Obama preparing to flip and flop on NAFTA ... ?

CNN Money reports that Barack Obama, who made a promise during the Democrat Campaign Debate in Ohio to "opt out [of NAFTA] unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards" is apparently ready to flip his flop on that, too.

The general campaign is on, independent voters up for grabs, and Barack Obama is toning down his populist rhetoric - at least when it comes to free trade.

In an interview with Fortune to be featured in the magazine's upcoming issue, the presumptive Democratic nominee suggests he doesn't want to unilaterally blow up NAFTA after all.

"Sometimes during campaigns the rhetoric gets overheated and amplified," he conceded, after I reminded him that he had called NAFTA "devastating" and "a big mistake," despite nonpartisan studies concluding that the trade zone has had a mild, positive effect on the U.S. economy.

Does that mean his rhetoric was overheated and amplified? "Politicians are always guilty of that, and I don't exempt myself," he answered.

What Obama says now is that he believes in "opening up a dialogue" with trading partners Canada and Mexico "and figuring to how we can make this work for all people."

That tone stands in marked contrast to his primary campaign's anti-NAFTA fusillades. The pact creating a North American free-trade zone was President Bill Clinton's signature accomplishment; but NAFTA is also the bugaboo of union leaders, grassroots activists and Midwesterners who blame free trade for the factory closings they see in their hometowns.

The Democratic candidates fought hard to win over those factions of their party.

You'll remember, not long after Obama made this promise to the Union voters of Ohio, it was revealed that there was a memo from his campaign to a Canadian diplomat actually telling him that Obama's vow was merely campaign rhetoric and that they shouldn't take it seriously.

The candidate of 'change' seems to be the candidate of 'politics as usual' ...

[ Obama campaign flyer via Gateway Pundit. ]

Obama preparing to flip and flop on Iraq ... ?

The Washington Post reported, the other day, on a meeting with Iraq's Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebarim, in which Zebari described a conversation he'd had with Obama.

The foreign minister said "my message" to Mr. Obama "was very clear. . . . Really, we are making progress. I hope any actions you will take will not endanger this progress." He said he was reassured by the candidate's response, which caused him to think that Mr. Obama might not differ all that much from Mr. McCain. Mr. Zebari said that in addition to promising a visit, Mr. Obama said that "if there would be a Democratic administration, it will not take any irresponsible, reckless, sudden decisions or action to endanger your gains, your achievements, your stability or security. Whatever decision he will reach will be made through close consultation with the Iraqi government and U.S. military commanders in the field."

London's Al-Hayat reported the same thing last week (as reported by the Middle East Media Research Institute):

Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari said that U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama's campaign managers had reassured Baghdad that if Obama is elected he will not dramatically change Washington's policy towards Iraq and will take into account the opinions of the commanders in the field.

Zebari noted that this reassurance is important, in light of the widespread impression that Obama is expected to completely overturn current policy.

So, if when he actually goes through with his flip-flop on this (as these stories signal he's getting ready to do) and decides NOT to immediately withdraw from Iraq but, instead, leave troops there as they are now to support the Iraqi military's efforts to secure the country, where are all of the 'anti-war' candidates going to go ... ?

Al Gore's home still an 'Inconvenient Truth'.

You remember back when 'An Inconvenient Truth' came out and it was pointed out that Al Gore's mansion in Tennessee actually uses many multiple times the amount of energy the average American's house uses ... ?

There was a big e-mail to-do about it, pointing out that Bush's home in Crawford, Texas is actually far more energy efficient than Gore's mansion. It read:

House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than ! the ave rage American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern "snow belt" area. It's in the South.

