The real "crazy" talk

For the last year or so, there has been a constant drumbeat that the Tea Party is "crazy" and "extremist" and "dangerous". One of the biggest beaters of that drum has been Washington Post columnist and uber-Lib Eugene Robinson.

His latest column has no shortage of delusional and "crazy" talk itself. And interestingly, it's not because it's the usual boilerplate Tea Party bashing or 'Republicans are racist' stuff, it's crazy because he tries to defend the indefensible.

That's right. It's a love letter to Nancy Pelosi.

Let's parse some of the nonsense:

Losing elections is an occupational hazard for politicians, so there's no need to get all weepy about the Democratic officeholders who suddenly find themselves with more time to spend with their families. It would be more appropriate to shed a tear or two for the future of the country, what with the Tea Party brigade coming to town.

It didn't take long to get the jab in against the Tea Party. And he may claim there's no need to get weepy, but I'm willing to bet after last Tuesday Eugene did in fact get a little weepy.

President Obama still has the ability to set the nation's agenda - and also the power of the veto, in case of emergency. Harry Reid is still Senate majority leader - and after the way he punched and scrapped his way to victory, who wants to mess with him? As for John Boehner, he'll soon learn that his new job requires a more extensive vocabulary than "no."

I'm sure John Boehner's vocabulary comes from the same dictionary the Democratic party used from the years 2000 to 2008. Wouldn't you agree, Eugene?

This is the absurd double standard in American politics. When Republicans lose, they are supposed to concede, relax their principles, and rubber-stamp whatever the Democrats want to do. When the Democrats lose power, well, dissent becomes "patriotic" and they speak "truth to power" and their own crazy rhetoric gets overlooked by the Eugene Robinsons of the world.

But amid the wreckage of Tuesday's GOP rampage, there's one person for whom I feel awful: House Speaker Nancy Pelosi. She's losing her job not because she does it poorly but because she does it so well.

This is wrong on so many levels. But let's continue.

Pelosi would never ask for, or even accept, my sympathy - that's not her style. Her place in history was secure the moment she became the first woman to take possession of the speaker's gavel. Still, she squeezed every drop out of her four-year tenure. To string together a couple of sports cliches, she came to play and she left it all on the field.

As usual, the "historic" gender/race component of anything is the most important thing to a Liberal. Not the substance. Not what someone does. Not what they believe. She was the first female speaker. That's it. That's all that matters. Unless the "she" is a conservative.

I regret that the nation has never come to know the actual Nancy Pelosi. Most Americans are probably familiar only with the caricature that her political opponents sketched - the effete "San Francisco liberal" who knew nothing of America outside her mink-lined cocoon, where the taps ran with chablis and nourishment consisted of unpronounceable French cheeses, served on silver platters by waiters who were certainly gay, and quite possibly married.

Sounds about right.

That's not the Nancy Pelosi known to anyone who has ever met her. While the term "San Francisco liberal" is accurate, it's also true that she grew up - and learned the rough-and-tumble of politics - in gritty Baltimore. Her father, Tommy D'Alesandro, was a legendary "Charm City" mayor and political boss. Her education in how to count votes, and keep them counted, began at a young age.

Well, then, color me impressed. She was involved in politics from an early age? Her father was a big-time "political boss" in Baltimore? She was essentially born with a Democratic leader's congressional pen stuck in her power suit?

Only the most ardent water-carriers and out of touch beltwayers would make these points and think they are actually defending someone.

Mr. Robinson, this is exactly the problem that people have with the government in our country right now. This is one of the reasons you are seeing the rise of the Tea Party that you denounce as racist and crazy and extreme.

People are sick and tired of career politicians, born into this "show business for the ugly", entitled to rule instead of blessed to represent. People who have never run a business or met a payroll or waited tables or dug a ditch or lifted a finger to do anything other than carry a community organizer's clipboard – yet demand and command from their Washington perches more money, more liberty, more attention than us flyover rubes would ever really prefer to give them.

Kapish?

He goes on...

When she appears before the cameras, Pelosi often seems stiff and almost brittle. In person, she's warm and engaging - also funny, earthy and just plain good company. She tells a great story. She turns a mean phrase. Colleagues on Capitol Hill almost universally describe her as a good boss and simply a good person.

It was frustrating to hear Republicans demonize her in their thunderous public statements, then confess privately that they really liked her. Ain't politics grand?

