Obama's bluffing - he's probably not ahead for real

He's trying to bluff his way into making McCain voters fold a winning hand. See the strategy HERE.

McCain - Conservatives - Complicated

Pretty good summary of McCain's complicated relationship with conservatives, and how is back-and-forth across the aisle has complicated the argument between right and left during this election - HERE.

Stock Martket to Obama - We don't like you

Obama promising to repeat the 30's mistakes of Hoover and FDR ... HERE

College Elites Disconnect from National Security

Some top ranked colleges (Brown, Chicago, Columbia, Harvard, Stanford, Tufts, and Yale) ban the US Army from maintaining a recruiting station on campus.

Reasonable alumni must be ashamed. Deplorable. HERE

Polls are always wrong - Go Vote!!

Democrats historically poll higher than Republicans, and a week before the election in 1980 Reagan was trailing Carter.

Don't listen to the polls, which are almost always wrong anyway. GO VOTE!!!!

Karl Rove column

Obama and I finally agree

that he's 'sorry' VIDEO

Will Obama share his foxhole with you?

or will he ask blankly "What horde of enemies?"

This is chilling

The Ultimate Reality Show - Obamorph!

Can't wait for the Carter/Zimbabwe mix to kick in! It'll be the new reality show - "Obamorph" ... subtitle: Have Teleprompter Will Travel. Watch the US become irrelevant on the world stage ... right. before. your. eyes. Limited commercial interruptions, because there will be limited commerce! Catch all the inaction on every channel - because every surf deserves to know why he's sending more of his money to D.C. Obama has determined in his own mind not only who should have less and who should have more, but what you should watch and listen to. It's great! No more decisions to choose among the abundant wasteful inefficient choices of capitalism. It's a worker's paradise! If it doesn't feel like paradise to you, take Obama's word for it (or else!), it sure feels like paradise to him - and he's smarter than you, so he must. be. right.

Season premiere January 22, 2009 ... see the teaser interviews with ACORN reps and Bill Ayers as they leave the 'transition dream team' meetings this Fall to set the agenda we all need/must have (or else!) for our lives.

Bottom Line - Obama wants to hijack 230 years of American govt philosophy

I know I'm right about this guy - he wants to impose an unconstrained viewpoint on the govt and dismiss the moorings of the Constitution (which won't have a big 'c' much longer). Apparently the effete, the elite, and the 'proleate' think that's a good thing. I don't, and think the results will be negative, even dire.

Obama the Card Cheat

If he manages to successfully steal the election (with the help of the Press, of course) he'll be forever known as President Card Cheat. In classic American lore, nothing's lower than that.

Obama - Biggest Cheater in US History

HERE.

Obama campaign has turned off filters on its credit card accepting website software so that anyone can make illegal donations. The fraud is intentional and huge.

It certainly speaks to a massive character absence - and just how do you think an O admin is going to conduct itself once it has the power, if this is how they try to get the power? Of course, as a communist/socialist/or whatever Obamacons call themselves politically I'm sure they're comfortable with the communist mantra that the means justifies the end, and 'treaties are made to be broken', etc.

This makes me sick - it's cheating, pure and simple. And like everything else that should be investigated by the Press and the Justice Dept, it's being ignored or winked at. The fix is in.

McCain will win,

if the market has a decent week.

Obama always 'polls' a lot higher than he actually scores on vote day, and all this 'redistribution of wealth' talk of his (radio interview, Joe the Plumber, etc) will really negatively impact a lot of casual voters in this last week.

Hope I'm right!

Larry Seale
LK@LKS.cc

Great Quote of WFB's

"What's wrong with socialism is socialism. What's wrong with capitalism is capitalists."

Get it?

A power, focusing video

HERE

No preconditions for Iran, but plenty for US reporters

Obama's campaign sets down stringent preconditions for US reporters wanted an audience with his highness, but eschews preconditions for hostile foreign powers who support terror against Americans and state publicly that they wish to wipe Israel off the map. His website has recently been scrubbed of this cuckoo position, but the evidence is ironclad and undeniable ...

