Intellectually Honest

McCain drums Obama at Saddleback forum.

2008-08-19T10:06:00.003-05:00

It wasn't a debate, really. It was two candidates, interviewed seperately, by Rick Warren (author of 'A Purpose-Driven Life') at Saddleback Church in California.

Obama's answers were indirect, and full of nuanced 'thought' where he refused to actually make a stand any issues. McCain's answers were immediate and forthright, clear and conscise with explanation for why he answered the way he did following each and every answer.

McCain beat Obama so thoroughly that NBC's Andrea Mitchell hypothesized that he had to have cheated (an idea eerily similar to those found on DemocraticUnderground, OpEdNews, DailyKos, and other kook-fringe leftist sites). There was no way, after all, that their preferred candidate could've possibly looked so inept.

Investor's Business Daily gives the rundown:

The stark differences between the two came through the most on the question of whether there is evil in the world. Obama spoke of evil within America, "in parents who have viciously abused their children." According to the Democrat, we can't really erase evil in the world because "that is God's task." And we have to "have some humility in how we approach the issue of confronting evil."

For McCain, with a global war on terror raging, there was no equivocating: We must "defeat" evil. If al-Qaida's placing of suicide vests on mentally-disabled women and then blowing them up by remote control in a Baghdad market isn't evil, he asked: "You have to tell me what is."

Asked to name figures he would rely on for advice, Obama gave the stock answer of family members. McCain pointed to Gen. David Petraeus, Iraq's scourge of the surge; Democratic Rep. John Lewis, who "had his skull fractured" by white racists while protesting for civil rights in the 60s; plus Internet entrepreneur Meg Whitman, the innovative former CEO of eBay.

When Warren inquired into changes of mind on big issues, Obama fretted about welfare reform; McCain unashamedly said "drilling" — for reasons of national security and economic need.

On taxes, Obama waxed political: "What I'm trying to do is create a sense of balance and fairness in our tax code." McCain showed an understanding of what drives a free economy: "I don't want to take any money from the rich. I want everybody to get rich. I don't believe in class warfare or redistribution of the wealth."

To any honest observer, the differences between John McCain and Barack Obama have been evident all along. What we saw last weekend was Obama's shallowness juxtaposed with McCain's depth, the product of his extraordinary life experience.

It may not have been a debate, but it was one of the most lopsided political contests in memory. No wonder Obama wants to keep debate formats boring and predictable.

I've long made it clear that there is no way, ever, that I would vote for Obama. McCain was never 'my' candidate, either. But, after the 'debate' at Saddleback Church, I can actually see a scenario in which I'd pull the level in a vote for McCain rather than simply against Obama ...

Scientist: 'Mini Ice Age' to begin within two years.

2008-08-19T09:54:00.004-05:00

Reuters is reporting that Mexican scientist is predicting that the Earth is not only not experiencing Global Warming but will, within two years, enter an extended cooling period that will lead to a mini Ice Age.

The following text is translated by Google, so the English is a bit rough, but you'll get the jist:

"At present, the world is going through a transition phase where solar activity diminishes considerably so that in two years or so, there will be a small ice age that lasts from 60 to 80 years," and the immediate consequence of this, he added, will be drought.

In particular there is the so-called "Little Ice Age", which refers to a cold period that lasted since the beginning of the fourteenth century until the mid-nineteenth century.

Analyses of the IPCC concluded that it was regional phenomena or accentuation local "Current evidence does not support globally synchronous periods of abnormal heat or cold in this timeframe," said his 2001 report.

I'm not sure, but I think I said the same thing back in February ...

Gen. Clark illustrates the absurd.

2008-06-30T10:52:00.003-05:00

In an attempt to explain why McCain's experience doesn't necessarily qualify him to be the Commander-in-Chief, Gen. Wesley Clark told CBS' Face the Nation:

"In the matters of national security policy making, it's a matter of understanding risk. It's a matter of gauging your opponents and it's a matter of being held accountable. John McCain's never done any of that in his official positions. I certainly honor his service as a prisoner of war. He was a hero to me and to hundreds of thousands and millions of others in the armed forces, as a prisoner of war.