And demonize her they did. In their midterm campaign, Republicans attacked Pelosi more often, and more brutally, than they attacked Obama. They made her the living embodiment of Evil Washington, or of limousine socialism, or of whatever alleged plagues that Democrats were supposedly visiting upon the body politic.

Sounds familiar. Wasn't Bush sometimes stiff in front of the camera? I wonder, was Eugene Robinson frustrated by the Democrats "demonizing" Bush "in their thunderous public statements" as well?

Some of the votes she won looked impossible. On health-care reform, there appeared to be no way the House could ever be persuaded to pass the more conservative bill that had passed the Senate. At one point, she told me she could find only "maybe a dozen votes" for the measure. But she and Reid managed to find a workable set of modifications - and a clever parliamentary maneuver to pull the whole thing off.

I was at the Capitol that day when the House passed the landmark health-care bill. Tea Party groups were protesting outside, egged on by Republican members of Congress who came out onto a balcony and led the catcalls.

Pelosi did what was right for the country, and what's right isn't always what's popular. Democrats may decide they need a less polarizing figure as minority leader; if they do, well, that's politics. But I'd love to see her stay in the Democratic leadership - and I'm betting that eventually she'd find a way to take back the gavel that she pounds with such righteous authority.

Again, this is how you defend something? A "clever parliamentary maneuver to pull the whole thing off"? And this is supposed to make us feel all warm and fuzzy about Nancy Pelosi and Obamacare?

As far as doing what's "right for the country", well, I would argue that there are differing opinions on that.

We know that, to progressives, getting the foot in the health care door and then driving out private insurance so we can get to a full-commie single payer system seems like what's "right for the country". They've been telling us so for years, by the way.

But a majority of Americans do not agree with you, Eugene. A majority of Americans reject your ideas about the role of government in our everyday life. A majority of Americans, coincidentally, disagree with President Obama's ideas about that as well.

A majority of Americans made that very clear on November 2, 2010. If you still don't get that, Eugene, well, just wait until 2012. The message will likely be even louder and clearer.

BBC questions Global Warming

Amazing. Just amazing to see the BBC of all sources printing a story which questions Global Warming. They rightly point out that indeed there has been zero increase in global temperatures since 1998.

When the BBC starts running stories like this, you have to wonder how long the Global Warming mongers have to pass their prosperity-killing policies.

Thomas Friedman officially goes off the deep end

Until he adopted the global warming scheme as his life cause, I was actually a fan of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman. I thought his writings and views on the Middle East and the Arab-Israeli conflict were among the most intelligent and sharp you could find.

But in the last few years he's gone further and further into koo koo land, and the final push over the cliff and into the abyss of lunacy took place a few days ago in his latest column.

Watching both the health care and climate/energy debates in Congress, it is hard not to draw the following conclusion: There is only one thing worse than one-party autocracy, and that is one-party democracy, which is what we have in America today.

One-party autocracy certainly has its drawbacks. But when it is led by a reasonably enlightened group of people, as China is today, it can also have great advantages. That one party can just impose the politically difficult but critically important policies needed to move a society forward in the 21st century. It is not an accident that China is committed to overtaking us in electric cars, solar power, energy efficiency, batteries, nuclear power and wind power. China’s leaders understand that in a world of exploding populations and rising emerging-market middle classes, demand for clean power and energy efficiency is going to soar. Beijing wants to make sure that it owns that industry and is ordering the policies to do that, including boosting gasoline prices, from the top down.

So, there it is. Communist, oppressive, human-rights-abusing, protest-'discouraging', soul-crushing China is the model for which we free people in democratic America should now be looking to. Because, despite those inconvenient 'drawbacks', their 'enlightened' leaders really know how to get stuff done.

From the 'top down'.

You almost don't know where to begin. So I'll just let it speak for itself.

As with my previous post, there's been a lot of the Liberal-Progressive mind exposed here lately. Call it Libs Gone Wild, if you will. Naked and joyous to the world.

It's both amazing and horrifying at the same time.

Jonah Goldberg nails it here.

UPDATE: But, once again, it should be noted any time someone is complaining about the GOP being the party of "no": The GOP does not have the votes to stop any legislation the Democrats want to pass.

The GOP is not what is stopping Obama and his merry band of Dems from passing their paradigm-shifting, massive entitlement programs during a recession and two wars. What is stopping them is that they simply lack the political courage to ram these things through on their own. They want the political cover of 'bipartisanship' when these ideas inevitably fail.