The Facts About Barack Obama's Record:

Barack Obama Has Repeatedly Affirmed His Position Of Unconditionally Meeting With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror Like Ahmadinejad

* At A July 2007 Debate, Barack Obama Said He Would Meet With The Leaders Of State Sponsors Of Terror "Without Precondition." QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?"... OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow not talking to countries is punishment to them -- which has been the guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous." (CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC, 7/23/07)

* Watch: HERE

* In September 2007, Barack Obama Confirmed That He Would Meet With Iranian President Ahmadinejad. QUESTION: "Senator, you've said before that you'd meet with President AhmadinejadÖ" OBAMA: "Uh huh." QUESTION: "Would you still meet with him today?" OBAMA: "Yeah, nothing's changed with respect to my belief that strong countries and strong presidents talk to their enemies and talk to their adversaries. (Barack Obama, Press Conference, New York City, 9/24/07)

* Watch: HERE

* In An October 2007 CBS Interview, When Asked About Meeting With "Hugo Chavez And Etc. Etc.," Barack Obama Said "Exactly, And Without Preconditions." CBS' Harry Smith: "You said, 'I will talk to so and so and Hugo Chavez and etc., etc.'" Obama: "Exactly, and without preconditions." (CBS' "The Early Show," 10/15/07)

* In February 2008, Barack Obama Said He Has Been "Absolutely Clear" On His Position: "I Will Meet Without Preconditions" With Leaders Of Iran And Other Hostile Regimes. OBAMA: "There has been no confusion. I have been absolutely clear on this. I will meet not just with our friends but with our enemies. I will meet without preconditions." (CNN's "The Situation Room," 2/4/08)

* According To Barack Obama's Website, "Obama Is The Only Major Candidate Who Supports Tough, Direct Presidential Diplomacy With Iran Without Preconditions." "Obama is the only major candidate who supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions." (Obama For America Website, http://www.barackobama.com , Accessed 5/12/08)

Sweetheart, get me rewrite!

This guy is hilarious ... HERE

Obama - Overblown and Undercooked

A couple of thoughts ...

Overblown - Obama has a 'primaries' history of underperforming his pre-vote polling. He consistently gather a smaller % of the votes than the pre-election polling indicated, and sometimes dramatically - losing one primary in which he had an 8% lead going into vote day. So the polls showing him to be up 3-5% might actually be worrying Obama's campaign, not buoying it.

Undercooked - If Obama wins the election and serves out his first term, it will be the longest he's ever held a real job. If the majority of your life savings was in stock in a major corporation (complex and large), how would you be feeling about the board of directors choosing as CEO a guy who literally had never held a real job for more than a couple of years? You'd feel just like I would - outraged and paniced - "What the HELL are those guys thinking?! What are they smoking ?!"

Think. About. That.

Obama Birth Certificate Suit Appealed

Philip Berg is appealing his lawsuit (to compel Obama to present a certified authentic birth certificate) to the Supreme Court HERE.

FYI, the lawyer Obama has chosen to represent him is Joseph Sandler, who has represented CAIR - the Council on American Islamic Relations, and MoveOn.org.

Everything you need to know about ACORN

HERE. And it's a wiki!!!

Interesting poll analysis - McCain is gaining

Intriguing inside baseball stuff HERE....

Obama ripping the Constitution

Here

By Bill Whittle

The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, a Chicago public radio station. And this time, Barack Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking on a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American — or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter HERE

Barack Obama, in 2001:

You know, 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 vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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 it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

A caller then helpfully asks: “The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

THE FIRST CIRCLE OF SHAME
There is nothing vague or ambiguous about this. Nothing.

From the top: “…The Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society. And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical.”

If the second highlighted phrase had been there without the first, Obama’s defenders would have bent over backwards trying to spin the meaning of “political and economic justice.” We all know what political and economic justice means, because Barack Obama has already made it crystal clear a second earlier: It means redistribution of wealth. Not the creation of wealth and certainly not the creation of opportunity, but simply taking money from the successful and hard-working and distributing it to those whom the government decides “deserve” it.

This redistribution of wealth, he states, “essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time.” It is an administrative task. Not suitable for the courts. More suitable for the chief executive.

Now that’s just garden-variety socialism, which apparently is not a big deal to may voters. So I would appeal to any American who claims to love the Constitution and to revere the Founding Fathers… I will not only appeal to you, I will beg you, as one American citizen to another, to consider this next statement with as much care as you can possibly bring to bear: “And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried 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 it’s been interpreted, and [the] Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

The United States of America — five percent of the world’s population — leads the world economically, militarily, scientifically, and culturally — and by a spectacular margin. Any one of these achievements, taken alone, would be cause for enormous pride. To dominate as we do in all four arenas has no historical precedent. That we have achieved so much in so many areas is due — due entirely — to the structure of our society as outlined in the Constitution of the United States.

The entire purpose of the Constitution was to limit government. That limitation of powers is what has unlocked in America the vast human potential available in any population.

