Wil Wirtanen forwards this our way:

Back to a Big-Tent GOP?
·         By KIMBERLEY A. STRASSEL
 
All eyes are on Tuesday. For the GOP, the real question is Wednesday.

That's the day the party will survey the damage of the 2008 election, and have to decide what it wants to be. Even if John McCain pulls out a win, the Grand Old Party will be in trouble. Contrary to recent liberal pronouncements, the conservative movement is not dead. But the GOP response to Tuesday will determine how long it remains on life support.

The GOP's problems are a result of a failure of action, not of philosophy. Everything, including this election, shows we remain a center-right country. If Barack Obama wins, it will be because he has doggedly (if not always believably) run to the right on everything from national security (wiretapping) to "tax cuts," guns and social issues.

Democrats may also achieve big gains in the House and Senate. But their wins in 2006 were the result of the party's decision to run "conservative" candidates -- pro-life, pro-gun and populist on economics. Democratic gains this year will come via similar candidates. The nation hasn't moved left; the Democratic Party has leaned right.

Because Nancy Pelosi and her old liberal bulls will likely overreach, the GOP will have an opportunity. But the risk is that Tuesday's results will cause panic, and exacerbate the reactionary, backward-looking behavior that has already done so much damage to the party.

Republicans love to recollect Ronald Reagan, though they forget why. Reagan's strength was looking to the future -- and framing the issues of the day for Americans. When the focus had been balanced budgets, he made the issue the need for economic growth. When the debate had been détente, Reagan turned it into the need for a strong America. That tradition continued with the Contract with America, welfare reform, government reform, tort reform. George W. Bush tackled education.

Reagan's other great strength was not distinguishing between red and blue America. He offered a set of principles, and invited anyone who broadly subscribed to those principles into his political house. The result was that unlikely coalition of fiscal conservatives, defense hawks and social conservatives. These were the days of Reagan Democrats, of victories in states that now seem unwinnable to the GOP.

The further Republicans have moved away from this playbook, the further its fortunes have declined. The GOP was thrown out in 2006 because it had failed to evolve on the new issues facing Americans -- spiraling health-care costs, dwindling energy supplies, out-of-control entitlements. It spent its last years divvying up pork. As it has hit the electoral rocks, the party has also turned inward, harping on immigrants and gay marriage.

So come Wednesday, the Democrats will be energized -- and the GOP must make a choice.

The worst GOP instinct would be to mimic Britain's Tories after their 1997 shellacking by Tony Blair, becoming a "no" party that spends so much time howling against the opposition it forgets what to howl for. It could curl up and stoke bitter cultural fights (immigration, abortion) to rev up a dwindling base. It could cede its fortunes to an unreformed old guard who will happily wait out their retirements in the minority. It would be easy to do all this; the party has already had practice.

The other option is for the GOP to start elevating the new generation of reformers -- folks like Virginia Rep. Eric Cantor or Wisconsin's Paul Ryan. With them comes a new intellectual focus on today's issues. (See Mr. Ryan's recent blueprint for reforming taxes, entitlements and health care.) The Republican high point this year was when the party united to fix the energy mess. That ought to tell it something.

The party could also go back to recruiting real professionals ahead of career politicians. That's how the Senate obtained Dr. Tom Coburn who, because he isn't a lifer, hasn't been afraid to shame colleagues on earmarks or obscene spending.

Just as important, the party could again open its arms to those who should, naturally, gravitate to the GOP. Today's ballooning Hispanic community is socially conservative, the sort of up-and-comers who would appreciate lower taxes, more opportunity. America's YouTube generation is naturally entrepreneurial, and doesn't like anyone telling them what to do. If Republicans could tap into these sentiments, they'd widen the tent.

Doing so does not involve altering conservative principles. Politicians like former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush have shown it is possible to be for law and order, even while welcoming immigrants who want the American dream; and that it's possible to be pro-life without braying on the subject in a way that offends suburban moderates.

This transformation is necessary even if Mr. McCain wins. His difficulties have stemmed from his own struggle to articulate answers to the biggest American worries.

Parties have to evolve. This is a GOP opportunity, if it is smart enough to take it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:08 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 832 words, total size 5 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

A Democrat footsoldier bravely entered our conservative lair to engage me in battle.  He objected to my post about Obama`s informercial http://www.timothybirdnow.com/?p=1285#comment-3850 and sought to straighten me out. I don`t expect a reply, but if he does I`ll add to this post.