An Enchanted Evening at The White House

Do liberal reporters ever actually listen to themselves?



I guess this is the new, hopey changey, metrosexual White House press corps.

Can you imagine W getting that kind of softball?

'Extremists' protest ginormous government on tax day

As normal, average, everyday Americans across the country yesterday gathered to protest bailouts, higher taxes and general government bloating, the media and leftwing blogosphere predictably treated the whole affair with the usual snarky, mocking, and dismissive tone. [Examples here, here, and here.]

Here are a few things the mockers should note:

These protests are not about Barack Obama, he's just a catalyst, but not the source of frustration. If anything, Republicans on Capital Hill should be paying the most attention to these protests. More votes in favor of bailouts, amnesty for illegal immigrants, cap and trade, unaffordable universal healthcare, and any other such rushed, non-debated nonsense from those clowns will certainly open them up to future election defeats.

These protests are a backlash against decades of growth in Federal power, including growth under Republican administrations. So by all means, save the 'bitter clingers who just don't like Obama' criticism for something else.

These protests are not just a bunch of radical right-wing Jesus Campers out looking to network. Read or watch just about any [unbiased] report about any of the hundreds of gatherings and that's clear. Beyond that, I personally know a few registered Democrats who attended the event in Raleigh, NC. Apparently, not every Democrat is on board with the current direction of this country. Who knew?

Despite the constant talking point mantra, this was not some carefully crafted Fox News conspiracy, that's just another straw man argument that the left are masters of. Fox was simply the only network giving these protests any coverage beforehand.

Finally, it can't be coincidence that our current Department of Homeland Security just recently issued a report to law enforcement agencies nationwide about the rise of "right-wing extremist activity". Apparently, the DHS secretary feels "right-wing extremists" are every bit as dangerous to Americans as Islamic terrorists — and other than being absurd, that's just sick and sad. Especially when you consider the fast and loose definition of "right-wing extremists" given in the report.

Truly shameless.

The glass is half empty

This is more than a little disturbing. According to Rasmussen, only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism.

Let me repeat that: Only 53% of Americans believe capitalism is better than socialism.

Only 53% of American adults believe capitalism is better than socialism.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey found that 20% disagree and say socialism is better. Twenty-seven percent (27%) are not sure which is better.

Adults under 30 are essentially evenly divided: 37% prefer capitalism, 33% socialism, and 30% are undecided. Thirty-somethings are a bit more supportive of the free-enterprise approach with 49% for capitalism and 26% for socialism. Adults over 40 strongly favor capitalism, and just 13% of those older Americans believe socialism is better.

At the risk of sounding kooky, I don't think there can be any doubt that the indoctrination via watered-down and politically-correct curricula in our government schools, undeniable liberal media bias, Hollywood pop culture that celebrates general pinko-ness, and an overall dumbing down of the electorate have all contributed to this frightening reality.

The foundations, traditions and institutions of this country have been aggressively deconstructed for so long now that it's actually working. The light of the shining city on the hill is fading.

America's sunset is upon us. Well, it was good while it lasted anyway.

Another doozy of a cover from Newsweek

Let's learn to live with Radical Islam?

Are these people kidding me?



Maybe they're right. After all, this comment on Gateway Pundit probably represents a majority opinion:

There is no such thing as "radical", "moderate", or "liberal" Islam. There is only Islam itself, which is the complete way of life prescribed by Allah (swt) for all of humanity.

Look about you. Everywhere you look, Islam is advancing and the corrupt and man-made societies are in disorganized retreat.

Every day, more people embrace Islam. New mosques rise everywhere while churches and pagan temples fall into disrepair or are used as public latrines. Every day, more Muslim children are born while the cross worshipers and Jews slaughter their unborn children in filthy abortion mills.

The long struggle is nearly finished. It is time to act. Renounce your false religions now. Embrace Islam and live in peace in submission to the will of Almighty Allah (swt).

Your grandchildren will be Muslim.

Allahu akbar!
American Muslim | 03.02.09 - 9:16 pm |

Read more about this insanity here.

And people ask me why I'm pessimistic.

With each passing day there seems to be more evidence that a large number of Westerners — including many Americans — are willing to just raise the white flag and submit. Apparently believing that this is just a new reality we must accept. "This war is lost," as Harry Reid might say.

And hey, it's probably mostly our fault for creating Radical Islam in the first place, right?