Barack Obama sees that limiting of government not as a lynchpin but rather as a fatal flaw: “…One of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that 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 coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

There is no room for wiggle or misunderstanding here. This is not edited copy. There is nothing out of context; for the entire thing is context — the context of what Barack Obama believes. You and I do not have to guess at what he believes or try to interpret what he believes. He says what he believes.

We have, in our storied history, elected Democrats and Republicans, liberals and conservatives and moderates. We have fought, and will continue to fight, pitched battles about how best to govern this nation. But we have never, ever in our 232-year history, elected a president who so completely and openly opposed the idea of limited government, the absolute cornerstone of makes the United States of America unique and exceptional.

If this does not frighten you — regardless of your political affiliation — then you deserve what this man will deliver with both houses of Congress, a filibuster-proof Senate, and, to quote Senator Obama again, “a righteous wind at our backs.”

That a man so clear in his understanding of the Constitution, and so opposed to the basic tenets it provides against tyranny and the abuse of power, can run for president of the United States is shameful enough.

We’re just getting started.

THE SECOND CIRCLE OF SHAME
Mercifully shorter than the first, and simply this: I happen to know the person who found this audio. It is an individual person, with no more resources than a desire to know everything that he or she can about who might be the next president of the United States and the most powerful man in the world.

I know that this person does not have teams of highly paid professionals, does not work out of a corner office in a skyscraper in New York, does not have access to all of the subtle and hidden conduits of information … who possesses no network television stations, owns no satellite time, does not receive billions in advertising dollars, and has a staff of exactly one.

I do not blame Barack Obama for believing in wealth distribution. That’s his right as an American. I do blame him for lying about what he believes. But his entire life has been applying for the next job at the expense of the current one. He’s at the end of the line now.

I do, however, blame the press for allowing an individual citizen to do the work that they employ standing armies of so-called professionals for. I know they are capable of this kind of investigative journalism: It only took them a day or two to damage Sarah Palin with wild accusations about her baby’s paternity and less time than that to destroy a man who happened to be playing ball when the Messiah decided to roll up looking for a few more votes on the way to the inevitable coronation.

We no longer have an independent, fair, investigative press. That is abundantly clear to everyone — even the press. It is just another of the facts that they refuse to report, because it does not suit them.

Remember this, America: The press did not break this story. A single citizen, on the Internet did.

There is a special hell for you “journalists” out there, a hell made specifically for you narcissists and elitists who think you have the right to determine which information is passed on to the electorate and which is not.

That hell — your own personal hell — is a fiery lake of irrelevance, blinding clouds of obscurity, and burning, everlasting scorn.

You’ve earned it.

THE THIRD CIRCLE OF SHAME
This discovery will hurt Obama much more than Joe the Plumber.

What will be left of my friend, and my friend’s family, I wonder, when the press is finished with them?

Mr. Thomas Sowell - NRO TV interview

Part 1 of 5 ... Constrained vs. Unconstrained
HERE

Spread the Wealth example

Below is a practical example of "spreading the wealth around" that anyone who is thinking about voting for Obama should read carefully.


Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read 'Vote Obama, I need the money.' I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a 'Obama 08' tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference -- just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application.

Homestretch notes (and predictions)

This election is potentially a tectonic shift. Obama could not possibly even be the Democratic nominee - much less in the hunt to win - if the press had not been shielding and covering for him. But If he wins, it won't matter if many Democrats and independents come to regret their vote - there won't be a 'we can just fix it in 2012'. With the additional Congressional majorities and the judges appointed and the wealth-transfer laws passed and the military gutting that will ensue .... the US might (probably?) not recover to 2007 status in our lifetimes.
Obama will not be just "another Carter Admin", as bad as that was. It will be something else, and much worse. Carter was a narrow-visioned, detail-drowning, miserly-of-spirit incompetent. Obama knows exactly what he wants to do, and what's to stop him? He has Marxist, socialist advisors that he's conferred with for decades for his theory, he'll have a supermajority in Congress to pass his legislative agenda (ending private elections for unions, taking YOUR money in confiscatory taxes, using much of it to socialize health care and pay for future voting loyalties among the 'gimme-non-tax-paying' 44% of the electorate), gutting the military now and for the foreseeable future - which will undoubtedly accelerate imminent attacks on Americans everywhere by terrorists and rogue govts. And you can bet your sweet bippy that Israel will be abandoned by an Obama admin, one step at a time, him using soothing words with each step away, until we're clear enough of those pesky Jews that the Arabs can have a clear shot at them ('Betrayal! of the most heinous kind, running away not out of fear, but out of calculated malice). His congress will allow him to run through wholesale liberal judicial appointments from top to bottom, which will serve to 'harden' his Marxist inspired philosophies into legal precedents.