"He has been a voice on the Senate Armed Services Committee and he has traveled all over the world, but he hasn’t held executive responsibility. That large squadron in the Navy that he commanded — that wasn’t a wartime squadron."

Clark then went on to illustrate Barack Obama's distinguished military career, and his intense ambiguity on 'the grave, but not serious' threat Iran poses shows that Obama is the only candidate in the race prepared to actually deal with the ...

No, wait.

All Clark wound up doing was illustrating that, while McCain's military experience may not be enough to qualify him to be Commander-in-Chief, it was still far more extensive experience than Obama has ever had and that Barack's inability at gauging even his own advisors ought to speak volumes about his ability to gauge enemies.

In Memoriam of George Carlin.

2008-06-24T16:15:00.002-05:00

Unless you've been living under a rock the past week, you're sure to have heard that counter-culture comedian and satirist George Carlin passed away.

In memory of George, we'd like to post one of his routines regarding Global Warming titled 'The Earth is fine.'

We're so self-important. So self-important. Everybody's going to save something now. "Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save those snails." And the greatest arrogance of all: save the planet.

What? Are these f---ing people kidding me? Save the planet ...

I'm getting tired of that s---. Tired of that s---. I'm tired of f---ing Earth Day, I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalists -- these white, bourgeois liberals -- who think the only thing wrong with this country is there aren't enough bicycle paths.

People trying to make the world safe for their Volvos.

Besides, environmentalists don't give a s--- about the planet. They don't care about the planet. Not in the abstract they don't. Not in the abstract they don't. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. They're worried that some day in the future, they might be personally inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me.

Besides, there is nothing wrong with the planet. Nothing wrong with the planet. The planet is fine. The people are f---ed. Difference. Difference. The planet is fine.

Compared to the people, the planet is doing great. Been here four and a half billion years. Did you ever think about the arithmetic? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. We've been here, what, a hundred thousand? Maybe two hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years.

Two hundred years versus four and a half billion. And we have the conceit to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're gonna put in jeopardy this beautiful little blue-green ball that's just a-floatin' around the sun?

The planet has been through a lot worse than us. Been through all kinds of things worse than us.

Been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, continental drift, solar flares, sun spots, magnetic storms, the magnetic reversal of the poles, hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets and asteroids and meteors, worldwide floods, tidal waves, worldwide fires, erosion, cosmic rays, recurring ice ages ...

And we think some plastic bags, and some aluminum cans are going to make a difference ... ? The planet isn't going anywhere. We are! ...

You wanna know how the planet's doing? Ask those people at Pompeii, who are frozen into position from volcanic ash, how the planet's doing. You wanna know if the planet's all right, ask those people in Mexico City or Armenia or a hundred other places buried under thousands of tons of earthquake rubble, if they feel like a threat to the planet this week. Or how about those people in Kilowaia, Hawaii, who built their homes right next to an active volcano, and then wonder why they have lava in the living room.

The planet will be here for a long, long, long time after we're gone, and it will heal itself, it will cleanse itself, 'cause that's what it does. It's a self-correcting system. The air and the water will recover, the earth will be renewed, and if it's true that plastic is not degradable, well, the planet will simply incorporate plastic into a new paradigm: the earth plus plastic ...

See I don't worry about the little things: bees, trees, whales, snails. I think we're part of a greater wisdom than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you want ...

It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, it doesn't judge at all. It just is. And so are we. For a little while."

Lessons on 'life' from the animal kingdom.

2008-06-23T16:02:00.003-05:00

MSNBC.com tells us an interesting story from the animal kingdom.