Mr. Zakaria, and for that matter, "American Muslim", you should probably note that despite my pessimism I still believe there are many Americans who will resist Radical Islam with every ounce of their beings. Perhaps, if necessary, until their last breaths.

Count me as one of them.

There will come a day when the death-cult that is Radical Islam is dispensed upon the ash heap of history, like so many other failed ideologies before. Until that day comes, there is no 'learning to live' with it.

There should be only defiance of it.

10 reasons to disengage

Some may have wondered why I've been posting less frequently — and when I have, it's been of the more frivolous variety. *

Well, I guess all the gloom and doom is actually starting to have an effect. It certainly makes one want to disengage and turn off the news.

Here are 10 reasons why I'm getting less and less interested in our current state of affairs:

1) We have a President and a political party that constantly tells us how broken, destitute and horrible our country is. It's kind of a buzzkill.

2) Nationalization becomes the norm as Federal power bloats. The Era of Big Government is reborn and most people seem to be just fine with that.

3) Barney Frank and Chris Dodd have not been tarred and feathered for their culpability in the housing mess, nor have they taken any responsibility or shown any contrition, and no one seems to care.

4) Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chucky Schumer, Dick Durbin and Henry Waxman are all prominent leaders of the Democratic party in Congress. This reason alone could pretty much trump all the other ones on this list.

5) Thugs like Hugo Chavez essentially become lifetime dictators through "democratic" elections in Venezuela, and not only does no one care, the Left in this country and much of the media praises his "spunk" and "revolutionary socialism".

6) The "go green" nonsense will not go away, and in fact only seems to be getting stronger. I still believe (hope?) in 10 years or so it will be viewed as the junk science-fad-trend-thing that it is — just a ridiculous product of the worst kind of groupthink. But through wacko policy decisions that will ultimately do nothing but control more of your daily life and constrict movement, prosperity, and liberty, a lot of damage can be done before then.

7) Secretary of State Hillary Clinton perpetuates further an absurd moral relativism by apologizing for past Christian indiscretions while in Indonesia. This is just one example of a wider weakening that continues to disturb me. I keep wondering when the West will stop apologizing and start demanding one instead.

8) Ultra-rich puppetmasters like George Soros have entirely too much hidden influence.

9) Real journalism is dead and buried.

10) "Lost", "24" and "BSG" are all back on, stronger than ever, and serve as welcome distractions from the real world.

So, what does all this mean? In the grand scheme of things, not much. But for this blog it could mean you'll see a little less politics and maybe a bit more about other things that interest me: Pop culture, science, music, Mongolian agricultural trends...okay, maybe not that last one.

There will always be plenty of nutty Leftwingery to mock, and I'll never get bored with that, but for my own sanity I may need to rant about other things as well.

* No one has wondered.

Sunday must-reads

Victor Davis Hanson — Recessional: Conservatives Have Themselves to Blame

Mark Steyn — The Six-Trillion-Dollar Man

Michelle Malkin — These Foreclosure "Victims" Deserve No Sympathy

Heritage Foundation — The Obama Health Care Budget: Hopeful Savings and Costly Change

Larry Kudlow — Obama Declares War on Investors, Entrepreneurs, Businesses, And More

Trenton Newell — Government to the Rescue?

George Will — Not-so-hot reporting job

Investor's Business Daily — Venezuela's Elected Dictatorship

Deroy Murdock — The Continuing Saga of Geert Wilders

Charles Krauthammer — Obama's "Kick Me" Diplomacy

Bill Maxwell — On race, blacks are cowards too

Travis Rowley — No Country for Black Men

And finally, on the useful idiots front, see this and this.

Sunday must-reads

George Will — On our way to Waterloo

Scott S. Powell — The Culprit Is All of Us

Veronique de Rugy — Here's What $800 Billion Buys Today

Rick Martinez — One stimulus for sale

Rich Lowry — Last Gasp for Limited Government?

Monica Crowley — They're Just Not That Into You

Charles Krauthammer — Iraq: Good News is No News

Andrew C. McCarthy — It's Not the Prison, It's the Prisoners

Camille Paglia on the Fairness Doctrine

I haven't had a chance to really write much about the Fairness Doctrine, but you can be sure I'll have more to say about it in the future. I don't think there's any doubt a serious debate is coming on this issue. Although, in the end, I don't see any meaningful legislation being passed. When all is said and done, I think most Democrats won't have the guts to vote for it.