If you know of anyone who is wavering on their vote, now's the time to make your stand to try and open their eyes to what lurks just around the corner.

On the upside, the National League is on the verge of winning the World Series. Thank God for sports, where hardwork and desire and discipline is 'hot-fired' by competition into achievement and a celebration of success, not a sneer-fest at the achievers for being "greedy and non-inclusionary" winners..

Do. What. You. Can. And try to leave the rest to God.

If only 10% of the Press Still Had Integrity

the American people would be enjoying access to the whole truth of Obama's agenda. Witness .....

here.

LA Times suppresses tape showing Obama and Ayers attending together a farewell party for Khalidi here. It's unbelievable that the press is so blatant as to suppress vital information the American people should be allowed to see in order to make their most informed decision. Makes me nauseous.

Obama Campaign bans TV station from access to the campaign. TV reporter had the gaul to ask Biden some direct, non-softball questions, and Biden finally snapped "Who's writing your questions? Is this a joke?!" See it here.

Ridiculous (targeting kids 12 and under) to the sublime (Levin)

Everybody is noticing the media bias ...
here

Obama campaign targeting 12 year old kids and younger
here

Obama Hood ... without the green tights
here

Mark Levin ... eloquent insight
here

Nice line, Mr. Sowell

"Some people who see the fraud in what Obama is saying are amazed that others do not. But Obama knows what con men have long known, that their job is not to convince skeptics but to enable the gullible to continue to believe what they want to believe. He does that very well." .... article link here.

Naivete, thy name is Obama

See how Obama's going to pull up your dress, America - here.

He's going to gut our military to pay for his social welfare programs. God help us.

Free Speech in the cross hairs

Death threats to pollsters when the polls don't come out with the 'correct' result, here.

Ask the wrong question if you're a reporter and get your access cutoff, here.

Speak your mind as an American citizen and have the press and law enforcement bureaucrats snooping your private life for smear material ... see Joe the Plumber post.

And of course, the Fairness Doctrine that the Dems will impose in the coming months, to try and silence conservative talk radio - it's mind boggling.

Why is Joe the Plumber's privacy being invaded?

Joe the Plumber is a private citizen, not connected to a political campaign. Why in the hell are the media and Obama supporters breaking the law to invade this guy's privacy and violate his fundamental rights? Every American should be demanding the identification and prosecution of the people responsible.

Another assault on free speech - "ask the wrong question, buddy, and prepare to play 'Hammer and Nail' (hint: you're not the hammer)".

Alas, poor Freedom of Speech ... we knew thee well.

http://michellemalkin.com/2008/10/25/will-the-privacy-champions-come-to-joe-the-plumbers-defense/

What would Vince Lombardi think of this?

Senator McCain keeps telling people that his judgment on the Surge in Iraq has helped enable us to gain victory there, while Senator Obama's judgment will leave us open to the eventuality of losing that war.

I agree with Senator McCain, but his position doesn't seem to be resonating with the majority of Americans. Why not?

As a question, I wonder if 30 years of 'participation-focused' child sports (instead of traditionally American 'results/achievement-focused' child sports, where winning is prized) has resulted in a big chunk of the American populace no longer holding to the importance of winning. It's an absolute fact that 'competition to win' is couched in negative lights by many many school admins and teachers in our public educational system. Are those chickens now coming home to roost?

Have we lost our stomach for competition, our desire to 'win', to achieve, to lead? Have people lost their understanding of the ramifications of losing a war - what comes afterward, the inspiration and encouragement it gives our enemies, the dispirit and malaise it give our own people?

Open Letter to Peggy Noonan

Ms. Noonan,

I am a huge fan of yours. I've read all your books, save the one about speaking (or was it writing?). As a writer of expression and images you are without peer.
I'm 52, lived through the triumphant philosophical foundation of William Buckley and Reagan's physical execution of that philosophy (and thank God! for it).
Reagan could have never soared to the heights of deeds that he did without Buckley's moored-in-bedrock-conservative-intellectual-springboard. Reagan distilled the 'book' of Buckley down to a battle plan and then executed - he did things. Like Reagan, Palin is a doer - she's smart enough to 'get it', but she's not the one to sit around and 'think it all up.' To say she just "says things" is inaccurate (and let's not forget that she's a subordinate to the presidential candidate's dictates and will - a good lieutenant doesn't intellectualize outloud during a campaign, he/she carries out the will of her commanding officer).

