The Past Few Months

I'm not dead... just slightly disinterested in pontificating at length about current events (which I do still follow nonetheless). To restart this I will go through some of my saved news stories from the past months to illustrate my opinion and try to keep commentary short (though I'm not making any real promises).

Anywho, the past few months have seen the policies that Obama wanted but didn't say he wanted in mixed company or on TV during the campaign come to life. We've also seen him whine and complain about an economic situation that the next president would have killed to inherit (in comparison to what it has become with the addition of a Democratic Presidency to the already two year old Democratic Congress). Thankfully, at least a majority now have their eyes open and are no longer zombies following his idiocy.

The stimulus has tanked, but depending on the audience or the member of the media, Obama will either blame Bush (despite the fact that 7 months have passed and it is certainly his economy now, especially since he quadrupled the deficit in a single year and can't seem to stop spending) or claim that there are gains when there obviously haven't been any. First Story: Sweetness and Light Blog: "1 Yr Ago – AP Bemoans 5% Jobless Rate" Joblessness has reached 9% and shows no sign of stopping despite the passage of a stimulus bill that was supposed to "create jobs now" and "prevent unemployment from reaching 8%." The problem is that AP and other "news" organizations are saying that everything is great and getting better, but when Bush's unemployment was 5% (at least 3% less than any other industrialized country) we were all going to die and the economy was collapsing. The fact is the economy was better under Bush than under Obama, and it is getting worse not as an "inherited" problem, but because the "solutions" are failing miserably. Michigan is even going to turn paved roads into gravel and bulldozing cities. There's even a government owned car company that is run by a government appointee who knows nothing about cars. But all of this is "working as intended?" How are these good ideas in the least? How is this "hope" (I can already see the "change")? "With every nightfall, the news gets worse, or at least not any better, and growing numbers of Americans are beginning to doubt that he has all the answers he so confidently insisted he did... Worse than not having the answers is the growing suspicion that Mr. Obama and his wise men even understand the question." Also, when the Soviets call you a marxist, it's pretty much beyond dispute from that point on.

Next up is Sonia Sotomayor, the soon-to-be second Hispanic Supreme Court Justice (Cardozo was Portuguese we must remember). She is, as most people paying attention know, the "empathy" nominee, who has an inability to be impartial (and was overturned for it) when there is a racial issue at stake, and she believes that policy is made (and supposed to be made) in the Appellate Courtroom (videos follow).

Context Of Sotomayor "wise Latina" comment
Uploaded by theuptake. - News videos from around the world.

The White House and members of the Senate were quite vocal that people should "be careful" about criticizing her, since they will be labeled "racist" for their opposition and lose their "Hispanic vote." First of all, if the Republican Amnesty Bill didn't make Hispanics want to vote Republican, nothing can. Secondly, Bush nominated several Hispanic people who were far more qualified than Sotomayor to the High Courts and they were met with opposition that was actually based on race, with no consequences to Democrats. Democrats now also try to mis-characterize her words to put them in a better light. But the real problem is the "I don't read Bills" mentality that is being taken by Senators for this appointment process. Constitutional "Advice and Consent" is out the window here from the Democrats.

Thankfully, only Lindsey Grahm actually voted for her in committee, so the actual Republicans on the Judiciary Committee were saved from the political ramifications of voting for a subjective, racially motivated activist, who does not even hold a candle to other sitting justices. There really was no way to stop her appointment, but at least we can put up some semblance of a resistance.

Another interesting and somewhat related side note is Justice Ginsberg's view of the reason behind the Roe v. Wade decision. Hidden in a NYTimes interview, she said the following: "Frankly I had thought that at the time Roe was decided, there was concern about population growth and particularly growth in populations that we don’t want to have too many of." This, of course means minorities... and what are the racist ramifications for this white female... none because she is a liberal.

Cap and Trade passed the House, 1000 pages completely unread and 300 pages of earmark amendments added the day of the vote. This would be the end to American prosperity, and there really is no logical way that it could work. There are increasing numbers of scientists and politicians who are now skeptical of Global Warming even existing. This is especially true since a large number of longstanding coldness records have been broken this past July, probably because the sun has calmed down considerably recently.

The scientific evidence was "compelling" at best 10 years ago. But since there has been absolutely no net temperature rises (atmospheric, sea, or surface) during this intervening time, temperatures are actually in a lowering that is expected to continue (despite the unchanged amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere), and all of the "melted" ice caps have now refrozen to levels at the turn of the 19th century... I'd say the science is significantly less than compelling... least of all to destroy the world economies against which to take action. That's really all I want to say right now on that front.