Biologists have known that shortly before hatching, crocodiles make noises within their eggs. A new study, which involved playbacks of the pre-hatching calls, reveals these calls from the egg tell siblings it's time to hatch and tell moms it's time to uncover the nest.

Why is this interesting?

Well, were they humans, the young alligators would still be considered just 'parasytic' a clump of cells right up until the point that the mother uncovered the nest and they poked their heads through the shell.

However, it's clear that they're alive -- and able to communicate -- before they're 'born'. And, from the story, it's clear that the scientists involved consider these young reptiles 'alive' ...

You have to wonder why we don't grant the same consideration to our own 'pre-hatched' children.

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

2008-06-20T13:18:00.002-05:00

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 ... ?

2008-06-20T12:38:00.002-05:00

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'.

2008-06-18T10:11:00.005-05:00

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.

2008-06-17T20:51:00.001-05:00

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.

2008-06-17T10:26:00.004-05:00

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.

2008-06-17T10:16:00.003-05:00

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

2008-06-16T13:47:00.002-05:00

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' ...

2008-06-16T12:34:00.003-05:00

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.

2008-06-16T10:37:00.003-05:00

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.

Daily Kos suggests 'eradication' of Democrat Delegate.

2008-06-14T12:03:00.003-05:00

Debra Bartoshevich was a Clinton delegate from Wisconsin. She made headlines, recently, for announcing that she would be voting for John McCain in November.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel writes:

She said a series of controversial Obama associations, including but not limited to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright and Chicago developer Tony Rezko, reflected poorly on his judgment. And she echoed the complaints of many of Clinton’s most ardent supporters that Clinton was treated unfairly in the nominating process and by the party.

"No self-respecting woman should wish or work for the success of a party that ignores her - that’s by Susan B. Anthony," said Bartoshevich, referring to the famous suffragist.

Bartoshevich called herself a "devoted Democrat" who, she said, had never voted for a Republican for president.

Of course, Obama and his surrogates allow no dissent. After all, how can a 'uniter' with Marxist tendencies (both in policy and politics, it seems) be expected to suffer opposing voices from within his own party?

Almost immediately, Obama cronies at the Daily Kos said that she should be 'eradicated' (pleasant, loving, inclusive language there, eh?).

Almost immediately, Obama's cronies in the Wisconsin state party's convention to do just what the Daily Kos suggested, moving that they suspend their own party's rules to do it.

The Madison Captial Times writes:

State Party chair Joe Wineke, an Edwards backer who is now enthusiastically for Obama, asked Friday night's opening session of the state party convention to suspend party rules and begin an immediate process of stripping Bartoshevich of her national convention delegate status.

Answering Wineke's call to "send the message that the Democrats of the state of Wisconsin will never support someone who supports John McCain," delegates approved a motion to raise the question of whether Bartoshevich, having declared her support for the Republican presidential candidate, meets the requirement that national convention delegates be "bona fide Democrats."

Wineke says the state party will file a formal challenge with the Democratic National Committee early next week.

Really? A woman voices a choice other than Obama and suddenly she's no longer a 'bona fide Democrat' and should be stripped of her status as a delegate?

I'd say that I'm shocked and stunned that this is occuring, but I'm not.

The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel reports on the sentiments of a 'true party loyalist':

"It hurts my soul and it hurts my heart that I have to stand here and do this resolution on a delegate who claimed to be a Hillary Clinton supporter who has now declared her support for John McCain," said Paula Dorsey, a party activist from Milwaukee.

You know what hurts my soul? That the Democratic party has sunk so far that they actually endorse and condone ousting a devoted Democrat delegate who dared exercise her right to Freedom of Speech and voice dissatification about Obama.

After all, doesn't every citizen of the United States have a right, and a duty, to vote their conscience ... ?

Obama goes Orwellian.

2008-06-12T11:40:00.002-05:00

In a rather un-surprising move (considering that he's been doing it for months), Barack Obama has officially released the hounds to 'counter the smears'.