The great middle of American is tired of more blather from the suits on both sides of the aisle in D.C. They want somebody to get stuff moving, to get stuff done, to kick some butt and name some names. They want to be talked to by someone whom they believe is telling them 1) the truth, and 2) that that person believes it in their bone marrow and 3) that that person's "truth" is grounded in the traditional American philosophy of protection from foreign powers and influence, a stable currency, and freedom to pursue our individual happiness. That's why Palin is drawing so many people wherever she goes.

I think that you have missed the point with Palin. She's not Buckley. She's Reagan.

Sirens, Troy, Black Widows, Obama - Seductresses All

Quick thought - the seductive allure of the warm and fuzzy feeling one will get from voting for a black man for President - "Just imagine how good it will feel!!!", "just imagine the pride and superiority and righteous release! we'll get from voting for a Black Man!!!" - reminds me of the businessman in Vegas for a convention and he runs into a gorgeous woman in the bar, who flirts with him, charms him, dangles promises of pleasure without consequence, arouses him - his nerve synapses now firing in a cacophony of lust and desire. He's almost groaning with the thoughts of how good it will feel to join with her in a carnal embrace, the 'release of abandoned caution!' .... oh mommy! Part of him knows that she's not what she appears to be, that she's actually a hooker, and that he's risking all kinds of dangers - short term (robbery, disease, guilt) and long term (shame, devastated family, job loss, blackmail/financial loss) - but the promise of pleasure is so strong, the sirens' song so beautiful.

The seductive Obama is the Trojan Horse with socialism hiding in his belly.

We know how it ended for Troy, and how it always ends for the male spider with the Black Widow. Are we smarter than the spider?

Is Obama a Natural Born US citizen?

there's a tremendously compelling set of circumstances that suggest that he's not, and we may get to a point of knowing for sure...
See it here

McCain can win

McCain can win. I don't have a 'slam dunk' feeling that he will. But I strongly believe he can, if he focuses on the right issues and executes well in the last 2 weeks.

McCain can win.

McCain can win.

And if he does, be prepared for riots.

DOJ - out to lunch

Where in the flippin baloney is the US Department of Justice on this voter fraud stuff? Why doesn't Michael Mukasey (US Attorney General) sue these state election boards to make them verify authenticity of voter registration forms????!!!!!!!! It's total insanity not to do so. Can someone explain it to me?????

Read about it here

Obama First Term Goals

Here are a few examples, with price tags provided by the National Taxpayers Union Foundation:

• Politicized financial regulation: Obama would establish a Financial Market Regulation and Oversight Commission to "end our balkanized framework of overlapping and competing regulatory agencies" and "which would meet regularly and report to the president, the president's financial working group and Congress on the state of our financial markets and the systemic risks that face them."

Translation: more centralized and heavy-handed regulatory power over businesses for Washington.

• Government-managed medicine: Even left-leaning health care experts concede that Obama's expanded coverage plan will cost $100 billion; with no real cost containment, that will mean a second wave of reform that could impose full socialized medicine on our country.

Obama declares that "governments at all levels should lead the effort to develop a national and regional strategy for public health, and align funding mechanisms to support its implementation."

His plan also presumes racial discrimination, "requiring hospitals and health plans to collect, analyze and report health care quality for disparity populations and holding them accountable for any differences found."

• Community health centers: Your local doctor may become obsolete in Obama's brave new world in which $6.7 billion will be spent over five years building "community health centers" featuring "preventive, diagnostic and other primary care services."

• Antitrust enforcement: Promising this "is how we ensure that capitalism works for consumers," a President Obama would "stop or restructure those mergers that are likely to harm consumer welfare, while quickly clearing those that do not" and "working with foreign governments to change unsound competition laws."

Behind this harmless-sounding rhetoric is the misguided belief that the government must shield companies of its choosing from their competitors' lower prices and innovative practices. Courts and government bureaucrats under Obama could be expected to use antitrust to claim the existence of imaginary monopolies and squash mergers and other business transactions.

• Required IRAs: Under Obama, "employers who do not currently offer a retirement plan will be required to automatically enroll their employees in a direct deposit IRA account."

Costing $292 billion annually, according to the NTUF's latest analysis, Obama's plans are far more than just "change"; they would transfigure American society into full-blown socialism. With little more than a month to go before this most consequential election, voters seem not to appreciate the danger.