The voter fraud stuff has completely dissipated, and the Obama appointees rejected the case against the black panthers who were blocking white people from voting in Philadelphia with weapons.

Most recently we have health care insurance reform, which has been heavily covered by groups supporting and opposing the next 1000+ page bill that shreds our freedom and doesn't even attempt to solve a legitimate problem. First, we have the early partisan rhetoric that assumes that one party "cares" and the other doesn't. Then we have the textbook created crisis, which is the only way that crazy liberal policies ever get enacted. Then, of course, the tides turn. The people, overwhelmingly happy with their current quality of care and current insurance policies turn against the massive overhaul. Even people who called Obama God one week can be turned against his policies the next. Then we hear about how "health care [insurance] is a right," even though it clearly isn't.

The Bills are released, and the Congressional Budget Office starts analyzing the monstrosities, coming up with only negatives, like cost increases and no savings at all. Obama has to counter this with an infomercial on ABC, which is then disputed by none other than the New York Times. Obama can't even convince his own doctor to support the plan. He soon discovers that people don't want his plan, and his job approval suffers for pushing it. State governments raise challenges, albeit almost meaningless ones. Democrats are so forceful about the issue that they refuse franking privilege to Republican House Members who are critical of the Bill. Now we are at the point where Congress cannot vote before its recess, and will face a huge number of challenges upon return, since any town hall meetings for House and Senate Members will be bombarded with people who oppose the program. Hopefully it will go down in flames... and no one can blame the Republicans this time, since the Democrats have the House, a supermajority in the Senate, and the White House. This is all theirs, and I pray that the recess will kill this bill.

Finally, there have been two other interesting stories in the news in recent months on a more general level, which I will merely post and not discuss unless there are comments. The first was a Washington Times story called "Know Thy Enemy: This is not your mother's Democratic Party" and the second is from National Review, titled "I Still Hate You, Sarah Palin." They are good reads, and hold good messages for the continuation of the Republican Party.

Speaking of which, I am of the opinion that Sarah Palin's resignation was both financial and political, and not based on ethical or criminal charges as some claim. She will be aiming for higher office in the future, and has gambled experience for public attention and party support. She can build a base of voters and elected supporters by using her star power to help elect conservative members to Congress. This may be more important than the experience, as Barack Obama has certainly shown through his victory. I also think that her choice to support Conservatism rather than simply Republicans is a wise one that may actually lead to a third party, whether she is in it or not.

Anyway, that's all for now, and if I get an issue that strikes me I'll write more. Either that or I'll do this again in six months.

Jon Stewart and Media Malpractice

Okay, I've been inactive for a few months, but I have to comment on Jon Stewart's interview (aka witch hunt) of Jim Cramer. This interview demonstrates a degree of hypocrisy on the part of Stewart that baffles me, and it really isn't that easy to baffle me when it comes to talentless comedians like him, especially after several years of seeing The Daily Show ruin my generation's ability to process news information.

First of all, Jim Cramer has become the whipping boy not because he was a hedge fund manager who acted with questionable morals (which is a very loose characterization of what he was accused of on the show). He has become the whipping boy because of the following video, when he let slip that "Domine" Barack Obama was actually destroying the economy rather than helping it:



Now, it isn't often that a liberal democrat who had endorsed Obama (especially when he said "Obama is a recession, McCain is a depression") comes out and is honest about the wealth destroying, pork-laden, government expanding, Keynes-on-crack stimulus, but it is happening. Cramer merely called Obama's agenda "radical." Now he's been the subject of a "Joe the Plumber"-esque character assassination led by the "liberal" media. The Stewart interview was one that he should not have actually taken, given the fact that he moved close to the bottom on the White House's "People to Destroy" list.

The actual substance of the interview doesn't really concern me though. What bothers me about this interview is one thing that Jon Stewart said, through his long attempt to denigrate CNBC as a whole. Stewart said "It's not just you... it is this idea that the financial news industry is not just guilty of a sin of omission but a sin of commission; that they are actually in bed with them." He also, after a short time, said "What is the responsibility of the people who cover Wall Street?" Well, that is a very novel idea from the man who gave us this teary-eyed moment:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Indecision 2008: Barack Obama Wins

