We like her anyway, and when she finds others like herself, you are really going to be upset. As for the Independents, I'm hoping that they can see through the fog of bullshit surrounding Obama and vote the way you fear.
The first ominous sign was largely missed amid the Democratic euphoria after Obama outclassed McCain on the financial crisis. While most of the country moved toward the Democratic nominee in early October, Ohio did not. Obama could never close the sale there. In a repeat of the Democratic primary, his big totals coming out of Cuyahoga County (Cleveland) weren't enough to offset larger-than-expected losses in the suburbs around Cincinnati and Columbus.
Obama "outclassed" McCain on the financial crisis? How does "Call me if you need me" turn into outclassing anyone? As for Ohio, its funny you should mention it, with all the Democratic voting chicanery, and ACORN issues there, and all.
Florida had looked promising for Obama for a time, but his weakness among seniors caught up with him. One national poll from early October should have been a warning: it showed him up by 7 overall, but down 14 among those older than 65. And Sarah Silverman's "Great Schlep" fell short. Obama easily carried the Jewish vote, but not with the 75 percent won by Gore and John Kerry. As it turned out, the real problem wasn't south Florida, where Hispanics came in surprisingly well for Obama. It was erosion in the critical I-4 corridor near Tampa and in the Panhandle, where the astonishing Republican margins among whites could be attributed only to race.
I would be astonished at such a turnout among Florida Hispanics, since they are largely of Cuban extraction, and they hate Communists. That Joe the Plumber slip? Yeah, they saw it too, I'm sure. As for all of those whites voting for McCain because they're racists? I'm not buying it. There are lots of reasons not to vote for Obama, and lots of reasons to vote for McCain. The fact that they voted for the white candidate doesn't confer a racist motive on them.
Obama shifted New Mexico, Iowa and Nevada from red to blue. But there was a reason Virginia hadn't gone Democratic since 1964. The transformation of the northern part of the state couldn't overcome a huge McCain margin among whites farther south. They weren't the racists of their parents' generation, but they weren't quite ready to vote for the unthinkable, either.
Paging American Voters! Paging American Voters! An Obama surrogate has once again called you racist in order to get your vote!
As McCain closed the gap in the last week with his message on taxes and fear of another terrorist attack, the race came down to New Hampshire (which went for Kerry in 2004) and Colorado (which went for President Bush). Obama needed one of them to get to 270 electoral votes. New Hampshire's fabled independents had long had a soft spot for McCain in GOP primaries, and they delivered for him again. Colorado, after flirting with Obama, simply reverted to form, with Palin's frontier image helping a bit.
Yes, and it certainly is not legitimate to remind the American voters that they have absolutely no reason at all to trust Obama on either of these very important points. Perhaps you can stamp your feet and cry for us, too.
Obama had wired every college campus in the country, and he enjoyed great enthusiasm among politically engaged young people. But less-engaged students told reporters the day after the election that they had meant to vote for Obama but were "too busy." History held: young people once again voted in lower percentages than their elders. Waiting for them turned out to be like waiting for Godot.
You call them "politically engaged". I call them "politically naive". They are kind of like the new girls at the first frat party of the year...yes, you can seduce them easily, but if you don't stick with them, they will slide out of your bed.
The Obama margin among young voters was underestimated a little in some polls because so many 18- to 24-year-olds use only cell phones. But the deeper failure of the polling came from methodology that could not properly account for the nine in 10 voters who won't answer a polltaker's questions. With ceaseless robo-calls and as many as 15 live calls from campaigns to each household in a swing state, even fewer people than normal took time in the last two weeks to respond. Who were the voters slamming down the phone? Disproportionately for McCain. In rebuffing pollsters, they skewed the sample toward Obama, inflating his "support."
Of course, polling disproportionately larger numbers of "likely" Democratic voters in your polls to attempt to suppress Republican votes by making it seem that there was a huge public demand for THE ONE didn't help your cause, either.
At the start of the campaign season NEWSWEEK asked, "Is America Ready" for a black president? The answer: only if Obama proved close to a flawless candidate, and even then, we won't know for sure until Election Day. That doesn't mean Obama lost because all, or even most, McCain voters allowed race to be a factor. But enough did to change the outcome.
Complete and utter bullshit. Conservatives have, at their core of beliefs, the belief in merit. We seek excellence, believing, as did our founding fathers, that the political climate should foster excellence wherever it is found, and if we do that, then the entire nation is enriched. The only people that race truly is an issue for is the left, who are determined to place Obama in the Oval Office as some sort of atonement for the nation's past, ignoring the price paid in blood for that past in the Civil War. Race has been on the lips of the left and the press throughout this entire campaign. The gender equality so often trumpeted by the left was tossed out the window by the left when Sarah Palin was selected as McCain's running mate, and America knows that the campaign was far from perfect, for either side, despite the obvious and irritating bias for Obama that the Press has suffered throughout the campaign.
Democrats are despairing over the results, fearing they might never view their country in the same light again. Even many Republicans are subdued at the news of McCain's victory. Having expected him to lose, they know the GOP has now completed a sorry transition from the party of Lincoln to the party of cynicism. McCain, they're reasoning, might prove a fine president, but it shouldn't have happened like this.
The best thing about this paragraph? It demonstrates how easily you write about a party "afflicted with cynicism" over a "racist" victory over Barack the Devine, without having a single source to support you erroneous conclusion. Many conservatives were voting against Obama before the conventions, not because they are all a bunch of RACISTS!!!! like you so cleverly allege, but because they don't like his Friends, and his stated policies are contrary to everything that they believe is correct for this country. However, Sarah's selection changed that. Many conservatives are now voting FOR the old guy because we believe in her and what she stands for. There's no cynicism there. Its enthusiasm. And if your scenario comes true, it will be elation, knowing that you, ACORN, and Obama did your level best to subvert the process and you failed.
It probably won't. Millions of people in the rest of the world assume that Barack Obama cannot be elected because he is black. They assume that the original sin of American history—enshrined in our Constitution—cannot be transcended. I go into next week's election with a different assumption—that the common sense and decency of the American people will prove the skeptics wrong.
Johnny, when "the rest of the world" gets our tax burden, then they get a say in who leads us. Until then, I really do not care what they say. You might also want to consider all of those other nations that have shown their enlightenment by electing black leaders themselves. I myself remember the celebrations when Great Britain, France, Germany, Canada, Russia, Japan, and the other countries of the civilized world elected their first leaders who were "persons of color". No wait....I can't, because they haven't. You see, that's where this ridiculous train of thought will carry you if you care too much about what others think, and don't do enough thinking for yourself. But then, I can't expect much from you. You're only a journalist, after all.