House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every "green" feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet (4 bedrooms) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds ; geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F.) heats the house in the winter and cools it in the summer! The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

~~~~~
HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville , Tennessee ; it is the abode of the "environmentalist" Al Gore;

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas ; it is the residence the of the President of the United States , George W. Bush.

An "inconvenient truth".

Initially, Gore denied it. Then, his spokespeople confirmed it and made an announcement that he was going to go back and green-ify his house to make it more energy efficient.

And, he did. He switched out the lightbulbs and the windows and added weather stripping and a solar panel or two (or 33) and a geo-thermal system for heating and cooling. So, now, he's all green, right?

Wrong.

Turns out that, after all of those fancy modifications and attempts at reducing his home's carbon footprint, Gore's monthly energy usage actually went UP.

According to the Nashville City Paper, Gore's mega-house now uses enough energy per year -- from 'dirty' coal and natural gas -- to power 232 average homes for a month.

According to the Tennessee Center for Policy Research, the electricity used in Gore’s home during the past year could power 232 U.S. homes for a month despite Gore’s efforts to make the house more energy efficient ...

On average, the group says Gore has consumed 17,768 kilowatt-hours per month since June 2007, which is 1,638 more than before the renovations. The electric bill totaled $16,533, TCPR claimed in a press release.

The average American household, according to the Energy Information Administration, uses 11,040 KWH a year.

Hmm. Well, maybe he can buy some carbon credits from himself (he runs a company that sells them) to 'offset' his hypocrisy ...

Breaking down MoveOn.org's newest ad.

On my way home from work tonight, I heard (on Bill O'Reilly's radio show) that MoveOn.org released a new ad attacking John McCain's '100 years' statement regarding military deployment's to Iraq (video HERE).

In case you don't want to view it, I'll let the Associated Press describe it before commenting:

In the ad, an actress with an infant child speaks as if she were addressing McCain, the likely Republican presidential nominee.

"Hi John McCain," she says. "This is Alex. And he's my first. So far his talents include trying any new food and chasing after our dog. That, and making my heart pound every time I look at him. And so, John McCain, when you say you would stay in Iraq for 100 years, were you counting on Alex? Because if you were, you can't have him."

Quip: Given that he's just a baby, do you think he would he have to join the infantry?

Observation: Since he's just a baby, he couldn't enlist until he's 18, and even then it would be voluntary. While the folks at MoveOn.org are apparently not that great at math, by our calculations that'd be well after McCain finishes his second term.

Sarcasm: Given MoveOn.org and the Democrat party's general opinion of the military, she must not think her baby's going to be very bright. After all, in 2004, John Kerry told us that if 'you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be smart, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq.'

Prognostication: He winds up registering as a Republican as an act of rebellion against his overbearing, suffocating, overprotective mother. Just sayin'.

Obama: You don't need cheaper gas.

While upwards of 70% of Americans are now demanding that the government allow companies to begin oil exploration here in America, drilling in the barren Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, the Dakotas, and on our continental shelf, Barack Obama thinks that we don't need more oil.

He's not for opening ANWR (nor, for that matter, is McCain).

He's not for relaxing the ethanol tariff to allow for cheaper importation of ethanol, either. (There's currently a $.54 per gallon tariff.)

He's for the Cap-and-Trade bill that the Environmental Protection Agency says, based on their most conservative estimates, would increase your price at the pump by $1.50 per gallon. (You think $4.00 per gallon is bad, how 'bout $6.00 per gallon?)

On CNBC on June 10th, Barack Obama was asked if record gas prices could force Americans to switch to unproven, 'alternative' feuls. Barack answered affirmitively, saying that he 'would have preferred a gradual adjustment'. (He prefers, it seems, that we have higher gas prices -- just not that the price would rise so quickly.)

Obama: You don't need lower taxes.

From the Wall Street Journal today:

He stressed the idea was not a move toward Sen. McCain's broader tax-cutting philosophy. While Sen. McCain has argued that tax cuts -- particularly on business -- spur growth, Sen. Obama rejected that as flawed economics. "I've seen no evidence that ... would actually boost the economic growth and productivity," he said.

I've said it before, I'll say it again.

Kennedy got it. Reagan got it. Clinton got it. 'Dubya' got it. If you lower taxes, on individuals and on businesses, government revenues go up. It's been proven. Yet, somehow, Barack has 'seen no evidence' of it.

A Memo to Obama RE: Missing Documents

TexasDarlin, over at No Quarter USA, has issued the following memo to the Obama camp.

Memo to: Sen. Barack Obama