• Dictatorial energy policy: Obama would spend $150 billion over a decade "to advance the next generation of biofuels and fuel infrastructure, accelerate the commercialization of plug-in hybrids" and create other ways to force uneconomical forms of energy on the auto and oil industry.

A Clean Technologies Deployment Venture Capital Fund would artificially finance the environmentalist pet projects in which private investors have little faith.

Negating the global labor market, the Illinois senator also promises to "provide specific tax assistance and loan guarantees to the domestic auto industry to ensure that new fuel-efficient cars and trucks" are built within the U.S.

• Bullying utilities: The Chicago Democrat would require that 25% of electricity consumed in the U.S. be "derived from clean, sustainable energy sources, like solar, wind and geothermal by 2025." Unless those alternative sources get cheap fast, that likely means a big escalation in consumers' electric bills.

Obama also proposes "to 'flip' incentives to state and local utilities by ensuring companies get increased profits for improving energy efficiency, rather than higher energy consumption."

• Billions for teachers unions: Instead of school choice for parents, in which competition would improve public educations and give the poor access to private education, Obama proposes "an accountability system that supports schools to improve, rather than focuses on punishments."

His five-year, $90 billion education plan would dole out "a $200 million grant program for states and districts that want to provide additional learning time for students in need," double federal funding for afterschool programs, provide "professional development and coaching to school leaders, teachers and other school personnel," "develop multi-tiered credentialing systems that encourage principals to grow professionally," and cook up other ways to keep public school teachers on the clock longer.

Uncle Sam would also "collect evidence about how prospective teachers plan and teach in the classroom" in an Obama administration.

• Required public service: In return for the federal government paying the first $4,000 of college tuition through a tax credit — which would be tough for most American families to turn down — Obama would require recipients "to conduct 100 hours of public service a year."

• Required sick leave: Spending $1.5 billion over five years, Obama would "encourage" the states to adopt paid-leave systems that "guarantee workers seven days of paid sick leave per year."

• Thought police: In what sounds like the outdated and unconstitutional Fairness Doctrine on steroids, Obama would "encourage diversity in the ownership of broadcast media, promote the development of new media outlets for expression of diverse viewpoints, and clarify the public interest obligations of broadcasters who occupy the nation's spectrum."

What would the "public interest obligations" of liberal Democrats' opponents within the media end up being in an Obama administration?

• Green Corps: Barack Obama would spend $390 million over five years to fund "an energy-focused Green Jobs Corps to engage disconnected and disadvantaged youth . . . to improve the energy efficiency of homes and buildings in their communities, while also providing them with practical skills and experience in important career fields of expected high-growth employment."

It's a quasi-paramilitary organization dedicated to environmentalism that promises inductees that they would be getting practical employment training for future "green jobs."

• Teaching parents parenting: The senator would spend $300 million over five years establishing "Promise Neighborhoods in cities that have high levels of poverty and crime and low levels of student academic achievement." A key feature would be "parenting schools for parents."

• Housebuilding army: the Youthbuild program would be expanded from 8,000 to 50,000 over eight years at a cost of $257 million to "construct and rehabilitate affordable housing for low-income and homeless families."

• Patent reform: Obama's idea of "opening up the patent process to citizen review" would make it much tougher for businesses to challenge the government's judgment on the ownership rights of an invention, which will have a negative effect on the incentives to innovate.

• Private parklands regulation: Obama would "do more to encourage private citizens to protect the open spaces and forests they own and the endangered species that live there . . . and encourage communities to enhance local greenspace, wildlife and conservation areas."

The Obama campaign uses the word "encourage" over and over in numerous areas of policy. Expect it to be the form of encouragement practiced by Don Corleone — making you an offer you can't refuse.

• Autism czar: If you weren't convinced that the Democratic nominee intends to use the federal government's powers to solve every known problem, consider his promise to spend $2.5 billion over four years on appointment of an "Autism Czar" to "ensure that all federal funds are being spent in a manner that prioritizes results."

h/t Atlas Shrugs

Where is the Attorney General?

Note to Peggy Noonan - it would be a LOT easier to offer some patriotic grace to the Democrats if their candidate WAS. ACTUALLY. A. CITIZEN. OF. THE. UNITED. STATES!!! Does the Constitution have ANY relevance anymore???? Where the hell is the US Justice Department demanding Hawaii produce a certified birth certificate for Obama, since he is very uninterested (and/or incapable) in providing one himself. Shouldn't candidates be required to PROVE that they are natural born US citizens? Insanity.

See it here.