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

It's crazy for someone who actually campaigned for Barack Obama as a faux news reporter, without giving any attention to the blatant bias that he spewed forth, to call for "responsibility" in any sector of the news media. Journalism with minimal bias; journalism that serves as a watchdog to politicians; and journalism that vets candidates for qualifications, philosophy, and even policy platforms no longer exists and the Daily Show is a blatant demonstration of it. The media gave us only positive about Obama during the campaign. They ripped Sarah Palin for existing, sending hundreds of tabloid journalists to Alaska to dig up dirt, then creating false stories when they found nothing. They (with the help of various sitting government officials) illegally investigated private citizens that challenged Obama. They talked endlessly about his high IQ without knowing it, about his speaking ability (without mentioning that it came from a teleprompter). They ignored all of the warning signs (Cramer too) about his radical agenda, even calling him a "moderate." And, while men like Jon Stewart bow down and pray to the portrait of Obama that is hung on their mantles, men like Jim Cramer, who have been analyzing markets and commenting on the economy far longer than Jon Stewart has been "newscasting," have come to see the light and are, not really surprisingly given the media treatment of Obama, surprised by the policies, which anyone who hadn't been swayed by the cult of personality (nearly 53 million) knew were coming and feared, and by the inherent harm that they would and have caused and denounced them.

Those who are still Obama-maniacs now turn on those who have denounced the President's policies, none of which have actually denounced the President himself for having them (the closest was Cramer). It really just ticks me off that Jon Stewart, the most liberal "news" man in the country after Keith Olbermann and his little henchwoman (Rachel Maddow), says that the media should be responsible watchdogs that don't take what people say at face value. These are the people who railed against Sarah Palin for not saying what newspapers she read when they could not tell what newspapers Obama reads, but they want "responsible journalism." When did their lobotomy turn into a complete removal of their brain? I really don't have an answer.

Obama's Inauguration and the Lead-up

The media told me to reserve judgments of Obama until he is actually President... and so, like all crazed followers of Mr. Obama-Christ, I listened to them this time (Peer Pressure is a powerful force). I'll try to make this as short as possible, considering that it is now almost 3 months after the election.

However, now that the inauguration is over, and he is President, let’s let actual logic and sense reign again. We have several things that are troubling already from the past few weeks, then I will analyze his address. First, there were his associations (it always seems to come back to them, and they keep piling on). Every one of his dubious associations came out in media stories within a week of the election. The priests preached hate and elation at the same time. William Ayers questioned whether the victims of his bombings were in the wrong. And on December 7th (Pearl Harbor Day for those of you in Reverend Wright’s Church who don’t actually know this), Reverend Wright preached that it was the day we killed a hundred thousand Japanese people in Hiroshima in 1941... ... ... ... ... ... ... words cannot express the depth of this man’s stupidity. 80 years ago he would have been forcibly sterilized for saying something so retarded in public, since Hiroshima was in August of 1945, not December of 1941. The Japanese actually killed US on that day; prompting the entrance in the most (maybe second most) “popular” war in US history (even the Revolution was not as popular). We even got a couple more associations that should have dulled the glint of the new Democrat God… Illinois Governor Blagojevich, who has tried to sell Obama’s vacant Senate seat (though he is completely innocent of all impeachable offenses because no actual sale has occurred); Jesse Jackson Jr., Obama’s campaign chair, who, despite claiming to have been an informant for the FBI, undoubtedly tried to buy the seat; and Obama’s new chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, the dirty, scheming, knife-wielding former Representative, who was first in line to try to influence Gov. Blago’s Obama seat appointment, even before the election.

Secondly, we got to see a glimpse of this “change” that everyone was hypnotically chanting for a year... reinstallation of the Clinton administration. The majority of Obama’s cabinet is former Clintonites, and a Clinton herself. We also see lobbyists, lobbyist spouses, and a Secretary of Defense from the Bush administration. All this comes from the person who said “lobbyists will not have unbalanced influence in my administration” and “eight years of failed policies.” Change, indeed!

On top of a stale, old administration, there have been a number of scandals already. Most notable to me are Mrs. Clinton’s monetary connection to Saudi Arabia and other countries, and Mr. Geitner’s (that’s the new Secretary of Treasury – Head of the IRS) tax evasion. We have a socialist party member as the “Environment Tsar.” Change? Are you kidding me?

Then, we have the inauguration itself. He used his full name for the first time in, what, two years. The oath of office was botched (I think by John Roberts, simply because of the misplaced “faithfully”). We also have probably the shortest applause to an inauguration speech ever; the worst, most incomprehensible poem that I have ever heard (and I’ve read a lot of bad poetry); and the most racist thing I have ever heard said in the Benediction. Obama’s speech was much like his campaign speeches – empty. He contradicted himself no less than 3 times, most notably saying that we should take responsibility for ourselves and immediately describing how the government has to do these things for us. Even the crowd seemed to know that the speech was bad. But I shouldn’t even say that, because it was never about what he said but rather how he said it. However, even with that there was a lot to be desired. There was nothing really there.