While he has received much internet fanfare for his 'Fight the Smears' website (which, ironically, addressed Michelle's 'whitey' video first), there hasn't been as much attention paid to the tactics that Obama is condoning that his lackeys use.

'TexasDarlin', blogging for No Quarter USA writes:

Will the team of Internet thugs be ramped up to continue to bully, intimidate, threaten, "out," and hack lawful bloggers exercising freedom of speech and expression? Because that’s what they have been doing. Just open the tab at the top of this site called Team Obama Hate Messages, which I cannot update fast enough with all the messages I receive. And read this blogger’s post called Barack Obama Condones Coordinated Internet Harrassment By His Thugs.

Of course, the mainstream media, such as TIME are not exploring this angle. Probably because they have NO IDEA how Obama’s Internet thugs currently operate. I notice that TIME did not bother to interview Larry Johnson of No Quarter, who they mention, or any other supposed offending bloggers for their story. Typical for this election. Turn an Obama for America press release into a "news story" and call it a day.

Luckily, I myself have yet to run up against any of this 'opposition'. Perhaps I'm not making enough noise.

But, it strikes me as somewhat Orwellian that Obama sends out his thugs to keep questions from even being asked, and to keep 'smears' (read: pointing out facts) about his campaign from taking root in the public discourse.

And, here it comes ...

2008-06-03T11:23:00.007-05:00

From FoxNews.com:

Were you watching at 6:25 when Democratic strategist Bob Beckel dropped a bomb on us? He said he’d heard through his political pipeline that a big shoe was about to drop on the Obama campaign. It has something to do with Michelle Obama. Beckel wouldn’t say anything more other than this explosive story may happen tomorrow. Do you think the GOP has something up its sleeve that could blow up Obama’s campaign? If so, when do you think they’ll unleash it?

Democrat strategist (and Obama supporter) Bob Beckel confirmed that 'a mighty big shoe' was set to drop on Michelle Obama as early as tomorrow. He said it was 'significantly' bigger than her thesis paper. (Video HERE via Hot Air)

Is it the long-rumored 'whitey' video, or some entirely new revelation? It sounds like we'll find out soon ...

Here's my upfront analysis: If it is the 'whitey' video, and the GOP unleashes it now, they're morons.

There were rumors circulating this morning that, following the primary results tonight, Hillary was prepared to announced that Obama had secured the nomination and that she was suspending her campaign (rumors that Terry McAuliffe quickly denied).

However, simply suspending her campaign doesn't mean that Obama is the nominee.

He won't officially be the nominee until the superdelegates cast their votes in Denver in August. And, if Obama's blasted with these new revelations, she can simply woo the fleeing superdelegates to her side and then McCain faces someone who may, frankly, actually present a challenge.

From a political standpoint, the GOP would be much better off waiting until the day after the Democrat convention when Obama has sewn up the nomination.

Obama: "There's no tape but, if there was ..."

2008-06-03T09:13:00.009-05:00

Another interesting bit of news from Larry Johnson over at No Quarter USA on the Michelle Obama 'whitey' tape.

The Obama campaign is telling reporters from major news organizations that the videotape of Michelle Obama railing against “whitey” at a panel alongside Nation of Islam maximum leader Louis Farrakhan is nothing but a “scurrilous lie,” according to one of those reporters who called for an answer.

But at the same time the Obama campaign has disseminated either a doctored or concocted transcript of the supposedly nonexistent videotape. Major Obama donors went to the campaign demanding explanations after the posting of my story on No Quarter about the contents of the videotape confirmed to me by several reliable sources, all Republicans with access to knowledge but who do not know each other.

So the campaign created a would-be transcript of the video it says doesn’t exist. In the Obama campaign produced transcript Michelle says "why’d he" instead of "whitey." Very clever. Then the campaign sent this transcript to key Obamaton bloggers to circulate. And the campaign sent it to the donors to prevent them from having a nervous breakdown.