Patriotic Grace, by Peggy Noonan

Peggy Noonan's new book is a beautifully written treatise on Old America's innate goodness, New America's not having, as of yet but it's coming, an opportunity to display its innate goodness and kindness and generosity of spirit to each other.

What she's asking for, in the aftermath of this election, is that Americans come together as Americans; that we stop viewing politics as a religion and see it - in the old way - as a duty; that we let bygones be bygones and cut the other side of the political spectrum some slack. She is asking us to do these things, before the coming storm, because we choose to, and not to wait until after the coming storm, when we will have to do those things or face an existential change in who we are, or even if we are.

My take is that she's writing this book to conservatives, in anticipation of an Obama/Democratic victory. She is asking for a Godly grace and gentle forgiveness, which is heartfelt and noble on her part, and appreciated greatly on my part.

Alas, also my take is that the exchange of grace and forgiveness is a team sport, and to emulate the grace of God requires a belief in the existence of God, which will leave many many many Democrats - for whom politics IS their religion, filling the void of their denial of God's existence, and many of them almost deranged with bloodlust and revenge motives against conservatives - unequipped to extend or receive said grace.

Apart from the theoretical reservations, practical observation would indicate that if Democrats lose this election, they will not only be incapable of the kind of patriotic grace which Ms. Noonan is asking for, many of them will be unable to even obey the law - I see riots and violence and a permanent tearing of our national fabric as the Democrats demonstrate to exactly what degree they have rejected any notion of 'national community'.

Finally, she points out that there is a downside (along with plenty of upside) to the loss of monopoly of information and news dissemination by the Big Three Networks, that we have gone from a 'dictatorship of the liberal elite' to a 'dictatorship of the retarded'. I tend to agree with a percentage of her message here (boundaries on some level are a good thing), but would opine that ultimately the Big Three are not 'victims', but are to blame for their demise because of their failure to maintain enough integrity to attempt to present all relevant information to the American people. The MSM have stopped being reporters of facts and have become salesmen of Left viewpoints. In many ways the Press is the recipient and guardians of our most sacred trust, and they have abused and betrayed that trust, and the American people know it.

But she is a beautiful person, and beautiful writer, and she certainly gets a big E for effort. Many thanks, Peggy Noonan.

Obama-Ayers thru the Prism of the London Spectator

Wake up, people.

Here

Chris Buckley's BO endorsement teeters on a single lynchpin

Sometimes a particular thing about a person strikes you mightily, whether positively or negatively. If negatively (a mannerism, a tonal quality, facial structure, the fact that he's a Dodgers' fan) then everything that person says or does is seen through your lynchpin prism that you don't like him. And if that initial prism is positive, then everthing he does or says is baked in a positive interpretation.

Watch the 5th segment of CB's interview with Peter on NRO TV: when CB comes to Barack Obama, and he pauses in an 'aside' and says "boy, that guy can really write!", you can see his face absolutely light up - the smile which reaches all the way to his temples and pulls back his ears being so remindful of WFB!

And it struck me that, as a writer himself, he's so appreciative of BO's writing ability that it has colored CB's entire analysis (especially in light of John McCain's not being very glib or intellectual). One wonders what, given this calculus, CB's position would be if Ronald Reagan (another guy who carried a 'non intellectual' label on his back - although he did manage to get almost every single important thing right, didn't he?!!) were running against BO? Would it still be all about the prose, Christopher?

American Carol (aka, Where Have All the Critics Gone?)

What cowards the critics are. Not a single critic has the stones to review this movie - they're afraid they'll be ostracized by their peers (so much for the celebration of diversity and Free Speech). They are low man on my Press totem pole, and on my pole that's pretty damn low.

Such a welcome change, this movie. No matter what one's political life view (conservative, liberal, neutral) one should welcome a diversity of viewpoints and opinions, right? Aren't diversity and artistic freedom central talking points of the Left? American Carol has something for everyone - it gives conservatives and traditional Americans a a voice with which to laugh together and enjoy some poked fun at the PC Left. And it gives the Left an opportunity to show they don't take themselves soooo seriously that they can't take a joke. The movie is funny in places, sophomoric in places, surprisingly touching in a few places. It's light, but with a message that there are certainly things about our country and our heritage of which we should be very proud. What does it mean that the Mainstream Media Film Critics will review movies of every ilk, from the divine to the despicable, but will not 'sully' themselves to review a movie that applauds American heroism and heritage? A telling commentary, indeed....

It's Iran, stupid!