Saturday, October 25, 2008
Friday, October 24, 2008
Keeping with his full court press (no pun intended), Berg has filed requesting Summary Judgment on the basis that Team Obama and the DNC did not timely respond to the Requests for Admission, so they are deemed admitted, and also requesting an expedited ruling.
Unfortunately, this is where I become somewhat less than admiring of Mr. Berg;s legal prowess, because, in this attorney's opinion, he "jumped the shark" in counts 20 and 21 of his Motion Requesting An Expedited Ruling On Plaintiff's Motion For Summary Judgment. Specifically:
20. If the Motion is not heard and decided immediately, there will not be any time left in order to replace Obama on the Presidential ballot with an eligible Democratic Presidential Candidate.
Why do I have a problem with this? Because many states have deadlines for placing candidates on ballots, and I'm fairly certain that this has already passed. I'd also wager that most states have already printed the ballots. While he makes a point, that ship has sailed.
21. If Obama is elected as President of the United States and allowed to serve as the United States President, we will have a Constitutional Crisis. If this is allowed, it will change the United States Constitution without proper due process of law. Plaintiff and all citizens of the United States will no longer be afforded the protections guaranteed by the United States Constitution.
Wow. Take a breath, Phil. This sounds like something St. Andi of the Hand Wringers at the Atlantic Monthly would write if he were not a true believer in the Hopey Changeyness One himself. I usually reserve panic words like "crisis" for scenarios where there is no clear method of dealing with what lies before us. As I discussed a few posts ago, it is largely a matter of timing. If Obama is elected, but not yet sworn in and the judge rules him to be ineligible, then the 20th Amendment comes into play, Biden is a temporary President until an eligible candidate can be elected. The details of the election? We don't have clear guidance, but the Supreme Court can likely establish reasonable guidelines for a new election. If he is found ineligible after being sworn in, then I believe the 25th Amendment outlines the process. I wouldn't call it a "Crisis", but then I'm not a centrist Democrat denied the opportunity to vote for Hillary. I guess context really is everything. Either way, there is no change to the Constitution, and the protections of the Constitution remain unmolested and unrestrained.
Again, I keep wondering why Judge Surrick has not issued a ruling on any of this, but a pleading containing the above-highlighted allegations damage his credibility in my eyes, and since there are some substantive motions before the Court, I do not think I would have taken it that far.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
I can see that this is gonna be fun. Kevin cannot help himself.
*sigh* I already have to wear the counselor hat all day long, but I just can't help myself. Kevin, if you keep letting stupid leak out through your fingertips, I'm going to keep pointing and laughing.
Your arrogance assumes I would waste the time to read a years worth of your posts. Get over yourself, and while you're at it ...try to get over me. I seemed to have really gotten to you.Me doth thinks ye protesteth too much. Must have hit you dead on. lmao at your silly ass. What's the matter, Bill O'Reilly wannabe, you can dish it out but ya can't take it... pussy.
You started the assumption game, now I'm going to finish it. You are divorced, lonely , frustrated, own an expensive car to make up for your lack of penis size, and you cry when you masturbate.
Kevin, you're the one who assumed when you could have educated yourself. Yes, I undestand that would mean taking the intitiative and actually doing something for yourself, something that your Dear Leader would frown on, but really, as I said, I can only judge you on what you say. You, on the other hand could actually say something serious, reasoned, logical, and if you feel the need to talk about me, informed. Instead, you avoid the substantive allegations made against your Dear Leader and your fanatical devotion to him and his tactics, and instead feel the need to make silly assertions about me to detract from the fact that your Emperor has no clothes. Its predictable, and it is pointless, since I deal daily with people who are actually capable of creative and relevant insults. Your schtick? Its tired. I could write your comments more convincingly than you do. The reason for my smacking you around? It amuses me. The fact that you get dismissed for a meritless 15 minutes of fame here, and you return, talking smack like the snot nosed punk in high school who never knew when to shut up tells me that you have an almost pathological need for attention. I'm laughing and wondering if you got dropped on your head one time too many as a child.
I can dish it out but I can't take it? Uhhh, moron? It is published here in your second very own post. Uncensored and unedited. I think that is called playing above board, which is more than a conservative voice gets at a liberal website most of the time.
As for your assertions, let me set your mind at ease: Married fourteen years; two children, both of whom are still very young but who daily demostrate better judgment than you have shown thus far; not frustrated, just tired of malcontents who keep screaming at the top of their lungs, but are unwilling or unable to make an argument that will persuade anyone who requires more than a naked assertion or slouching talking point that is not substantiated by material facts, I'm a family man, and still paying off law school loans, so no, I don't have a small penis death machine. Being secure in who I am and having a loving family, I have no need to fill a gap in my life with a shiny piece of metal. I have never had a complaint about my penis being too small, and masterbation really isn't necessary when you have a good sex life as I do.
Your arrogance assumes I would waste the time to read a years worth of your posts.
Oh, BTW, Sitemeter tracks all sorts of data, like who is on, what they look at, etc. I understand reading 15 posts of something so contrary to the leftist pap the Obama campaign spoon-feeds to people probably was very tough for you, but 15 posts? I think you are the one who needs to get over me. Gameface, Sparky. Gameface.
What's it gonna be, Sparky? Are we gonna have a discussion about politics, the kind supported by facts, logic and reason, or are you going to stick by your surrender of that particular battlefield and just come back for another beating. Ball's in your court. I suggest you choose wisely.
*************************************************************************************Apparently, "Kevin" didn't have much of a substantive argument to make:
You are calling a man with a 161 IQ stupid. That just proves how goddamn dumb YOU are. Listen moron, I unsubscribed from this B.S. site so you would stop sending me notices about you lame replies, so I would appreciate you honoring that.
Kevin, I know lots of high I.Q. people. Grew up with them, went to school with them, have to work with them on a daily basis. None of them I know come to a website, start making ridiculous assertions that they cannot cite a basis for, and degenerate into personal attacks that have nothing to do with topic at hand when they are called on it, and then scurry off like a cockroach with the light turned on when they are challenged to defend their positions. Yes, Kevin, I am challenging you to make your case. Convince me how Barack is going to save us all. It really shouldn't be too difficult if you are so brilliant. Or run away, and show the world that you really cannot or will not defend what you say. The former would be refreshing coming from an Obama supporter. The latter would be predictable.