Here is his argument, and my rebuttal:

shame on you. its a free country. if you can raise it you can spend it. Its one thing not to support a particular candidate for a reason but I find absolutely no reason to vote for McCain. He seems unaware of the financial crisis. He picks a VP who is divisive towards bringing American together, doesnt really speak good english and shows an inability of basic facts to be one heart beat away from the presidency. Please understand the reality. The last few years, yes republican years, changed several rules or pieces of legislation the result of these changes is the current financial situation. There is time for a change. Specifically the rules governing broker dealer leverage from 15 to 1 and 30 to 1 and the elimination of the uptick short sale rule causing stocks to fall rapidly. Want to know why oil is going down so much. Its because you can’t finance it the way you could before. Eliminating speculation. Being Pragmatic you have two choices. Do you want to reward those whose administration put us in this situation or is it time for a change. For me the decision amounts to an IQ test. The damage is done and it will take a long time to repair. Remember the depression wasn’t called the depression until it was far from over. You might be scared to do it but after you do you will feel better. Vote for change its the only way we are going to get out of this mess. And it will be longer and more painful then you think. There are many more bricks to fall.

Comment by Miles Rose October 30, 2008 @ 9:28 pm |Edit This

Hi Miles!

I have to disagree with you on multiple levels.

You said:

``shame on you. its a free country. if you can raise it you can spend it.``

Not if you raise it illegally; we have campaign finance laws, laws put in place largely by Democrats because they traditionally haven`t been able to compete on that level. Obama has foreign money being donated illegally, has bundlers who are taking obviously laundering money from George Soros and other leftist power brokers, has his website accepting any donation via credit card without matching social security numbers, thus allowing dirty money to be donated under pseudonyms, etc. If this were clean it would be no problem. Remember Bill Clinton selling America`s technical secrets to the Chinese for campaign contributions?

About McCain, you say;

``He seems unaware of the financial crisis. He picks a VP who is divisive towards bringing American together, doesnt really speak good english and shows an inability of basic facts to be one heart beat away from the presidency.``

Well, McCain is the one who tried to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, and had been trying for years while all of Obama`s friends were saying things were fine-and while Obama was taking massive campaign contributions from those same entities and while his own economic advisor Franklin Raines was looting 80 million as head of Fannie. About Sarah Palin, who is divisive here? Oh, and I believe you mean she does not speak proper English and shows a poor grasp of issues and basic facts. Based on what, I might add? Charles Gibson`s question about the Bush Doctrine? It bear repeating that the Bush Doctrine is not what Gibson stated
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/09/12/AR2008091202457.html?hpid=opinionsbox1 and there are several different concepts of the Bush Doctrine. Sarah Palin has been treated to a ferocious attack by the media. How would YOU do if harassed in such fashion by people intent on making you appear uninformed? I notice you ignore Joe Biden, who thinks JOBS is a three letter word, or who said , ``you cannot go to a 7-Eleven or a Dunkin’ Donuts unless you have a slight Indian accent.`` He also recently asked a man he knew was in a wheelchair to stand up and take a bow. How about his statement that Franklin Roosevelt went on television when the stock market crashed in 1929? There was no television (except experimental efforts), and Roosevelt was not President. Don`t chide Palin about a lack of command of basic facts.

You say;

``The last few years, yes republican years, changed several rules or pieces of legislation the result of these changes is the current financial situation.``

Would you care to cite them, please, and explain how they caused the current mess? I can cite what Democrats have done; ever heard of the Community Reinvestment Act? This Carter-era program was expanded under Bill Clinton, and the upshot has been the subprime market. The government was fining and otherwise penalizing lending institutions for `redlining` meaning that they were forcing these institutions to make loans to people who could not afford them. Welfare checks from the government had to be included as income when considering these loan applications. The Democrats imposed this, and they fought efforts by Republicans to reform this system. It failed, as anyone with any sense knew it would. John McCain and other Republicans-including President Bush-tried to reform the system, but they never had more than a plurality in Congress and the Democrats could stop them. Your premise is faulty; the change in stock rules has little to do with the current financial crisis. The stability of stock prices is not the central issue here.