I’m still not sure what the poet was even talking about (it was complete drivel), despite having listened to it many more times. Therefore, I will move onto the Benediction. First of all, let’s watch the part that I will discuss. The ending is all that really needs to be discussed. He said “Lord in the memory of all the saints, who from their labored rests, and in the joy of a new beginning, we ask you to help us work for a day when black will not be asked to get back, when brown can stick around, when yellow will be mellow, when the red man can get ahead man, and when white will embrace what is right, that all those who do justice and love mercy say ‘amen.’” What is that supposed to mean? First of all, a little bit from the theology – “labored rests” of the saints? Are the rests of saints labored because of the invocation of their names, or because of the state of the world. I always thought that saints were the souls that rested best among us all, having been guaranteed heaven through their shining life in service of God. Anywho, I digress.

Okay, moving onto the actually offensive part. First, “a day when black is not asked to get back” – does the inauguration of a black President mean nothing at all for the race relations in the country? Apparently so. Here is a short race rant to go with that point. Barack Obama was elected president based on his race (obviously, since he has no qualifications at all for the job), which shows just how racist the country actually is. The absence of racism means that it does not matter at all what race a person is who is elected President, or given any job. Without racism, jobs are awarded based on qualifications – on the “content of their character” as Martin Luther King Jr. would have said. Obama was not elected in this manner – he was judged by the color of his skin, or this would not be an historic day. If racism were not still prevalent, the inauguration of the first black president would mean nothing more than the changing of the guard.

Moving on in the Benediction: “[a day] when brown can stick around.” This is obviously referencing illegal immigration. I am not against immigration, but there are legal processes to do so, and the rule of law must preside over the country or we have no country. Therefore, illegal immigrants cannot be rewarded with amnesty or citizenship or welfare or any other benefit that comes from being a resident/citizen of this country. This is especially true when the country from which they come has draconian immigration laws, like Mexico’s immigration laws. Then we have “when yellow can be mellow” about Asians, but nonsensical. By the way, why do all black preachers have to rhyme EVERYTHING? Moving on, “when the red man can get ahead man” – what is keeping Native American Indians from “getting ahead”? Last I looked, there was no need for “affirmative action” for NAIs. Finally, we have the crux of the entire Benediction: “when white will embrace what is right.” What is it that we white people can do that would be “right” to this black racist? We, white people, are the ONLY reason Obama is President. The black vote did not have any significant affect on the outcome of the election. It is white people that allowed the first black Presidency and this event is not “embracing” what is “right.” What is the “hope” and “change” that is represented in this blatant racism that Obama accepts and does not even attempt to reject? Would someone please explain it to me?

The Case Against Barack Obama

Okay, on the Eve of the Election I shall offer my own insights into why Barack Obama should not become our President. I will try to categorize them or focus on the biggest / most recent reasons, simply because there is such a multitude.

First of all, I will start with associations, and get them out of the way. Also, since Obama said in his autobiography that he "chose his friends carefully," I believe there should be no doubt that these a relevant. I do not actually believe that knowing Bill Ayers is reason enough to question Obama's judgment, as many conservatives do. Like McCain says, "Who cares about a washed up terrorist?" However, the Bill Ayers connection is problematic because of what they did together. The pair served on two boards together: the Chicago Annenberg Challenge and the Woods Fund. The Annenberg Challenge was defended by Obama as a "Republican-sponsored" education reform initiative, which is fair enough, but what he neglects to mention is that the Chicago board in particular was an overwhelming failure. The entire report for the program is an attempt to justify the fact that there was no improvements in children in any of the evaluation areas. This was primarily because the overall initiative, as determined by Obama and the board, was to put money toward programs for politically activating area children, NOT toward advancing mathematics and reading skills. The priorities that Obama set for academics in Annenberg Schools was atrocious, essentially turning an academic education into one of political liberalization, assuring that these children will become the type to work in the manner of groups like ACORN.