Subject: Missing Documents

Now that you are the "presumptive nominee" for the Democratic Party, it's important to unlock the file cabinet and disclose key documents that seem to be in hiding. It's best to make your life an open book now rather than get hammered by the GOP and 527s for secrecy. They’ve already started, in case you have not noticed.

Missing documents to be released ASAP should include:

1. Birth certificate — read the Internet ... There is a growing buzz about your reported refusal to release it. Put these silly rumors to rest, and publish immediately!

2. College records. It's said that you refuse to release them, especially those from Columbia. Surely this must be inaccurate information. Please provide them right away in order to quash these pesky allegations!

3. State Senate records. Now this one is really ridiculous. Can you believe that some of your detractors are claiming that you are hiding records from your work as an Illinois State Senator? You must make a big to-do about publishing these public records; perhaps a highly promoted speech or press conference would do the trick.

4. Medical records. Is it true that you refuse to provide your medical records? Oh my, this will not go over well with the American public because they will assume that you are hiding something important about your mental or physical well-being. These must be disclosed immediately!

5. Passport. Believe it or not, I have read on the Internet that you don't want anyone to see your old passports. Surely you must realize that this, once again, looks like you're hiding something. Were there places you visited that you wish to keep secret? Gosh, I hope not because this kind of thing will easily be uncovered by opposition researchers. Yikes, better get the info out in the public domain pronto!

6. Application to Illionois Bar. There are Internet murmurs that you might not have disclosed previous drug use and any other potential criminal activity, as required. Wow, the bloggers sure are resourceful, who would have thought those questions would come up? All the more reason to just get everything OUT now!

I am probably missing something important in this list because there have been so many reports that you are secretive. Let’s call it a DRAFT MEMO for now. I’m sure that our sharp readers will alert us to any omissions.

END MEMO

Ironically (or, perhaps not so), one of the things that Obama's own 'Fight the Smears' website addresses is his birth certificate ...

The next Democrat leader to be 'eradicated' ...

Salon.com reports on the man sure to be the next Democrat leader 'eradicated' by Obama, his followers, and his thugs on the internet ...

In Tennessee, Democrats are doing the Republicans' dirty-work for them. Fred Hobbs, a member of the Tennessee Democratic Party's executive committee, recently expressed fear that his party's presumptive presidential nominee Barack Obama may have connections to terrorists, and suggested that one prominent Tennessee congressman harbors the same suspicions.

Wonkette points us to some gob smacking remarks that Hobbs made in a Nashville City Paper story about why the Tennesee Democratic Rep. Lincoln Davis, a superdelegate, has been slow to endorse Barack Obama for President.

Hobbs says he understands why Davis hasn't yet thrown his support to Obama, noting that he's "skeptical" of Obama himself: "Maybe [it's] the same reason I don't want to -- I don't exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I'm not sure we know enough about him... He's got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."

We've been mentioning these connections (HERE, HERE, and HERE) for months but, of course, we're not 'loyal Democrats'.

Good luck, gentlemen. Let us know how your 'loyal opposition' works out for you.

Conservatism defined.

I often describe myself as a Conservative and, because I believe in Conservative principles, I find myself increasingly at odds with Republicanism.

Unfortunately, I've found that there are surprisingly few people who actually understand the 'definition' of Conservatism and who, more often than not, are following a party ideology blindly.

I refuse to be one of those people. I refuse to simply fall in line when a politician -- any politician -- simply pays lip service to my concerns or ignores them altogether.

So, what does a Conservative believe? Lyn Nofziger wrote:

I would define a conservative, first as one who believes in the Constitution as it is written. That takes care of free speech, freedom of religion, the right to petition the government, the right to keep and bear arms and, in the words of William O. Douglas in one of his saner moments, 'the right to be let alone.'

Second, a conservative believes in small, limited government at every level. Along with this he believes strongly in individual responsibility. That is, a person or a family should take care of itself and turn for help to government only when all other means have been exhausted. It also means that society, before government, has a duty to take care of its own. Government should be a resource of last resort.

Third, a conservative believes taxes should be levied for the purpose of financing the limited responsibilities of government such as providing for the common defense, catching and incarcerating criminals, minting money and filling potholes. Taxes should not be levied for the purpose of redistributing wealth ...

One other thing I think a conservative believes is that the parents, not government, are and should be responsible for the upbringing and behavior of their children.