And, No Quarter's story about what seems to be a 'disseminated transcript' checks out. Obamaniac blogs this morning are all publishing what appear to be the campaign 'talking points' that first hit the web on the Booman Tribune, and covered by National Review Online.

A really interesting theory about the alleged Michelle Obama tape, which could explain a lot, from the liberal blog Booman Tribune. Michelle, offering a speech critical of President Bush, offers a refrain of "why'd he" — the words "why did he" mushed together — that sounds like "whitey" on the tape.

Apparently, if the tape ever comes to light, her words will sound something like:
Whitey cut folks off Medicaid?
Whitey let New Orleans drown?
Whitey do nothing about Jena?
Whitey put us in Iraq for no reason?*
...when the intended message is,
Why'd he cut folks off Medicaid?
Why'd he let New Orleans drown?
Why'd he do nothing about Jena?
Why'd he put us in Iraq for no reason?
Or so we will be told. The irony is, if the latter interpretation is accurate, we still have a potential first lady accusing her husband's predecessor of "letting" New Orleans drown.

In other words, the Obama campaign is basically, "Listen, there's no tape. It didn't happen. But, if it did, here's the transcript of what she really said. You're just hearing it as 'whitey' because you're typical white people. Nothing racist goes on at Trinity United. It's a black thing, you wouldn't understand ..."

Unfortunately, that doesn't fit with what has been reported over at MyTownTalks.com as the actual transcript:"Once again, the white man keeps us down. What’s up with Whitey? Why’d he attack Iraq? Why’d he let Katrina happen? Why’d he leave millions of children behind? This is the legacy the white man gives us."
In order to buy the Booman Tribune's 'spin', we'd have to hear that as 'Once again, the [why'd] man keeps us down. What's up with [why'd he]? Why'd he attack Iraq? Why'd he let Katrina happen? Why'd he leave millions of children behind? This is the legacy the [why'd] man gives us."

Part of their spin fits. It could be that she's actually saying 'Why'd he ... ?' rather than 'whitey' in a few of those sentences. There are a few, however, where it clearly doesn't work.

Amazing. Truly, truly amazing.

More on Michelle Obama's 'whitey' video.

2008-06-02T13:31:00.005-05:00

Larry Johnson over at No Quarter USA has posted that he's found out what exactly is on that 'whitey' video we'd mentioned last week.

He writes:

"I learned over the weekend why the Republicans who have seen the tape of Michelle Obama ranting about 'whitey' describe it as 'STUNNING.' It features Michelle Obama and Louis Farrakhan. They are sitting on a panel at Jeremiah Wright’s Church when Michelle makes her intemperate remarks. Whoops!! When that image comes out it will enter the politcal ads hall of fame. It will be right up there with the little girl plucking daisy petals in the famous 1964 ad LBJ used against Barry Goldwater.

"Barack may have quit his church but his religious problems are not over."

No Quarter USA also points out that, on FoxNews over the weekend, it would seem that Roger Stone, a political consultant and opposition researcher who works for the Republican National Committee, seemed to have confirmed the existence of the tape over the weekend, even suggesting that at least one major news outlet already has their hands on it.

Stone said:

This has little to do with the general election and a lot to do with why Hillary Clinton is staying in the race. Look, there is already a buzz in Washington at least seven news organizations have contacted me, wanting to know how to get their hands on this tape, giving me more information than I had after I had spoken to each one of them. I now believe the tape exists and I believe a network has it. If this pans to out to be true based on Michelle Obama’s previous comment that this is the first time she had been proud of her country which I think shows an attitude it is problematic.

Michelle saying those things all on her own would've been bad enough. Saying them while seated alongside Louis Farrakhan ... ? Wow.

If Barack gets the nomination, expect this to get really ugly.

Intellectually Honest: Democrats not all that Democratic. Redux.