Of course, there's always the chance I could be wrong and this blog will soon be coming to you over pirate WiFi from a "reeducation camp" somewhere.

Anyway, there will be much more on this topic in the future but in the meantime I thought it was worth pointing to this very good piece by Camille Paglia at Salon.com. She's certainly no conservative, and the main thrust of the column is about Obama's rough start as President and the economy, but she goes into a bit about the Fairness Doctrine and makes some fine points:

Speaking of talk radio (which I listen to constantly), I remain incredulous that any Democrat who professes liberal values would give a moment's thought to supporting a return of the Fairness Doctrine to muzzle conservative shows. (My latest manifesto on this subject appeared in my last column.) The failure of liberals to master the vibrant medium of talk radio remains puzzling. To reach the radio audience (whether the topic is sports, politics or car repair), a host must have populist instincts and use the robust common voice. Too many Democrats have become arrogant elitists, speaking down in snide, condescending tones toward tradition-minded middle Americans whom they stereotype as rubes and buffoons. But the bottom line is that government surveillance of the ideological content of talk radio is a shocking first step toward totalitarianism.

One of the nuggets I've gleaned from several radio sources is that Michigan Sen. Debbie Stabenow, who has been in the aggressive forefront of the campaign to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine, is married to Tom Athans, who works extensively with left-wing radio organizations and was once the executive vice-president of Air America, the liberal radio syndicate that, despite massive publicity from major media, has failed miserably to win a national audience. Stabenow's outrageous conflict of interest has of course been largely ignored by the prestige press, which should have been demanding that she recuse herself from all political involvement with this issue.

The rest is here.

How to commit suicide...if you're a magazine

...or just reinforce how irrelevant you've become.

The honeymoon is over

Well that didn't take very long. As I stated in a previous post, I have really tried to have an open mind and keep a wait-and-see attitude with President Obama. Well, it hasn't taken very long to come to the conclusion that this administration is off to a bad start.

Let's review some of the crap decisions:

1) Closing Gitmo — Just a good old-fashioned dumb idea, and one that only 44% of Americans agree with.

2) Appointing tax cheats - Tom Daschle, Nancy Killefer, and Timothy Geithner; all may or may not be qualified for the positions they were nominated to, but what kind of message are we sending when such high-ranking officials are shown to be tax cheats? And by the way, on a philosophical level, I'm in complete agreement with all three of them: The Federal Government should get less of our money, and we should keep more of it. This is probably the first thing Tom Daschle and I have ever been on the same page about. However, this should be accomplished through shrinking the government, legislation and tax code reform, not fraud. Isn't it funny how Liberals are so quick to raise your taxes, but don't want to pay them themselves?

3) Sending taxpayer money overseas to fund "family planning" (abortions) — Set aside the abortion debate itself, this is a questionable idea even in good economic times; but certainly a piss-poor one during a recession. Only 35% of Americans think this is a good decision.

4) Scaring the public and whipping everyone into such a frenzy about the economy — with a brain-dead, soulless media as accomplice — so he can hastily force this porked-up bloated mess of a "stimulus" bill through Congress without anyone seriously examining or questioning it. It's nothing more than a giant spending bill covering just about every special interest except the most important special interest: economic growth. Not only is it a massive transfer of wealth, but the largest expansion of Federal power in the history of this Republic. An expansion that funds wasteful programs, rewards left-wing interest groups (victim blocks) and punishes private sector success. An expansion that could take a generation to roll back, if not longer.

Wasn't there a band of rebels who fought a revolution against such massive central power a couple of hundred years ago?

5) Shifting to a soft line on Iran — In typical Lefty kumbaya fashion, reaching out with a carrot only hardens the enemy and results in an Iranian government spokesmen saying things like, "This request means Western ideology has become passive, that capitalist thought and the system of domination have failed." Listen, there are many approaches to the Iran issue, and talking is certainly one of them. The people of Iran are not who we have a problem with, it's the nutjobs in charge, and they must not be allowed to forget that American "hard power" will always win the day.

There are certainly some other choices that have been made by this President that I can question, but these are the major ones.

Throughout the campaign I heard a lot of rhetoric about "change", doing away with "politics as usual", stopping the influence of lobbyists and interest groups, and getting the people's work done. A sweeping return to "ethics".

Why should I be surprised these were empty words?