I haven't had a visit from an honest-to-goodness, second-round kind of troll in a very long time. Imagine my delight when "Kevin" came by to leave his droppings on the carpet of the "Mr. Berg in His Own Words" post. He really is too, too precious. The kind of true believer/idiot that deserves his own post.
In this day and age, isn't the law that you have to be a natural born citizen kind of leaning backwards towards RACISM? I don't care if he was born in Iran!! He was raised in the U.S. formed his opinions and matured to adulthood here. I didn't see anyone raise too much hell about Arnold "Musclehugger". Get over your racist selves and move on. Obama's vision of where this country needs to be heading is the RIGHT vision. I am a white male, 47 yrs. old, and an Independent voter. So, don't go "there"!
Kevin | 10.22.08 - 4:52 pm | #
Oh, and By the way... Wasn't G.Dubya a natural born citizen? A lot of damn good that did us.
Kevin | 10.22.08 - 4:57 pm | #
My response to such effective campaigning skills?:
Well, "Kevin", thank you for faithfully demonstrating the Obama talking points :
Don't like what is said, so it is therefore "Racist"-check,
Messianic Obama reference-check
Point to something never advocated for as a means to rationalize a result you want-check
Confusing the purpose for the law with discrimnation, when the subject is nationality, not race-check
Gratuitous "W" is a poo-poo head-check
Predictable astroturfing credentialism..."I am a ..."-check
I'd give you a box of Rice-A-Roni as a parting gift, but frankly I don't think the Obamabots are self-sufficient enough to prepare a meal for themselves without botching it, and I don't need to be sued because you set your tiny loft apartment on fire. So instead, I'll just send you with my thanks.
Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent P | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 6:15 pm | #
His witty response? He didn't have one, but he did leave this:
Well, "old school", thank you for faithfully domonstrating your unwillingness to change-check.
You don't like my response so you TRY to put it down by trying to make it sound irrational.-check.
Point out that something has never been advocated.. as perhaps it should be ( if you are forward thinking )- check.
Getting steamed if someone puts down G-Dubya. ( which is approx. 80% of the population) - check.
And trying to call me a liar when you have no proof, just the power of controlling this site. - check.
I'd give you a box of Rice-A-Roni as a parting gift, but you probably have never eaten the stuff because you are one of those "fat cat" elitists that doesn't want anyone controlling whether or not you help create new jobs with your unregulated profits, but rather stick it in your pockets so that 10 generations from now your family will still be millionaires. ( without earning it) HEY! This is fun, anyone can make generalizations and assumptions and TRY to make the other person look like a fool. Now go check your stocks, and transfer the funds to your bank in the Caymans.
Kevin | 10.22.08 - 8:44 pm | #
Now the Primary Directive of stamping out stupid wherever it is found before it can take root kicked in:
Your response to a law you don't like is "RACISM", which seems to be the theme whenever an Obamabot is confronted with a fact, circumstance, or statement that confounds them. I didn't write it, but as a lawyer with a degree in Political Science, I understand the reasoning for it. You think that it is silly? Then quit your kvetching and go to your state legislature and get them started on the amendment process.
My remark about deflecting by avocation? I was referring to your implication that I was somehow in favor of tossing out the clause that so offends you by wanting AAHHHNNOLD to be eligible for the office himself. I can assure you, such a think would was very far from my mind as he is about as conservative as Bill Clinton. You assuming, without a basis, that I was in favor at an earlier time of what you propose demonstrates the pitfalls that can occur when you assume.
Steamed by you taking a shot at W? No, just tired. After nearly 8 years of geniuses such as yourself failing to get your script straight (which is it? is he an evil genius or a tool of the evil Karl Rove and Dick Cheney who are running the country from the basement of Wal-Mart?) Listen, I'm not thrilled with W's term in office. He's done his level best to piss Conservatives like myself off at every opportunity. Listening to people like you continue to take generic and unoriginal shots, unaccompanied by anything resembling a rational supporting thought or concept has been almost equally as annoying. Almost.
TRY to make you sound irrational??? You're doing too good a job on your own. I don't care if he was born in IRAN? RACISM because a law concerning nationality and not race just might keep the closet socialist out of the Oval Office? Newsflash genius: He was raised in lots of places, including Indonesia. Don't take my word for it. Read his self-aggrandizing memoirs. He'll tell you himself. No, your own statements paint you with the brush of irrationality. There isn't much I could do to improve upon them.
I'm a "fat cat" who has never eaten Rice -A- Roni? You accuse me of making statements based on assumptions? When you come here, all I have to judge you on are your statements. You, however, have over a year's worth of posts to draw on to get to know me, so your assumptions are far less excusable. I suggest on your next visit, you scroll up and read my response to "JD", a special kind of moron who thought that he could attack the messenger when he had nothing to attack the message regarding your Dear Leader's Idiotic Tax Shift Policy, which will certainly create unemployment, inflation, and misery for the very people he claims to be helping with a tax "cut". And for the record, I am a small businessman, who at least for the time being, falls under the his arbitrary $250,000.00 number.
Finally, I am calling you liar, because you're employing a variation of the astroturfing method that I have seen far too often in the last two months. However, if you prefer, I can call you an idiot, because your apparent willingness to shill for a man with several America-hating friends, for a man who has already been caught telling us bald-faced lies, for a man who has told us that he is going to redistribute the wealth, for a man who wants to hold hands with adversaries and sing Kumbaya, for a man who wants to "heal the holes in our souls" by implying RACISM!!!11!! on the part of anyone who can see through the fog of bullshit that surrounds him and is willing to say so, and is more than willing to employ tactics of class warfare to advance his agenda, a man who will cripple the economy with a tax plan that can only result in greater unemployment and inflation, and higher prices for the very people he claims to want to help. No, Kevin, such a belief stains you with the indelible mark of potent idiotarianism, and the best that you can HOPE for is that your Dear Leader's tax plan might leave you with some CHANGE and maybe a job.
Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent P | Homepage | 10.22.08 - 10:31 pm |
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
I have had a few people ask me what would happen in Berg v. Obama if Obama was declared ineligible to run for the office because he is not a natural born citizen.
I have to confess, it was a good question, and I had to go back and look at the Constitution and puzzle through it for a while. My conclusions? It is a matter of timing.
I started with Article 2, Section 1, specifically:
No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.