2008-06-02T13:20:00.003-05:00

Last week, I posted about how the Democrat nominating process works and their different classes of delegates and superdelegates and how even among the 'regular' delegates the votes weighed differently depending on how faithfully Democrat a particular district had been.

This past weekend, I was shocked (alright, not really all that shocked) as I watched the Democrat National Committee vote not only to count Michigan and Florida's delegates as only 'half-votes.'

But, the DNC went beyond that. In the case of Michigan, the DNC determined that they cold, as a panel, divine and decide the intent of the voter and correctly determine who it is that you might have voted for. They can, indeed, give hundreds of thousands of votes (and their corresponding delegates) to you, whether you were on the ballot or not, and whether the voters actually intended to vote for you or not.

Simply amazing.

Rush Limbaugh echoes me (again).

2008-05-30T15:18:00.014-05:00

Rush finally reported, today, a story that I had back in mid-March about Obama's plan to 'defend' to America by disarming us and weakening our military.

I said (in comments book-ending a rather brilliant and extensive point-by-point analysis):

In one of the few speeches given by Obama that actually addresses policy rather than simply spouting meaningless platitudes about 'Hope!' and 'Change!', we get to see a rather chilling vision of Obama's absolute ignorance when it comes to the nation's military capabilities and the threats that we face ...

What it all boils down to is that, despite his message of 'Hope!' and 'Change!' and his supposed differences with run-of-the-mill Washington politics, Obama's views on the military and national defense are nothing more than recycled 1970s "Give Peace a Chance" left-leaning disarmament Liberalism.

And, given the world in which we live, that's dangerous.

Limbaugh said:

"This video Obama made for a far left-wing group is truly bizarre. He's offering the first steps toward disarming the United States -- and of course it presumes that the world will follow our lead in everything we do. It is not just bizarre. It is ignorant, it is risky, and it is arrogant."

Pardon me if I take a minute to gloat about being six weeks ahead of the man who is 'on the cutting edge of societal evolution' ...

Michelle Obama's 'whitey' video.

2008-05-30T13:09:00.007-05:00

Just a day after having to disown yet another spiritual mentor for racially divisive comments, a rumor has surfaced that the torpedo that will sink the Obama campaign is now in the Republican arsenal.

Apparently the woman who said that the vast majority of Americans 'feel justified in your own ignorance', said that America is a ' just downright mean' place, and said that it was only after her husband began winning in his Presidential campaign that finally 'for the first time in [her] adult lifetime, [she's] really proud of [her] country' has made yet another speech that the Obama campaign would rather you not know about.

Leftist blogger Larry Johnson of No Quarter writes:

I now have it from ~~two~~ ~~three~~ four sources (three who are close to senior Republicans) that there is video dynamite -- Michelle Obama railing against "whitey" at Jeremiah Wright's church. Republicans may have a lousy record when it comes to the economy and the management of the war in Iraq, but they are hell on wheels when it comes to opposition research. Someone took the chance and started reviewing the recordings from services at Jeremiah Wright's United Church of Christ. Holy smoke!! I am told there is a clip that is being held for the fall to drop at the appropriate time. The last thing Barack and Michelle need is a new clip that raises further questions about her judgment and temperament.

Rick Moran at the American Thinker verifies.

I heard the exact same thing about 10 days ago from a source who should be in the know. I also heard it was political dynamite and was a tape of Michelle Obama. Beyond that, my source would not get into specifics as to what exactly was on the tape or when the GOP might drop this atomic bomb on to the campaign.

Perhaps this is why Barack was so eager to make Michelle 'off limits' to criticism ...

I'm a bit confused, though. I thought Obama was supposed to be the 'post-racial' candidate and he's already thrown his former pastor and his 'typically white' grandmother under the bus in order to keep up that facade. When this video finally hits the airwaves, will he throw his wife under the bus, too?

Intellectually Honest: Democrats not all that Democratic.