We live in The Age of Absurdity, where up is down. Where American Idol results are more important than remembering our history or preserving our national identity. Where securing our borders equals racism. Where no one is responsible for anything anymore. Where bailouts turn me into an unwitting shareholder of Wall Street banks that I never chose to buy stock in myself. Where taxpayer money is taken and given to idiots who are then supposed to turn right around and loan that money back to the taxpayer...with interest.

Up is down, and people actually look to Washington for solutions...with a straight face.

Politicians in Washington have become just another class of sanctimonious celebrities. Out of touch, self-important, constantly campaigning. There are no more Statesmen, no true public servants who just want to do what's best for the country for a couple of years and then get the hell out and return to the private sector. Washington is a career now, and a damn lucrative one on the working man's dime.

And from what I've seen, Barack Obama is only feeding this monster. Just more of the same old business-as-usual.

Yes, the honeymoon is officially over.

"Damaged Relations"

As is usually the case, it is not so much the story itself I have an issue with, it's the way the soulless, brain-dead media reports it that confounds me.

In this case, the story is Obama sitting down for an interview with an Arabic TV channel. Okay, whatever. The story itself isn't a big deal, but the way these things actually get written up is usually good for some laughs.

As an example, I give you the AP reporting on Obama's interview the other day:

CAIRO, Egypt – President Barack Obama chose an Arabic satellite TV network for his first formal television interview as president, part of a concerted effort to repair relations with the Muslim world that were damaged under the previous administration.

This sentence leaves no doubt, the AP places the blame for any "damaged relations" with the Muslim world at the feet of George W. Bush.

I mean, it's not like the fact that two airplanes flew into and destroyed a couple of the largest buildings every built a few years ago had anything to do with those relations being "damaged".

Right?

Also in the story:

Obama's predecessor, former President George W. Bush, launched wars in Iraq and Afghanistan which prompted a massive backlash against the U.S. in the Muslim world.

Where was the massive backlash in America's heartland against Muslims after 9/11? Oh right, there wasn't one.

Where were the riots and burning-of-Muslim-flags parties held? Oh right, there weren't any.

In contrast to the enthusiastic reception Obama's victory has garnered around the world, the Arab world has been much more cautious about the new U.S. president — with most people skeptical that American policy in the region will change substantially.

"I can't be optimistic until I see something tangible," said Hatem al-Kurdi, 35, a Gaza City engineer who saw parts of the interview. "Anyone can say nice words, but you have to follow with actions."

Does anyone else see the absurdity in all of this? Not just the content, but the fact that we are even asking the question: What we must do to repair relations with the Muslim world?

"Something tangible"? "Follow with actions"? — Such as planes flying into buildings? Certainly "tangible" "actions" indeed.

This writer is not waiting for America to bend over backwards to repair relations with the Muslim world. On the contrary, this writer is waiting for the Muslim world to repair relations with America.

Purging itself of the death-cult radicals among it's ranks would be a good start, followed by a complete reformation.

I'm not holding my breath.

AP: To avoid financial crisis, become islamic

According to the AP, we could have avoided the economic crisis altogether had we just switched to an islamic financial system:

DETROIT (AP) — Big financial institutions have been battered by mortgages gone bad. But a tiny Michigan bank is getting attention in the industry by turning a profit on loans without even charging interest.

Its specialty: financial products that comply with Islamic law. That means no collecting interest, no short selling and no contracts that are considered exceedingly risky.

It also rules out some of the activity that got Western finance in trouble — subprime mortgages, credit default swaps and the like.

"When you look at the economic crisis we're in, if you were to follow Islamic or Sharia financing, you couldn't have this crisis," said John Sickler, corporate director for the bank, University Islamic Financial Corp. in Ann Arbor.

Well gee whiz...we have finally found the solution to our economic problems!

Seriously, we know the mainstream media is dead, but the fact that some moron actually thought this was a serious, worthwhile news story is further evidence of it.

Gore's revenge?

I had a busy weekend (in more ways than one) so instead of bombarding this blog with what should have been a lot of my brilliant commentary heading into this important election, there's been nada that last few days. I apologize to my 3 readers.

I do have a few thoughts about tomorrow that I wanted to throw out there.

I don't have a prediction about the winner, but I have a feeling The Hero will win my state of North Carolina.

This election has never really been about Barack Obama or The Hero, it's really been about revenge, plain and simple. It's been about the revenge of the Left for the last 8 years.