(In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the same shall devolve on the Vice President, and the Congress may by Law provide for the Case of Removal, Death, Resignation or Inability, both of the President and Vice President, declaring what Officer shall then act as President, and such Officer shall act accordingly, until the Disability be removed, or a President shall be elected.) (This clause in parentheses has been modified by the 20th and 25th Amendments.)
Not being a natural born citizen is not a Disability that can be removed.
On to the 20th Amendment:
Amendment 20 - Presidential, Congressional Terms. Ratified 1/23/1933. History
1. The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.
2. The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.
3. If, at the time fixed for the beginning of the term of the President, the President elect shall have died, the Vice President elect shall become President. If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified; and the Congress may by law provide for the case wherein neither a President elect nor a Vice President elect shall have qualified, declaring who shall then act as President, or the manner in which one who is to act shall be selected, and such person shall act accordingly until a President or Vice President shall have qualified.
4. The Congress may by law provide for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the House of Representatives may choose a President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them, and for the case of the death of any of the persons from whom the Senate may choose a Vice President whenever the right of choice shall have devolved upon them.
5. Sections 1 and 2 shall take effect on the 15th day of October following the ratification of this article.
6. This article shall be inoperative unless it shall have been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States within seven years from the date of its submission.
Yeah, Section 3 jumped out at me, too. This phrase lead me to a real "Devil in the Details" way of thinking:
If a President shall not have been chosen before the time fixed for the beginning of his term, or if the President elect shall have failed to qualify, then the Vice President elect shall act as President until a President shall have qualified;
My first impression? If Obama is declared ineligible prior to being sworn in but after the election, then Biden presides over a caretaker government. But is there an election? I would think that there would have to be in order to find a qualified candidate. Does the Democratic party appoint a candidate, or do they reset? When is the election then held? And who decides? I foresee a nightmare.
And if he is declared ineligible after being sworn in? The 25 Amendment comes into play, and we have been there before:
Amendment 25 - Presidential Disability and Succession. Ratified 2/10/1967. Note History
1. In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.
2. Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.
3. Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.
4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.
Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.
Section 1 is very clear.
Other nagging questions? If Biden heads a caretaker government under the 20th Amendment, does he get to appoint a Vice President pursuant to the 25th Amendment? I can think of reasons to say yes and reasons to say no. Still, kind of a mess either way around.
Why am I discussing this, I mean despite having been asked a few times? Because as an attorney and a political science major, it really bugs me that Obama and the DNC have chosen to fight Berg with Motions to Dismiss, rather than rendering the case moot by simply delivering the necessary documents. I know they have buckets of money, much of it from foreign nationals and governments, but nobody likes to pay members of my tribe when they don't have to. Additionally, if Mr. Hope and Change is all about "Changing politics and inspiring confidence" then why not play the trump card, show everyone who is watching that he IS qualified, and render the case moot, thus ending it, and effectively discrediting yet another naysayer. Really, Barry. If you are reading, what's the game? You aren't inspiring me, and frankly, if you could win me over, it would be a significant achievement for you. Instead, you are giving the appearance of a man who has something to hide. Why?
William Shatner committs multiple acts of gun control:
Tripped over it this morning. Honestly, I don't know the timeframe in which the Obama/DNC legal team have to respond to the Requests For Admission under the Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure, nor am I aware if their Motion For Dismissal stays the required time for response.
I just view it as interesting, and I still would like to hear how Judge Surrick rules on this.
Jeff Schreiber at America's Right is more familiar with the Federal rules than I, and has also Published Berg's Motion for an Order Deeming the Requests Admitted.
Monday, October 20, 2008
The defense has filed a new Motion to Dismiss in the case. This addresses the issue of Berg's Amended Complaint, which named additional defendants, but according to Obama's/the DNC's legal team, did not allege anything new to establish standing, and therefore, should still be dismissed, since they have maintained from the start that Mr. Berg did not have standing.
Judge Surrick still has not ruled on any of the Motions before the court.
Still the same question. Why spend the money on yet another Motion when it can be quashed with the production of the necessary documents?
Thanks, Moop. Hadn't gotten quite that far yet this evening.
Sunday, October 19, 2008
I saw this story about an upcoming video game. LittleBigPlanet, a new game from Sony has apparently outraged some muslims, because a song in the soundtrack contains two verses from the Koran,and muslims are deeply offended by the mixing of music and scripture. It might be easier, if we are going to submit to the ululating wielders of the rusty scimitars, to just be given a list of the things they are not offended by. That way their can be no doubt that I MEANT to offend them when I committed one of the acts on the list, and they would not waste anyone's time registering their outrage, because they can be on warning that I will not surrender my way of life, my culture, my will, or my God to these savages who moved to my country and demand that I change to accommodate them.
I wonder how many people the rock worshippers would see fit to kill if Sony refused to capitulate to their OUTRAGE!!!11!!! on this?
Isaiah 5:20, KJV
Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Read and discuss amongst yourselves, you bitter clingers!
True Believers, Willful Blindness, Attacking the Questioner Instead of the Answer, and the Wonders Of Sitemeter
Sitemeter is a wonderful tool. I do appreciate the idea that my credentials would invalidate the opinion I render which actually has a basis in experience, and yes, knowledge. What a wonderful world that Barry the Blessed™ is ushering in. Dissent is good unless it reveals that The Dear Leader's "Tax Policy" has no clothes. Which brings me to the point of this post.
J.D., at the Meadville Tribune blog, seems to think that it is ok to attack the messenger.
Originally posted by Josey:
good blog from a tax attorney. He has a Masters in Tax Law.
What is the attorney's name? Where does it say he has an LL.M. in taxation?
Regardless, he is not discussing tax law, he is discussing tax policy. But since you try to qualify him as an expert, I would like to know if he has the degree, what school it came from, and his name so I can tell if he has had any disciplinary action taken against him as an attorney.
J.D., if you're reading, here it is:
B.A.,Political Science, University of Michigan,
J.D., cum laude, Thomas M. Cooley School of Law,
LL.M., taxation, University of Washington School of Law,
Shareholder, small law firm, Puget Sound Area of Washington, practice focusing on small business, tax, estate planning and probate, and real estate.
Since the Left and the media (but I repeat myself) believe that it is OK to attack the messenger since they can't win on substance, you do not get my name. I can tell you as an officer of the Court that I have not ever had action taken against me as an attorney, but I can assure you that even if I had, it has no bearing on the validity of my fitness to render an informed, and somewhat caustic opinion, regarding all things Barry the Blessed™.