2008-05-30T12:56:00.002-05:00

Breitbart.com had an interesting article today about how Obama's campaign used party rules to foil Clinton.

What I found most interesting, however, is how the party that in 2000 demanded that every vote count (and, presumably, count equally) does everything it can to obscure the will of the voter within their own party's nomination process.

The fiasco of the 1968 convention in Chicago, where police battled anti-war protesters in the streets, led to calls for a more inclusive process.

One big change was awarding delegates proportionally, meaning you can finish second or third in a primary and still win delegates to the party's national convention. As long candidates get at least 15 percent of the vote, they are eligible for delegates ...

Another big change was the introduction of superdelegates, the party and elected officials who automatically attend the convention and can vote for whomever they choose regardless of what happens in the primaries and caucuses.

Superdelegates were first seated at the 1984 convention. Much has been made of them this year because neither Obama nor Clinton can reach the number of delegates needed to secure the nomination without their support.

A more subtle change was the distribution of delegates within each state. As part of the proportional system, Democrats award delegates based on statewide vote totals as well as results in individual congressional districts. The delegates, however, are not distributed evenly within a state, like they are in the Republican system.

Under Democratic rules, congressional districts with a history of strong support for Democratic candidates are rewarded with more delegates than districts that are more Republican. Some districts packed with Democratic voters can have as many as eight or nine delegates up for grabs, while more Republican districts in the same state have three or four.

The system is designed to benefit candidates who do well among loyal Democratic constituencies, and none is more loyal than black voters. Obama, who would be the first black candidate nominated by a major political party, has been winning 80 percent to 90 percent of the black vote in most primaries, according to exit polls.

So, not only do they have 'superdelegates' -- individuals within the Democrat party who are given the power of thousands of individual voters and who, this year, will actually be the ones chosing the Democrat nominee despite record turnout at the polls -- but they also weigh certain districts more heavily so that the 1,000 votes a candidate picks up in a 'faithful' left-leaning district is worth up to twice as much as the 1,000 votes a candidate picks up in a district that'd normally be harder for the party to win.

That doesn't really seem all that 'democratic' to me.

Meanwhile, back at Trinity United ...

2008-05-29T13:13:00.000-05:00

The beat goes on.

Another one of Barack's longtime spiritual mentors and advisors, Father Michael Pfleger, gave another explosive sermon at Chicago's hotbed of racial divisiveness, Trinity United.

Pfleger began by saying that whites today, particularly white business owners (apparently) are as responsible for slavery as any of their ancestors who may have actually owned slaves.

"--honest enough to address the one who says, 'Well, don't hold me responsible for what my ancestors did.'

"But you have enjoyed the benefits of what your ancestors did and unless you are ready to give up the benefits, throw away your 401 fund, throw away your trust fund, throw away all the money you put into the company you walked into because yo' daddy and yo' granddaddy and yo' greatgranddaddy -- unless you're willing to give up the benefits, then you must be responsible for what was done in your generation 'cuz you are the beneficiary of this insurance policy!"

He then went on to lampoon Hillary, saying that she thought she'd win the presidency simply because she was 'white and entitled'.

"When Hillary was crying [gesturing tears, to uproarious laughter from audience], and people said that was put-on -- I really don't believe it was put-on.

"I really believe that she just always thought 'This is mine. I'm Bill's wife. I'm white. And this is mine. And I jus' gotta get up, and step into the plate.'

"And then out of nowhere came, 'Hey, I'm Barack Obama.'

"And she said, 'Oh, damn! Where did you come from!? I'm white! I'm entitled! There's a black man stealing my show.' [Sobs.] She wasn't the only one crying! There was a whole lotta white people cryin'!"

So, Jeremiah Wright is gone, but the racially divisive philosophies he promoted continue.