The Woods Fund, on the other hand, is problematic because money was given to Reverend Wright's church and other areas that are quite reprehensible on most objective scales. This brings us to the next connection that Obama has, to his pastor. Reverend Wright was Obama's pastor for 20 years and was his "Spiritual Advisor" on the campaign, and was described by Obama himself as "the best that the Black Church has to offer," until he emerged into public controversy when Fox News got a hold of his own "Greatest Hits" DVD. Mind you, this was not a reporter sneaking into the Church and filming, this was a purchased DVD of what Rev. Wright believes are his finest moments preaching. On the DVD are incredibly anti-American sentiments, including among other things remarks that the United States deserved the 9-11 attacks. Wright also has various other shadowy activities, sentiments, and involvements that deeply disturb myself and many others in the nation. The response from Obama, that he never heard the specific things that came to light, is highly dubious, but even assuming its truth he would have heard about them from friends and neighbors who were present. Remember, these were his "best moments" - certainly ones that would create a stir (not necessarily controversy, since the congregation was cheering him on) and "water-cooler" discussion. We must also, based on how proud he was of these moments, believe that Reverend Wright had similar moments that did not make the DVD. While this connection did not come up very often in the campaign, in fact never from McCain's campaign itself, it is still an important flaw in Obama's judgment and perhaps a clue into his sentiments that help to disqualify him from holding the Presidency. This leads us to his next pastor, Father Phlegar, who has connections to Lewis Farrakhan, the prominent racist and spewer of antisemitism. Farrakhan, by the way, has endorsed Obama as "The Messiah," a title which he already coveted long before, but which offends me to no end. Obama is not the savior, rather the opposite.

The other connections are less well-known. First, Obama went to Kenya and campaigned for Odinga, who seized power there through murder and rioting after losing a fair election (he is now the co-ruler with his former opponent). Obama has yet to even acknowledge that Odinga is a tyrant leader of Kenya, but instead continues to support him morally. Then there is Khalidi, who was a spokesman for the Palestinian Liberation Organization (during the time when it was on the US list of terrorist organizations - it has since changed). Obama gave money to Khalidi and his wife through the Woods Fund, which was supposed to "help the disadvantaged." Khalidi is also central in a new controversy about a dinner party which apparently was rabidly anti-Israel, which Obama and Ayers both attended, but the tapes will not be released by the LA Times. They apparently were very close family friends - the Khalidis babysat for the Obamas. I believe that these associations not only demonstrate parts of his worldview, because he did not denounce (and has not in many cases) a single one of them until he realized that they were problematic to his ambition for the Presidency, but also show who has his ear or loyalty, or whom he owes favors.

Probably most troubling however is his own wife, Michelle, who seems to have a large amount of hatred toward white America and America in general. She stated early in the campaign that she was "proud" of her country for the first time in her adult life while her husband was winning primaries. This was then altered later that same day to be "really proud," in order to save face probably. She has also said that "America is a downright mean country." She is a far cry from Laura Bush, who even with her husbands approval rating below 20% is still loved by the public. Michelle Obama had to disappear until the opening night of the Convention, where she had a heavily scripted speech that answered for her anti-Americanism. This speech also infuriated me because it made it seem like she believes that she is special for doing things for her own children. She listed things that every mother does and made them seem as though she was the only person alive who was a good enough mother to actually do them. Then she crawled back under her rock until more recently appearing in audiences and having limited speaking engagements.

The second aspect of my argument is his experience, which I believe is the only indication we have of his worldview (and apparently Tom Brokaw would agree...). It is not just experience that he lacks; it is accomplishment. What has he done? He went to two very reputable schools, but will not release his school records, prompting many including myself to believe that he was given an affirmative action seat in the classes, something of which his wife Michelle is proud that she was able to partake. During this time, he was President of the Harvard Law Review, during which time he published nothing at all in the journal that he ran. He then became a community organizer, working with groups like ACORN and with ACORN itself. During this time he served as a lawyer to argue a case about motor voter laws and he brought legal action against banks under the auspices of the Community Reinvestment Act (the cause of the Economic meltdown). He was also a trainer for new leadership in ACORN - something that has proven truly remarkable, with all the voter fraud that has become a cornerstone of the campaign, goaded by these leaders that Obama trained (directly and indirectly). Giuliani got a lot of flak for asking, but he was right to ask - "What IS a community organizer?" I still don't really know, and apparently neither did Obama, but he used it for a long time as an exemplar of his life experience and commitment to the underprivileged (which apparently means "middle class" to him).