And if you have any other questions, bring 'em to the source instead of publishing sly innuendo meant to impugn my character simply because I call Obama the America Hating fraud that he is.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
(You don't mind if I call you Barry, do you? Yes, I know its somewhat disrespectful, but then you haven't shown me, or the rest of the American electorate much respect during this campaign season either, so you can consider it "what comes around". You served, and I have no doubt you will return this volley.)
I have watched your campaign, and observed you continuing to say the most outrageous things, as if you had every right to say it, and as if I was obligated to believe it. From campaign speeches promising a conversion experience-like epiphany, where I the voter will see the light, and cast my vote for you, then look back to the date of your election as the date when the oceans stopped rising and the earth started to heal itself. From stump speeches where your always shouting wife is quick to inform us that you will never let us live our lives the same way again, or that she has never been proud of this country until you decided to run for POTUS. I've watched when as you have denied knowing friends and associates, many of whom hate everything this country stands for, and feel entitled to change it to their liking, whether or not the rest of us want them to, and I have watched your surrogates act like thugs, following your lead with silly attempts to restrict campaign speech with clumsy attempts to get the DOJ to intimidate those who dare to question the veracity of the treasures issuing from your lips. I have watched you lie. Lie about who your friends are. Lie about fighting to deny basic medical care to children who survive their mother's attempts to have them killed (And yes, that record is one you have not been able to flush down the memory hole.) I have watched you reveal your true agenda when answering a question from a man you asked for a vote, and I watched you and your surrogates turn on this same man, a private citizen. A private citizen representative of so many whom you have asked for a vote. And all because you cannot be honest about the truth of your tax plan. This has not gone unnoticed.
Like you, I am lawyer by trade. Unlike you, I actually practice law and represent real people, including small business people. These people, like me, see right through your tax plan. They know that small businesses can and do make $250,000.00 annually. They know that increased taxes will reduce their ability and, more importantly their incentive to hire more people, so that those people can earn money of their own and support their own families. Mocking these people, the ones that actually make America work is not the smartest campaign strategy. And the more people realize that these taxes are going to hurt employers, the more people will realize that these tax increases will affect them in many ways, perhaps the most insidious being that these costs will be passed on to the consumer, who unlike you, Senator Government, cannot just print more whenever they need it.
We, the John Galts of America, see you for what you are. You know exactly what you are doing, and what effect it will have. Yet you continue to lie to us. What name is the Arabic version of "Janus"? Perhaps it is the name you should have chosen for your middle name. We will fight, until the bitter end, to expose you as the manure merchant you are, and as the clear and present danger you represent. We are more than you think, and too numerous for you to silence or intimidate. You arrogantly underestimate us, and our dedication to this country and way of life that rewards hard work and the advantageous use of the opportunities this country provides. You insult us, and expect us to stand by like the sheeple you spellbind with your confident and glittering generalities, while you scheme and plot to rob our children of their legacy and birthright. Keep lying, Barry. Keep going. You are going to a have a tough time giving away money when no one works to pay your taxes. But I think you know that. We John Galts do not question your patriotism. We know you do not have any. When given the opportunity to explain yourself, you have handily demonstrated that you have no understanding of this country or its heritage, and that is why you can barely keep your contempt for it concealed. Here's a news flash, Barry: We don't like you either. You are an arugula and brie munching ivory tower intellectual, who cynically trains the masses how to be aggressive and vocal professional malcontents, then retire to your posh home in the tony Chicago suburbs to meet in the living room of your unrepentant terrorist neighbors, who realized that they had to subvert the youth and the culture before you could install yourselves as the enlightened betters of the grubby masses, with all the power and perks that come along with the position. First you had to dumb down entire generations, change the dialogue by making people's feelings more important that the subjects discussed. Words were made taboo. Everyone had to be given a distinct individual and group identity that made their own interests less than that of the overarching national identity. Diversity had to trump merit and excellence. Mediocrity in a vertical mosaic supplanted excellence in a melting pot.
Yes, Barry. We know you for who you are. We recognize the seeds of division which have been carefully sewn for a few generations now, and we know that you still underestimate the determination of the real America, and not the ersatz, 70's era socialistic America you seem determined to foist upon us. And we are certain that you will not enjoy the crop you are positioning yourself to harvest. Enjoy the adoration that the media lavishes you with right now. They are a fickle lot, and not all of them will be silent when they realize what you have sold them. But then, that really will be the least of your worries.
Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur
Posted by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur at 12:55 PM
I went to court yesterday on a simple matter, and of course, was waiting for the Judge's Clerk to open the court room. During this time, I had three people come up to me and ask me if I was an attorney. As I waited at Judicial Administration, I had another person ask me. On my way to the Court Clerk's Office, another asked me. After six years of practicing, I guess I finally look like an attorney, whatever that means. What did these people want from me? Free legal advice, of course. I guess I better get used to it. Barry the Blessed™ wants me to give it away anyway.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
My favorite movie blogger, Dirty Harry, has an alarming post on the potential AYERS?ACORN connection, and is quick to point out that we, the American Taxpayers, have been paying ACORN to go and steal this election for Barry the Blessed™.
Posted by Blackiswhite, Imperial Agent Provocateur at 9:01 PM
Senator Government and his handlers must be feeling pretty confident in all the extra votes they paid ACORN to procure for them. I can't remember the last time a brie and arugula munching communistic America Hating candidate for President felt cocky enough to punish a member of the electorate, someone he was seeking a vote from, because he had the audacity to ask a very pertinent question, which was later used to in a debate to show that when it comes to tax policy, the
Emperor ONE has no clothes.
Courtesy Cuffy Meigs:
In truth, the full text was:
“He’s trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he’s fighting for,” Obama said. “How many plumbers you know that are making a quarter-million dollars a year?”
Of course, as you can see in the video, Joe was concerned about the business making that much. Now, depending on his tax election for the business, the income for the business could be attributed to him, thus making him "rich" by Barry the Blessed™'s arbitrary and capricious standard. However, it really doesn't change the fact that the media has now investigated Joe the Plumber far more thoroughly than any of The ONE's associates. In fact,I'm willing to bet that Joe feels very much like he has been given a prostate exam...with a full sized hand and without the benefit of any lube. The media has been too happy to report on his status as a plumber. Then they wanted to report the same about his boss. It doesn't appear that the media and their eleventy seven fact checkers researched these things very well before reporting their conclusions far and wide. Why would they? This...this...this PLUMBER! had the gall to ask their anointed choice a question that caused his mask to slip and reveal the communist underneath. After the reports far and wide about his licensure and tax lien, I might be worried about a defamation suit. Last I looked, he was a private citizen, and asking a question when the cameras were rolling hardly qualifies as injecting himself into the controversy. Could get kinda expensive for the "news" outlets, methinks.