Pfleger has been a longtime supporter, friend, and mentor of Obama's. Of their relationship, ABCNews writes:

Father Michael Pfleger, a fiery liberal social activist and a white reverend at an African-American church -- St. Sabina’s Catholic Church on the South Side of Chicago -- is a longtime friend and associate of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, having known him since the presidential hopeful was a community activist. In September, the Obama campaign brought Pfleger to Iowa to host one of several interfaith forums for the campaign.

Their relationship spans decades. Pfleger has given money to Obama's campaigns and Obama as a state legislator directed at least $225,000 towards social programs at St. Sabina's, according to the Chicago Tribune.

National Review says:

... little has been said about Sen. Obama’s relationship with Rev. Michael Pfleger, a Catholic pastor at St. Sabina, also on the South Side of Chicago. In 2004, Obama told the Chicago Sun Times that Pfleger was one of his three spiritual mentors.

The referenced Chicago Sun-Times article says:

Friends and advisers, such as the Rev. Michael Pfleger, pastor of St. Sabina Roman Catholic Church in the Auburn- Gresham community on the South Side, who has known Obama for the better part of 20 years, help him keep that compass set, he says.

"I always have felt in him this consciousness that, at the end of the day, with all of us, you've got to face God," Pfleger says of Obama. "Faith is key to his life, no question about it. It is central to who he is, and not just in his work in the political field, but as a man, as a black man, as a husband, as a father.... I don't think he could easily divorce his faith from who he is."

Obama's campaign must've known this video was about to surface, as they've recently scrubbed Pfleger's endorsement from their website.

I just wonder if anyone is still going to try to posit that Barack's church for the past 20 years isn't built on a 'hate whitey' cornerstone or that Obama's legitimately surprised by the inflammatory racial rhetoric that came out of there.

Energy Policy: MSN Money echoes me.

2008-05-29T11:31:00.004-05:00

MSN Money's 'High IQ' journal posted an article Saturday that echoed, almost exactly, what I'd said earlier last week about who is really to blame for high oil prices.

Here's a hint: It ain't the oil companies.

As you fill your gas tank for your next summer trip, ask yourself how gas prices have reached current nosebleed levels. For many, the easy answer is to curse the "greedy" oil companies. Consider for a moment an alternative reason.

Oil is a commodity and therefore is subject to the laws of supply and demand. In the simplest of terms, when demand begins to put pressure on supply, prices go up; simple Econ 101. In a supply-and-demand situation, there are really only two options; lower demand or increase supply. I don't anticipate that the demand for oil will decrease, as Americans love their cars and love to drive. This leaves us with increasing the supply.

I know there are other fuel and energy alternatives, but none are mature enough or as readily accessible as oil and its byproducts at the present time. They may be in the future, but that doesn't help us out at the gas pump today. While research and development of fuel and energy alternatives will and must go forward, the supply of oil in the interim can be increased and America has vast resources that can be tapped into today.

Blocked in D.C.
Investors Business Daily estimates there are 1 trillion barrels of oil trapped in shale in the U.S. and Canada. Retrieving just a 10th of it would quadruple our current oil reserves. There is a pool of oil in the Gulf of Mexico that is estimated to be as large as any in the Middle East. There is an equally large pool believed to be in Alaska.

The Chinese are attempting to tap into the Gulf oil supply by drilling diagonally from Cuba. I wonder what environmental safeguards they are using?

The fact is that there are environmentally safe methods of extracting oil from shale and drilling in both the Gulf and Alaska. Congress, however, continues to block these efforts. Just last week, the Senate voted to block any extraction from shale in Colorado. In essence, they voted to make your trips to the gas station more expensive, to make air travel more expensive, and to make heating your home more expensive.

That's something to think about in an election year.

Not ironically, while Congress seems to continually fail to 'get it' and Democrats threaten to nationalize our oil companies, a majority of average Americans (57%, according to a new Gallup poll) now support drilling in the U.S. coastal and wilderness areas that Congress has placed off limits.