Then, he became a law professor (technically a lecturer, but who cares outside of school culture), where he doesn't seem to have stood out as anyone's favorite. He taught Constitutional Law, and seems to have developed his very activist mentality toward the Courts. During this time he started his part-time political career in Ayers' home, running for the State Senate. He systematically had every other candidate thrown off the ballot for "phony petition signatures" and ran unopposed. This was the start of his "thug" politics, which appear again and again as he continues to rise. Achieving his seat, he then voted "present" more than 100 times on all controversial issues, undoubtedly aiming higher from the beginning. He did not make a decision in these cases. The one exception was the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act, which would give medical care to children that survived a failed abortion. He voted against this measure, because he said it would impede Roe v Wade. How does mandating protection to a living infant impede the right to privacy in the decision of getting an abortion? To all of the US Senators, who passed an identical bill by unanimous consent, there was no Roe v Wade issue.

It was also during this time when he made the anti-Constitution remarks (stating that the Constitution represented a "fundamental flaw" in our country... despite the fact that it IS our country) and his first known socialist views. He stated that the Warren Court (notoriously activist, often beyond the bounds of law itself) was not radical because it didn't entirely ignore the Constitution and award reparations during the Civil Rights Movement.

Then he ran against Alan Keyes for the US Senate seat. Keyes was raked over the coals for the statement that even Jesus would reject Obama, and lost the race. Obama was in the Senate for 183 days of business before throwing his hat in the ring for the Presidency. He has a chairmanship of a foreign policy subcommittee that has not met once since he became chairman, and he has only passed a single bill. However, he has sponsored at least one notable one - the Global Poverty Act (or whatever the short name is), which would have increased foreign poverty relief aid by more than $800 billion in a 14 year period (more than the already large amount - while we do not give the same percent GDP of any of the other United Nations countries, we do give the largest amount by a huge margin...nearly double that of the next three largest contributors combined). Ever since, he has been campaigning for the Presidency, changing his mind on policies by the month (and often by the week).

What does his life story tell us about his worldview? It tells me that he does not approve of the limited government that the Constitution established, that he favors redistributive policies at the expense of those rich white people, and that he does not have a single accomplishment that either prepares him for the Presidency or makes him deserving of it. When did the office fall to such a level that a man that has no distinctions at all, and expresses interests contrary to those of the founding (which has guided us to be the most prosperous nation in history), were worthy of holding it?

The third and final section that I will write, since it is getting late, will be his policies. Many of his policies are undefined or under-defined, or simply demonstrate that he does not understand the world. His mantra has been "hope," "unity," and "change," but he offers none of them. His tax policy redefines what a "tax cut" is. He offers 95% of Americans (35% of which do not have tax liability) refundable tax credits (meaning that they get them regardless of their liability) while increasing the tax rates of those making over a certain amount of money (which changes depending on when he and his surrogates speak -- anywhere from $300,000 to $120,000 annual income). Okay, here's my problem with this plan -- it is welfare by a different name. I keep coming back to my favorite Reagan speech (his 1964 "Time For Choosing" Speech), where he said "We have so many people who can't see a fat man standing next to a thin one without coming to the conclusion the fat man got that way by taking advantage of the thin one." This is exactly what Obama thinks. Someone cannot make a certain amount of money (which he arbitrarily sets) without having held everyone below that level down. Achievers must be punished in order to give the fruits of their achievements to those who did not produce them, rather than granting a path toward achievement for everyone. Someone needs to explain to me what the motivation is to do something, when it will be done for you anyway. Why would someone take a chance and open a business, or invent something, or simply work in general, if they will achieve the same or a worse result for success as for not doing anything at all?

However, on the same front, he also states that he will return the tax rates (for everyone) to Clinton levels. This means that despite his claims that 95% of Americans will not have a tax increase, they will see their taxes go up simply because a tax cut expires. The tax increases that he proposes are over and above this rise. He also wants to raise payroll taxes (Social Security) and raise Capital Gains taxes (though he stupidly believes that capital gains can become a progressive tax). He repeats over and over the same statements about his tax plan, despite the evidence to the contrary from numerous third party sources. Also, we should be sure to note that Clinton ran on tax cuts, and ended up imposing one of the largest tax increases in history, while still coasting on the Reagan economic boost. He supports "spreading the wealth" to help the "Middle Class" while he leaves his brother and aunt in abject poverty unassisted despite the vast amounts of wealth he has now amassed (under Bush economic policies mind you).

Then, we have his foreign policy, which seems to be increased aid (without assuring that we are fine domestically), ending the war in Iraq (which has been won for him, despite his opposition), and talking unconditionally to rouge dictators who threaten us and our allies. Is there anything else? Oh, and having Joe Biden, who does not know how to pick the right side of a foreign policy decision, as a running mate does not actually increase his credentials, especially when Biden warns that Obama (not McCain) will be tested by an artificial crisis within 6 months.