Let's face it, they've always felt the 2000 election was stolen, and they've never gotten over it. 2004 was supposed to be the big comeback, but they only managed to gain a slight majority in congress, which is nothing to shake a stick at. But they weren't able to push Kerry over the top. They underestimated W. and more importantly, overestimated the public's distaste for his presidency. There have been many failings of the Bush Administration, but the American people don't hate the man in the way the media and the hard left would have us believe. 2004 proved that.

Regardless, the DNC took the last 4 years and focused on one thing: winning back The White House in 2008. They built what will probably go down in history as the most effective political machine in history, and no matter who emerged as the candidate — Obama, Clinton, Edwards — they were going to have a monster of a campaign working for them. Obama's charisma, lack of baggage, centrist rhetoric and perceived status as an agent of 'change' has probably positioned him to win better than the other serious Democratic candidates would have been. Although, to someone of my leanings, Hillary would have been a better, more acceptable alternative.

But now, that's neither here nor there.

Just remember that this election has never really been about the two candidates. It's always been about the Left finally getting Gore's revenge.

I'm not trying to make excuses and I'm not conceding defeat. I'm simply stating a fact that this election was going to be a huge uphill battle for whoever the Republicans nominated.

When you think about where Bush's approval rating is and the current state of the Republican image, it's amazing that this race is even close. The reason? As I've stated before, the Democrats are notorious for nominating the wrong candidate in their primary process. Obama, if he wins, is only barely acceptable to the American people as a whole. Someone who would have been more acceptable, like Hillary, would probably win by 15 points.

But in this election from Hell, I guess 'barely acceptable' is all the Left had to really do, and that's probably the saddest thing of all — look how low our expectations for our leaders have become.

For me, while The Hero may not have been my personal first choice to run from my side, and while he may not have ran the best campaign; he is still a good and decent man, a patriot, and someone who has devoted most of his life to working very hard for the betterment of this country. His record of bipartisanship and proven leadership is deep and cannot be disputed.

When I look back on 2008, that will always be enough for me, and that's why John McCain will get my vote tomorrow.

An Obama minion speaks

I have no idea if this is true or not. If it isn't, it's an entertaining conspiracy read. If it is true, well, it speaks for itself.

From Hillbuzz:

Ok, I want to clear my conscious a little. Hopefully you could make a blog post to help some fellow clinton supporters out.

I work for a campaign and can’t wait for this week to be over.

I was doing it for a job. I was not a fan of any candidate but over time grew to love HRC.

The internal campaign idea is to twist, distort, humiliate and finally dispirit you.

We pay people and organize people to go to all the online sites and “play the part of a clinton or mccain supporter who just switched our support for obama”

We do this to stifle your motivation and to destroy your confidence.

We did this the whole primary and it worked.

Sprinkle in mass vote confusion and it becomes bewildering. Most people lose patience and just give up on their support of a candidate and decide to just block out tv, news, websites, etc.

This surprisingly has had a huge suppressing movement and vote turnout issues.

Next, we infiltrate all the blogs and all the youtube videos and overwhelm the voting, the comments, etc. All to continue this appearance of overwhelming world support.

People makes posts to the effect that the world has “gone mad”

Thats the intention. To make you feel stressed and crazy and feel like the world is ending.

We have also had quite a hand in skewing many many polls, some we couldn’t control as much as we would have liked. But many we have spoiled over. Just enough to make real clear politics look scarey to a mccain supporter. Its worked, alough the goal was to appear 13-15 points ahead.

see, the results have been working. People tend to support a winner, go with the flow, become “sheeple”

The polls are roughly 3-5 points in favor of Barack. Thats due to our inflation of the polls and pulling in the sheeple.

Our donors, are the same people who finance the MSM. Their interests are tied, Barack then tends to come across as teflon. Nothing sticks. And trust, there were meetings with Fox news. The goal was to blunt them as much as possible. Watch Bill Oreilly he has become much more diplomatic and “fair and balanced” and soft. Its because he wants to retain the #1 spot on cable news and to do that he has to have access to the Obama campaign and we worked hard at stringing him a long and keeping him soft for an interview swap. It worked and now he is anticipating more access. So he is playing it still soft.

This is why nothing sticks.

The operation is massive, the goal is to paint a picture that is that of a winner, regardless of the results.

There is no true inauguration draft or true grant park construction going on. There will be a party, but we are boasting beyond the truth to make it seem like the election is wrapped up.