The ONE could barely contain his contempt in this video. He can't believe that any candidate would be looking out for a lowly plumber. He doesn't spend private foundation money to help unrepentant terrorists to teach youth to be professional rabble-rousing malcontents. He doesn't preach "God damn America" and "Hate Whitey" from the pulpit of his church. He doesn't do shady deals. He doesn't register dead and non-existent people to vote. Instead, he wants to be one of those American success stories, and the ONE can't wait to tax the eyes out of him. For any other candidate, this would be political suicide. I'm starting to think that he could be caught with both a live girl and dead boy, and the media would simply shrug and say he was simply helping to "improve another generation of forward-thinking Americans". But what do I know? I'm sure that because I dare speak of Barry the Blessed™ in a way that clearly indicates that I don't buy into the Hope that he will leave me with some Change, I'm sure one of his followers has a special cell in the Hopey Changey gulag all picked out for me.
Apparently, the campaign for the candidate running with Palin saw an opportunity in this crass insult of the middle class voters Barry the Blessed™ claims to be all for in his excremental tax policy:
“It's an outrage that the Obama campaign and the media are attacking Joe the Plumber for asking a legitimate question of a presidential candidate. This is why voters still have so many questions about Barack Obama. Instead of answering tough questions, his campaign attacks average Americans for daring to look at the reality behind his words, said Tucker Bounds, spokesman the McCain-Palin campaign. “John McCain will continue to fight on behalf of all hardworking Americans like Joe for policies geared toward increasing prosperity and reducing the burden on taxpayers -- not 'spreading the wealth around' for Senator Government to distribute as he sees fit.”
Never a choice so clear. Obama just can't conceal his contempt for real Americans and what America is. But then, by having a job, I have demonstrated that I just don't "fit in" in Barack Hussein Obama's America.
H/T The Rott, Stop the ACLU, Hot Air, and Cuffy Meigs.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
I waited for McCain to look in the camera and say “America, the choice is simple, you can vote for me and decide for yourself how to spend your money, or you can vote for my opponent and hope that he lets you keep the change.”
The best moment for my money? When McCain called Obama "Senator Government". Kinda sad when the best line was unintentional and so far, unrecognized by the media.
Honestly, McCain had a great point with across the board spending freezes and cutting spending. Obama just about yelped. He wants to get rid of the programs that don't work and get more money to the ones that do. It really has never occured to either of these guys that we have too many "programs" now. It really is about finding reasons to spend our money. I honestly cannot understand how this is good policy or is in any way intelligent.
***Update: I just heard Hannity recognize the "Senator Government" line.
I have obviously picked up an enormous amount of traffic in the last few days, and judging from the comments that I have received, I think its safe to say that some of this traffic is from the left side of the political spectrum. To you, I pose what really are the questions at the heart of the current political divide in this country today.
Do you really think government can spend your money (or mine) better than you can?
Do you really think government should decide how your money (or mine) should be spent?
If you answered yes to either of those questions, why?
These are very simple questions. If you cannot give direct answers, please do not waste your time or mine. I just want to understand why you believe this.
This was in my work email this morning:
Our Social Security
> > Franklin Roosevelt, a Democrat, introduced the Social
> > Security (FICA) Program. He promised:
> > 1.) That participation in the Program would be
> > completely voluntary.
> > 2.) That the participants would only have to pay
> > 1% of the first $1,400 of their annual
> > incomes into the Program,
> > 3.) That the money the participants elected to put
> > into the Program would be deductible from
> > their income for tax purposes each year,
> > 4.) That the money the participants put into the
> > Independent 'Trust Fund' rather than into the
> > General Operating Fund, and therefore, would
> > only be used to fund the Social Security
> > Retirement Program, and no other
> > government program, and,
> > 5.) That the annuity payments to the retirees
> > would never be taxed as income.
> > Since many of us have paid into FICA for years and
> > are
> > now receiving a Social Security check every month --
> > and then finding that we are getting taxed on 85% of
> > the money we paid to the federal government to
> > 'put
> > away', you may be interested in the following:
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Q: Which political party took Social Security from
> > the
> > Independent 'Trust Fund' and put it in to the
> > General Fund so that Congress could spend it?
> > A: It was Lyndon Johnson and the Democratically-
> > controlled House and Senate.
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Q: Which political party eliminated the income tax
> > deduction for Social Security (FICA) withholding?
> > A: The Democratic Party.
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Q: Which political party started taxing Social
> > Security annuities?
> > A: The Democratic Party, with Al Gore casting the
> > 'tie-breaking' deciding vote as President of
> > the
> > Senate, while he was Vice President of the U.S.
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Q: Which political party decided to start giving
> > annuity payments to immigrants?
> > AND MY FAVORITE:
> > A: That's right!
> > Jimmy Carter and the Democratic Party.
> > Immigrants moved into this country, and at age 65,
> > they began to receive Social Security payments! The
> > Democratic Party gave these payments to them
> > even though they never paid a dime into it!
> > ----------------------------------------------------
> > Then, after violating the original contract (FICA),
> > the Democrats turn around and tell you that the
> > Republicans want to take your Social Security away!
> > And the worst part about it is, uninformed citizens
> > believe it!
> > If enough people receive this, maybe a seed of
> > awareness will be planted and maybe changes will
> > evolve. Maybe not, some Democrats are awfully
> > sure of what isn't so.
> > But it's worth a try. How many people can
> > YOU send this to?
> > Actions speak louder than bumper stickers.
> > AND CONGRESS GIVES THEMSELVES 100% RETIREMENT
> > FOR ONLY SERVING ONE TERM!!!
> > 'A government big enough to give you everything
> > you want,
> > is strong enough to take everything you have.'
> > -Thomas Jefferson
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Yea. I not only get to question their patriotism, I now get to question their class.
I don't recall us making movies about Clinton and the Intern...Oh that's right, anything about the Clintons that contained facts that would diminish their "legacy" was blocked and buried. Silly me. And Barry the Blessed™ already tries to intimidate people who tell the truth about him with law enforcement personnel. But this is perfectly acceptable. After all, if Oliver Stone has a shrieking, hysterical, almost psychotic dislike of a sitting President, then it MUST be true.
This campaign event moment brought to you by Barack Hussein Obama.
Obama to Plumber: "I can count on your vote, right?"