We then have his domestic policies. Abortion for all, even when it means infanticide. He "doesn't support" gay marriage, but actively works against states' initiatives to ban it. He believes that Global Warming is man-made, and that the solution is a huge carbon tax imposed, "bankrupting" the coal industry, and raising energy prices through the roof. He does not support drilling for oil (but will pander to the people that have been shouting endlessly for it). He does not include nuclear energy in his list of alternatives to oil and coal, which makes it such that he could not possible power the country's needs.

What is "hopeful" about having no electricity, no job, no incentive to work hard (or at all)? What is "change" about welfare? What is "unifying" about class warfare? The polls are split, polarized further than they have been in a long time, regardless of who is leading. How do you bring people together with a message of hope when you "get in the face" of your opponent and promote anger and hatred on both sides of the aisle, and when you tear the hopes of success from people's fingers? This is the message I see from Barack Obama, and the short version of the case against his Presidency. I hope that America sees it at least similarly enough to keep him out of office.

Effigies

Okay, so within a week we have two completely separate effigy-hangings of candidates -- one of Barack Obama and the other of Sarah Palin. The only difference is that the Secret Service arrested two people for the Obama one, and asked nicely for the Sarah Palin one to be pulled down with no legal or criminal consequences. Why is it that hate crimes are only able to be perpetrated against minorities... It was no big deal with Bush or Palin effigies, but hang the Messiah and there will be Hell to pay. One question though, if he's the Messiah... shouldn't he welcome it as inevitable?

Media Bias Caused by Campaign Bias?

Coming off my entry on double standards, I will add this new story to the mix. The Obama-Biden campaign has recently cut off all media contact with an Orlando network, because they asked him difficult questions. Here is the news story. The interview was actually fair questions, focusing on the two major statements that the campaign has made in the past weeks -- The "Spreading the wealth around" comment and the "Mark my words" warning. It also asked about ACORN (which Biden lied about). Below is the interview that caused their campaign to cut off communications simply because they did not like the very good questions that they asked.



Now, I generally try to give the media the benefit of the doubt, not denouncing them for every little thing. However, as this election has progressed, it has become clear who many in the media are pulling for. From The View, which asked Obama the hard-hitting question "Are you related to Brad Pitt?" to the New York Times that says a deep connection to William Ayers is a "distraction," while running front page stories on both Palin's wardrobe budget and Cindy McCain's previous legal drug addiction (also while ignoring Obama's admitted drug use). Responsible journalists should be willing to ask these tough questions, despite the fact that their paper or studio endorses one candidate or the other. As the Obama press release stated: "There's nothing wrong with tough questions, but reporters have the very important job of sharing the truth with the public." These questions were using the words of the candidates themselves (and the Marx quotation was fair, because it is simply another characterization of "Spreading the Wealth Around").

They were giving Biden the opportunity to explain himself and his running mate, because these are the statements that are on the tip of the tongue for the other side. How did Biden react? He asked whether the questions were "jokes," then the campaign shunned the news network. Let's see, is there another news network that this campaign has shunned in the past... oh yeah, how about Fox News Channel. Some of the top news anchors in the business are on that network (Greta Van Susteren, Brit Hume, and Bret Baier) and this campaign, along with the rest of the Democratic Party, shunned the primary debate that was hosted by this network (with no provocation, except that of moveon.org) and Obama has only granted one interview on this network -- to O'Reilly, and simply because regardless of what is said during the interview, O'Reilly (who has huge ratings for some reason) backs off criticism for the most part afterward. Why is this? Well, it seems clear now that tough questions will be asked and the campaign does not agree that they should be "vetted" by a media that asks questions which they do not like, nor to which they have already prepared talking point answers. But with this recent development, it seems to be the clear message that if a news network wants to have an interview, they will not ask tough questions. I think McCain should make this a campaign point, and take at least 3 more interviews with them in the next 10 days, stating that he's "not afraid of tough questions."

UPDATE: Here's another one...

Double Standards in the Election Process

Okay, here is a new analysis of this election cycle that concludes that there is an intense double standard when it comes to corruption, temperament, and other things in the Democratic Party.