The American eleotorate would be well advised to seriously (literally) consider and contemplate the following articles at National Review Online, here, and here.

Would you want your daughter dating a guy who allied himself with the guys Obama has allied himself with (Ayers, Wright, Khalidi)? Would you want your son hanging out with someone who was allied with the guys that Obama is allied with (Ayers, Wright, Khalidi)? There's an old saying "Choose your friends with care, because you become what they are." Do you want your President to be who Obama's friends are (Ayers, Wright, Khalidi)?

Do you think Iran will use or distribute a nuke bomb, if they get them? If so, which candidate do you think is more likely to prevent them from getting nukes? The answers to those questions should tell you who to vote for.

#42 - Unique (and should be "only")

In case you're not aware, there's a push (by some guy named Julio Pabon, started 2 years ago) to have Roberto Clemente's #21 retired from MLBaseball.

Should #21 be retired? My personal opinion is 'no'. As great as Clemente was, both as a player and as an icon for Latin American players, there's just no rationale to retire his number. And if you do that, then where does it go next? Babe Ruth, Willie Mays, Hank Aaron, Joe Dimaggio, Lou Gehrig, Cy Young? What about Mickey Mantle? Ted Williams? Sandy Koufax? Hank Greenberg (first iconic Jewish player - homerun slugger, and devout Jew - wouldn't play Saturday games because it was the Sabbath)? Ichiro - first iconic Japanese player?
Does every little niche segment of society 'deserve' it's own officially recognized ethnic/demographic hero? This is obviously an ethnic fit of foot stomping, and it sounds like two 8 year olds arguing .... "hey, they got to have one of theirs retired (Jackie Robinson #42), we should get to have one of ours retired, too!!!"

Greatest right fielder of all time? Yes. First team placement in MLB's alltime outfield? Yes. Greatest arm in MLB history? Yes. Retired #? No.

No number should be retired (not 24, not 3, not 4, not 7), except for Jackie Robinson's #42 (I do agree with his number being retired. What he represents transcends MLB. What he did was historic and unique.).

That's my take on it. What say you?

Ordinary? I Think Not!

M,
here's how I would answer the females who have told you that they dislike Palin because she's "ordinary, not extraordinary" ....

- state championship athlete (discipline, tenacity, concentration, teamwork, channeled force and aggression)
- beauty queen (poise, focus)
- college graduate (goal and completion capable),
- mother of 5 (generous, energetic),
- Entrepreneur - ran her own business (understands risks, responsibilities, management of people and limited resources),
- served on PTA board (community service),
- ran for and elected mayor of her town for 6 years (service oriented, a desire to make a personal effort to improve her community) ;
- ran for and elected Governor of the biggest state (geography-wise) in the Union, has garnered praise from all sides as an effective Governor, and after 2 years in office has an 80% approval rating (big job, big numbers, big issues, big challenges, big success).

Ordinary? Ordinary? Against who's walk-the-walk standard? ... if she's ordinary, then there should be droves of others like her ... so who are they? Who (just name ONE!) can we think of that we know personally - or that we don't know personally - whose resume comes anywhere close to this resume?

If someone doesn't like her mannerisms or hair or facial structure, fine. If someone doesn't like her because they detest her political positions (small town values, conservative social stances, capitalism, energy independence, efficiency and accountability in government, belief in God, belief in and praise for a strong military, philosophically opposes abortion as the Federal law of the land, believes life begins at conception) that's fine, too. But to try to justify a personal dislike by attempting to diminish her with a characterization of "ordinary"??? .... There's nothing impersonal or uninvolved emotionally in someone calling her 'ordinary', and reveals much about the attacker(s). Just watch The View to get a visual confirm of what I'm talking about.

Fannie/Freddie/Obama - a Birdnest on the Ground

McCain has been given a golden opportunity to win this election. The Democrats shoulder the lion's share of the blame for our financial meltdown, Obama was right in the middle of Fannie/Freddie feed trough (taking Freddie/Fannie money at a much much faster pace than any other congressman in DC), and McCain was warning about the Fannie/Freddie problems years ago. It's a slam dunk if McCain makes this case, and makes it loud, and makes it often.

But apparently he's shying away from using that stick. If he loses the election - and it looks likely that at this rate he will - it will be his own damn fault. I just don't know if he still has the fire and the stones to go to the mattresses for us.

Obama is on the wrong side of almost every major issue, and should be hammered relentlessly on those issues, but McCain isn't making the sale. I figure he's got the next two weeks to make the sale and go into the last round with a chance to win ... and the American experiment may hang in the balance.