Plumber to Obama: “Your new tax plan is going to tax me more. Isn’t it?”
Obama: “It’s not that I want to punish your success, I just want to make sure that everybody that is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody.”
Taking money to give to another rather than letting them earn it, maybe by working for the other person? Since when did that become America?
I see very dark times ahead.
Monday, October 13, 2008
I was watching TV last night and saw an ad for "W". The announcer said "Based on the Incredible True Story."
This drew a silent Hurmpf from me. From the fiction in the clips playing out before my eyes, I could tell that once again, I was expected to be a good little liberal sheeple and believe that the "world as the libs wish it was" was the world that actually is. For nearly eight years, I have watched a breakdown in civility that I never thought I would witness in my lifetime. It has become acceptable and commonplace to refer to our president as both a criminal and buffoon, seemingly in the same sentence. The left, guided by the generation that protested Vietnam, desperately desires to cast the current conflict in the same light, and still to this day wants to paint every administration official as a "War Criminal" and "War Monger" of some type or shadow, despite the news from Iraq, and the fact that we have not been attacked since 9/11. They just can't seem to make up their collective mind about the current administration, and apparently, that's ok, so long as they keep shouting. The uglier and baser the shout, the happier they are.
Truth that doesn't fit this world view is about as welcome as a Blood and Garlic cocktail among vampires, which makes for an interesting daily dichotomy among any cognizant of it. Despite the fact that there is no shortage of facts that refute and dispel the Left's "truth", a visitor to this country might never know it. The mainstream press, inspite of falling ratings and readers, continues to studiously ignore facts that do not mirror the approved version of reality. Acolytes of the left no longer have to respond with any meaningful answer when questioned, ad hominems and screeching name-calling is considered to be perfectly acceptable.
How did we get here? I'm certain that there are several factors but the one that stands out is that the radical left of the Sixties, the same generation that could never figure out that there is much more to this country than how it did or did not affect them never became unradicalized, it just went underground. Academia provided fertile ground to these burrowing insects, determined to subvert the country at its core. People like that "Respected Educator", and unrepentant terrorist, William Ayers, realized that they could poison entire generations with their warped world view, and merrily set about on their task to make Socialism mainstream in this country. We are now reaping the benefits of their hard work and determination, and there now exists a schism the likes of which has not occupied the political life in this country for a very long time. Unreason is on the rise. It has become trendy to reject and ignore fact because it doesn't subscribe to the "truth", and those charged with informing the public have determined to indoctrinate it instead.
I am not yet willing to give up on this country, but I do believe that we are in for some interesting times. We are now at a point where the Left's Paranoia ("Diebold! Diebold!") and the ACORN's blatant and widespread voter registration fraud virtually guarantees that no matter who wins, there will be allegations of fraud, and demands for recount, which sadly, will cast doubt on the outcome, no matter who is left standing when the dust settles. The only good news is that once the old media completes its death spiral, that will leave the New Media, the ones who actually report the facts that no other outlet will acknowledge as the source of the news.
Saturday, October 11, 2008
This case just keeps getting more and more intriguing. Obama's attorneys have moved for a Protective Order preventing them from complying with the discovery request while their motion to dismiss is pending.
Berg's response? A brief in which he cites several cases that he alleges clearly outlines why such a requset is improper and should be denied. Oh, and some "In your Face" requests for admission. Sucks to be Jugears' legal team right now, because if they admit, then they lose the case. If they deny, then they are on record denying things that might yet be proven false, and Barry the Blessed™ will toss them under the bus.
I cannot understand why the defenders of the natural born citizen Barry Dunham would find it advantageous to continue to fight this instead of actually producing the necessary proof.
*when you click on the link, select entry 18 and read it in PDF*
I really want to see how the Judge rules on this.
A lot of very smart people I know are talking about the spectre of a Second Civil War as the result of this upcoming election. While the prospect gives me no joy at all, there should be no doubt as to with which side I will stand. Having said that, anyone who thinks about this for longer than five minutes probably realizes that if such a terrible day should come, we won't just be fighting fellow Americans, we will be fighting foreigners as well. This isn't the 1860s and the odds of the world stepping back and letting us settle the matter for ourselves are slim and none, with slim slipping out the door.
There is now an established international precedent for intervening in internal conflicts, and with a whole host of weapons that the rest of the world will want to ensure are secure (Translation: see the opportunity to steal), foreign involvement is inevitable. I actually have less of a problem with the idea of battling with these people. They will be uninvited interlopers who made the tragic mistake of stepping on American soil without asking permission first. The bad part is that I see an awful lot of bloodshed in the future, here, barring some fairly incredible events.
Friday, October 10, 2008
I'm surveying the political landscape and I don't like what I see.
I grew up in the 'burbs of Flint, Michigan...birthplace of the UAW. Adolph Hitler and Mickey Mouse could run for office there and as long as they had that magic (D) after their names on the ballot, they would be elected. I was a product of my environment, and was a self-professed Democrat even when working on my B.A. in Political Science at the University of Michigan Flint, although the further I got, the more doubts began to arise. Just the same, I was a leftist elitist swine. I, like many good enlightened leftists believed that the average person wasn't smart enough to make important political decisions, and that it was going to be up to people like me to make sure that people were taken care of, and that we relieved them of the burdens of any potential failure. Along with that arrogant nanny-statist belief, I also believed that the U.S. was doing nearly everything wrong in its relations with other countries. William Appleman Williams' "The Tragedy of American Diplomacy" was extraordinarily persuasive. I stopped short of concluding that our actions were willfully malevolent and believed that we were simply misguided. (Sorry. I wasn't a bomb-thrower.) I also snidely dismissed the Conservative beliefs that things could be simply defined as right and wrong, and black and white, clinging to the leftist belief that the world was immersed in shades of grey, and that things were not that simple.
However, I got older. I continued my schooling after a few years. I started to look a bit more critically at what government was doing. I was also learning the law. At this point, politically, I was starting to drift a bit more to the right, and started to find myself more and more annoyed at the abdication of personal responsibility and the apparent belief that government had to save us from ourselves. I also started to meet more people, many of them from other countries or first generation American. This was the beginning of my understanding that many of the people in the world who don't like us feel that way for reasons that exist independent of our interactions with other nations and that these dealings merely provide a pretext for this hatred. I also started to realize that personal responsibility, and yes *gasp* religion was at the very heart of the American Ideal. The more I looked at the things that government was doing, the more I was left with the feeling that something was wrong. Careful study showed me what was wrong. I was starting to realize that government was doing things it had no business doing, and it was horribly inefficient, also. I'm not sure exactly when I realized that I was a conservative, but by the time I was earning my Masters in Tax Law, I knew that I was now a conservative.