Our goal is to continue to make you lose your moral. We worked hard at persuasion and paying off and timing and playing the right political numbers to get key republican endorsements to make it seem even more like it was over and the world was coming to an end for you all.

There is a huge staff of people working around the clock, watching every site, blogs, etc. We flood these sites. We have had a goal to overwhelm.

The truth is here. I could go on and on, but you get the picture.

I am saying this because I know HRC was better for the country, and now realize this. I was too late by the time I connected to her. To me Barack was just a cool young dude that seemed like a star. I didn’t know him or his policies, but now I understand more than I care to and I realize his interests are more for him, and the DNC and all working like puppets with dean. I always thought a president wanted the better good for the country. The end result I see is everyone dependent on the government, this means more and more people voting for the DNC. This means the future is forever altered. I don’t see this as america, so I am now supporting John Mccain.

Sarah Palin is a huge threat, and our campaign has feared her like you can’t imagine. If it seems unfair how she has been treated, well its because she has had a team working round the clock to make her look like a fool.

this is a big conspiracy and I am so shocked that its not realized.

We released a little blurb the other day that the Obama campaign was already working on reelection and now putting our efforts towards 2012. This was to make it seem like it was above us to continue caring about 2008. Trust me, its a lie. David is very smart, but its a sticky ugly not very truthful kind of intelligence.

Its not over yet, but I think the machine is working. And its a hill to climb.

I will be quitting my post on nov 5th and my vote will be for John Mccain. Fortunately, my position has been a marketing position and I don’t feel I had any part of anything I would feel guilty for. But I look forward to getting out of this as the negativity and environment upsets me.

I wish you all well, and goodluck.

PS my name is not really sarah. but I am a female and I understand your plight.

The death of journalism

Let's be honest, it happened a long time ago.

But, Orson Scott Card, a registered Democrat and, by the way, a hell of a fine novelist, has written one of the most important and scathing columns I think I've ever read.

In it, he skewers the media and his own party for their lack of integrity in reporting on this whole economic mess we find ourselves in.

Trust me, it's a must read.

An open letter to the local daily paper -- almost every local daily paper in America:

I remember reading All the President's Men and thinking: That's journalism. You do what it takes to get the truth and you lay it before the public, because the public has a right to know.

This housing crisis didn't come out of nowhere. It was not a vague emanation of the evil Bush administration.

It was a direct result of the political decision, back in the late 1990s, to loosen the rules of lending so that home loans would be more accessible to poor people. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were authorized to approve risky loans.

What is a risky loan? It's a loan that the recipient is likely not to be able to repay.

The goal of this rule change was to help the poor -- which especially would help members of minority groups. But how does it help these people to give them a loan that they can't repay? They get into a house, yes, but when they can't make the payments, they lose the house -- along with their credit rating.

They end up worse off than before.

This was completely foreseeable and in fact many people did foresee it. One political party, in Congress and in the executive branch, tried repeatedly to tighten up the rules. The other party blocked every such attempt and tried to loosen them.

Furthermore, Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae were making political contributions to the very members of Congress who were allowing them to make irresponsible loans. (Though why quasi-federal agencies were allowed to do so baffles me. It's as if the Pentagon were allowed to contribute to the political campaigns of congressmen who support increasing their budget.)

Isn't there a story here? Doesn't journalism require that you who produce our daily paper tell the truth about who brought us to a position where the only way to keep confidence in our economy was a $700 billion bailout? Aren't you supposed to follow the money and see which politicians were benefiting personally from the deregulation of mortgage lending?

I have no doubt that if these facts had pointed to the Republican Party or to John McCain as the guilty parties, you would be treating it as a vast scandal. "Housing-gate," no doubt. Or "Fannie-gate."

Instead, it was Sen. Christopher Dodd and Congressman Barney Frank, both Democrats, who denied that there were any problems, who refused Bush administration requests to set up a regulatory agency to watch over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and who were still pushing for these agencies to go even further in promoting subprime mortgage loans almost up to the minute they failed.

Read on my friends, read on.

Biden grilled

Wow.




UPDATE: Tough questions lead to getting cut off.

If Obama loses...

These top 5 reasons should just about sum up what the narrative will be:

5. This is a racist country.
4. This is a racist country.
3. This is a racist country.
2. This is a racist country.
1. Dick Cheney rigged it.

Just helping you prepare, that's all.