First of all, let's take a look at an issue that has come to the forefront again in a recent New York Times article... drug use. Okay, first the Republicans. George W. Bush has been raked over the coals because he "didn't deny" using cocaine or marijuana (despite the fact that he did not admit it either, he simply refused to answer the questions). The NYT article calls out Cindy McCain for being addicted to prescription painkillers (an addiction that many people are subject to, and a "legal" drug addiction). The story drew attention to the fact that she stole drugs from her company. Okay, that's pretty bad, and deserves some kind of attention. But when attention is paid to this but not to, say, Obama's ADMITTED Cocaine and Marijuana use (felonies by the way), there is a problem. Obama admitted use of cocaine in his first autobiography, "Dreams from my Father." People used Bush's alleged drug use early on to try to disqualify him from being the President. What about Obama? Obama is already only barely qualified, if that. Drug use, if he were a Republican, would certainly be the focus of a campaign against him that would prevent him from taking office.

The second issue is, looking down the long list... how about racial slurs? Let's see a couple of Republican "racial slurs" via YouTube:

Below is George Allen's "Macaca" comment, which for all intents and purposes lost him his reelection, despite being the more qualified, better choice for the Senate seat. It is also speculated that this tiny comment removed him from consideration for the Presidential nomination.



And here is another "racial slur," that has been criticized recently in the current campaign.



These two examples are not an exhaustive list of "racist statements" that have been highly criticized since they were made. There are scores of other "phony controversies," including Trent Lott's complements of Strom Thurmond (on his birthday mind you). However, Obama, Biden, and surrogates have their own set of racist statements that are more overtly racist, which have been completely ignored. Videos are below:

Here is Joe Biden's amazing assessment of Delaware 7-11's and Dunkin Donuts. He says that you can't go there without a slight Indian accent, and what is better is that he's talking to an Indian person. Watch.



This next video is from earlier in the campaign, when Obama clarified his assessment of his grandmother's "racial animosity." This is by far the most racist thing that has been said in this election, and no one seems to care, because the Messiah was speaking.



Okay, where was the outrage then, and where is it now? If there were actually a media of note these days, there would be an investigation into how these racist views formed (say, Obama's connections to Reverend Wright and Father Pfleger), or even actual coverage of such views on the news. These should be very troubling to people who seek "hope" and "change." Imagine the fallout that could come from 4 years of a black-supremacist President. There I said it. Barack Obama is a black-supremacist who submits to the doctrine of Black Liberation Theology and entitlement for events that never actually occurred to him.

The third and final (for the purposes of keeping this relatively short) issue will be "hate." The media has been obsessed with a few people in McCain rallies that have been emotional over the election. They say that these are "overwhelmingly angry" rallies that spew forth hate. Okay, there was a person that called Obama a terrorist (because he "pals around with" Bill Ayers). There was also a person who shouted "Treason," which, although not at the right part of the rally, is somewhat true, since the Iraqi Foreign Minister has come out saying that Obama tried to prevent a troop withdrawal plan until he was President... that is interference in national security affairs, which is cause for accusations of treason. Also, the media reported hearing someone say "Kill Him," but the Secret Service has already said that these accusations are unfounded (Here's the Story).

Now to the Democrats' hateful activities this year. They have burned McCain Palin signs, called a 7th Grader "racist" for wearing a McCain Palin shirt, called for a boycott of a Maryland hotel that dared to put a McCain-Palin sign alongside its Obama-Biden sign, vandalized Republican offices and homes, called Palin "Pontius Pilate" on multiple occasions, said that Palin would be "gang-raped by blacks," called all of Western Pennsylvanians "racist" and "redneck" (PS: Vote against Murtha if you have a chance...), called McCain supporters and friends "terrorists," called critics of Obama "terrorists," predicted riots if Obama loses, and even physically assaulted at least one McCain supporter. Below is a video of McCain supporters who dared to march through the streets of New York City. (UPDATE: They have also shot at the home of a McCain campaigner). "Get in their face" politics are getting out of hand I think. UPDATE 2: The picture on the left is from a New York "art" exhibit, in which people can get a photo of themselves pointing a gun at a cardboard cut-out of Sarah Palin and her youngest baby. Like the article where the picture comes from, I ask you "What if this were Barack Obama.



Going back in time we have the sheer vitriol against the Bush administration, including but not limited to calling HIM a terrorist and burning him in effigy. While I don't like Bush, and didn't long before he was even elected, no President ever deserves this kind of treatment and disrespect. See one of the many videos below.



The actions of protesters of the Iraq War and the Bush administration in general have been completely over-the-top. But why is this kind of thing acceptable for one side, and not for another. The Republican rally anger has paled in comparison to that of Democrats toward McCain. But Republican crowds are "dangerous" and nothing is said about Democrat crowds.

Why should these double standards in politics, media, and just everyday life be allowed to continue?