Now I see many things that I could not see before. Leftists love the "shades of grey" and "nothing is simple" world views for several reasons. First, because complexity makes it easier to obtain and retain power. It virtually cries out for a ruling class to run things and take the burden from the common folk who are too busy (and too simple minded) to understand how to effectively deal with the day-to-day functions of government. This is the reason for the hysterical and vitriolic attacks against Sarah Palin. Her success as an executive undermines the carefully groomed perception that the average person simply is not equipped to govern.
Secondly, these beliefs foster and nurture an atmosphere of ambiguity that allows their way of thinking to slowly but inexorably gain a foothold and continue to advance until society has accepted so much of the necessary leftist dogma that it accepts poisonous concepts as truth. Concepts such as "political correctness", "diversity", and new definitions for old concepts that are so far astray from original connotations that any person with an understanding of history and etymology would think that they have stepped into the Twilight Zone. These words and concepts also serve the dual purpose of indoctrination into the "new" way of thinking, and equipping the new masters with tools to condemn and ostracize those who do not go along with the program and recognize it for what it is. Hence the cries of "racism" when someone dares question the substance or reason of policies promulgated by the left. It also explains the allegations of intolerance when someone questions the wholesale acceptance and societal sanction of any aspect of the homosexual agenda.
Creating this brave new world would have been far more difficult without an aggressive and intellectually dishonest campaign to marginalize the dominant religion. As I have discussed before, our law, and the reasoning underlying it is tremendously influenced by Judeo-Christian belief and philosophy. Much in this belief and philosophy is hostile to the agenda and beliefs of the left. Thus, we had to be subject to lawsuits based on a frightfully misguided belief that the Union must be governed by a policy of "separation of church and state" that did not just ban God from places he had not dwelled in our society and government, but also deliberately and specifically drove him from places where he had historically occupied.
Why have I engaged in this exercise of personal confession and political analysis? So you understand that I understand the breadth and depth of the more advanced thinking on the left, and to lay a foundation for my authority to say that our current political predicament is at a flashpoint. On the one side, I see kerosene. On the other, I see gasoline. The various issues in play right now are a lit match.
On the left, we have a candidate who has tried very hard not to have his past on display for people to view. However, even those who try not to have a record will occasionally leave enough of one to alarm reasonable people who are paying attention. While we really don't know where he was born, he has responded to a lawsuit to discover it not with production of a birth certificate, which would render the lawsuit moot, and dispel the rumor that he is not a natural born U.S. Citizen, but by filing motions to dismiss instead. As an Illinois State Senator, he when on record not only to be against any restriction on abortions, but clearly stated that he was not in favor of babies who survived their mother's attempts to murder them receiving life-saving medical care once they were born. The pastor of his church, the man who performed the marriage ceremony, and presided for 20 years while he sat in the pews nodding, was discovered to be a raving, anti-semitic, Whitey-hating black liberation theology preacher. He has been a close associate of a convicted felon who was involved in many shady real estate and money deals. He has known and associated with two unrepentant terrorists for the past 20 years...people who said as briefly as 10 years ago that they did not regret their bombings and lament that they had not done more. In two years in the U.S. Senate, he collected more money from Fannie and Freddie than any other Congresscritter other than Chris Dodd. He has a long association with ACORN, which is now being investigated in 11 states for large scale voter fraud. The group has also received $800,000 from this candidate to get out the vote in the upcoming elections. Whenever he comes under scrutiny or criticism, he points to the other party and cries "Racism". He actively implies "Racism" by the other side when nothing justifies such an assertion. He has gone on record in saying he will cut the military and talk to threats like Amahdinnerjacket without preconditions. He claims "dirty campaigning" when his opponent brings up facts that he'd rather you not hear. He has said things on the trail that legitimately raise concerns on how he would act to curtail the Second Amendment, and makes no bones about the fact that he would appoint judges who believe that the Constitution is a living breathing document that must be interpreted in the context of the times we live.
On the other side, we have a man who was shot down in Vietnam and beaten so badly that he remains crippled to this day. A person who has demonstrated an annoying propensity to cooperate with the other side of the Aisle when conducting what he believed to be the people's business. His past is an open book when compared to that of his opponent, and although he is not nearly conservative enough for my liking, I also have no reason to question his patriotism. While I think he does not understand that border security is essential to national security, I also know that he will not capitulate to our enemies, or deliberately take steps to weaken us, because he understands that the world is a dangerous place, and if we put the rock down before we extend a hand, we will get the bums rush. He has caused the left to collapse in seizures of Tourettes and foaming at the mouth over his choice in a running mate, because she so effectively destroys a perception they have labored long and hard to impose upon the American people, and yet he helped enable an ill-conceived bail-out plan that helps extend the reach of government further into capitalism to "Fix" a problem created by the intrusion of government into capitalism.
More and more, the average person, and by average, I mean those who haven't bought into the "New" society that the left continues to try to mainstream on the rest of us have been watching the government ignore us about drilling for oil when the price of crude started spiking, and refused to listen to us when we told them not to do the bailout. Now the economy appears to be in a freefall, and the mainstream press still ignores the stories on the leftist candidate and tries to pin everything on the other party.
The left, convinced of its superiority and the need to save us from ourselves by making government mother and father, has given up on dialogue and stridently marches forth, insisting that they have the answers and they must be empowered. The average person is feeling less and less like the government is serving us, and the candidate we are left with still holds opinions that we do not, and is arrogant enough to act on them. The fraud continues to climb, and we are continually confronted with Obamatrons who continue to allege whatever is convenient for their candidate, and completely ignore any attempts at reason, and worship (WORSHIP!!!) their candidate, who, at least with a teleprompter, dazzles with glittering generalities and nebulous promises of hope and change. And the press seems oblivious to the realities of what is occurring. A climate of general panic and fear is gripping the country. I am now convinced that if Obama loses, there will be riots and unrest. I am equally convinced that there will be unrest if Obama wins, because his associates seem to have created the perception that there is widespread fraud and corruption, and the government no longer serves our interests anyway.
I fear that we have the ingredients for a civil war, with the stakes no less than the determination of America's future as a nation united and guided by the principals that have made us an example to the rest of the world, or an America that is a hovel, buried under the weight and tyranny of mediocrity.