Uh, oil is down because 1.America threatened to drill her reserves, triggering a price war 2.The dollar has risen in value and 3.Demand has dropped in light of the economic woes. Speculation has nothing to do with it, and never had. http://www.cftc.gov/stellent/groups/public/@newsroom/documents/file/itfinterimreportoncrudeoil0708.pdf

You say;

``Do you want to reward those whose administration put us in this situation or is it time for a change.``

No, and Obama and his Democrat friends had their fingers all over Freddie and Fannie, and this entire crisis. Franklin Raines, Jim Johnson, Jamie Gorelick,ACORN,Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, etc. were all at the heart of this issue. Tell me, why aren`t there hearings being held to pin responsibility? The Dems were sure quick to demand them when Enron broke. Now they are desperately trying to pin this on Republicans, but aren`t holding hearings. Why? Because there aren`t any Republicans involved; this is THEIR scandal, and they seek to bottle it up. Miles, you are the one should be ashamed, either for falling for this, or for lying.

The Great Depression (as opposed to the lesser depressions America has endured) was so severe because of terrible policy. First, Herbert Hoover raised taxes after the stock market crash, then he signed Smoot-Hawley protectionist legislation. Obama wants to raise taxes and revisit NAFTA. No difference here. Then Roosevelt kept taxes high, used government programs to buy votes at the expense of liquidity; people had little money and FDR was taking it from them. That is what made it THE GREAT DEPRESSION. As for change, Obama represents the tired old policies of the 1930`s socialists. Socialism has been tried repeatedly and has failed. Your man wants to bring it back, believing there will be new results.

If America really wants change, they would vote the Democrats and RINO Republicans out of Congress, giving the nation a fully conservative government for the first time. We have never had that. We have had one Conservative President (Reagan) and a couple of moderate Republicans (Bush Sr. and Jr.) and a tepid, Rockefellarian Congress when the Reps controlled things. Let`s have REAL change, Miles! Let`s protect our economy with free markets, rather than the pseudo-Socialism that caused the current mess.

Thanks,

Tim

More from our friend Miles Off Course, and yet another rebuttal from me:

Miles Rose | mjrose@gmail.com | IP: 69.121.68.48

gee tim, free markets got us into this mess. the governement is there to protect us. Witness todays Washington Post about Bush trying to push through a whole bunch of new rules further lessening those laws put in place to protect you and me. Do you remember Jon McCain and his support of Charles Keating? Maybe your right, lets have no government and redo the whole thing from the streets. To me, that isn’t an option. Do you know the book by ret general Smedley Butler, `War is a Racket`, read it, its a short read and its available online for free. BTW Butler was the general whom Bush’s grandfather and other industrialists approached about overthrowing Roosevelt after his creation of social security and other `socialist` government reforms. Life like nature is checks and balances. It is time for a change and to reward those in power for the last eight years with another four years is something I and the majority of the country can’t take. Your fear proselytizing is eerily similar to Goring’s efforts for Hitler. Fear is a very powerful emotion. and to change sometimes hurts, to turn this sucker around will take a long time and I hope to look at the country on November 5th to make it better not to keep slamming those in control. Regarding the tax argument you really have to give me a break, there are enough legal ways to reduce your taxes that no one with a half competent accountant pays anywhere near the rates on their gross income. the only way we are going to get of this mess is to make money cheaper, and thats inflation. Besides to give, charity or taxes, money goes for the most part to your fellow americans, and I don’t see anything unchristian with that.

END COMMENT

Here is my reply:

Miles, you show yourself without any real thought on this issue; this is nothing but a mass of talking points. You did not answer any of the challenges I made to you. If you have facts, present them. You have merely given me Obama talking points about Keating, about some mysterious deregulation that caused all the trouble (although you cannot cite exactly what happened and how it caused the trouble) then you go into a conspiracy theory. My dear sir, it is Barack Obama who called for the creation of an internal secret police. Obama is the one who tried to get prosecutors to use the power of their office to intimidate people into silence. Obama bears the mustache far better than John McCain.
 

Oh, and how about Tony Rezko; you worry about Keating, but ignore the very dirty Rezco connection. Obama made a lot of money off that little sweetheart deal.

``BTW Butler was the general whom Bush’s grandfather and other industrialists approached about overthrowing Roosevelt after his creation of social security and other `socialist` government reforms.``

You need to prove such ridiculous assertions, or do not make them. Prescott Bush may have had business dealings with Germany before the War, but that hardly makes him a fascist. It should be pointed out that Joe Kennedy had similar connections to the Nazis, and that many Democrats such as Armand Hammer had connections to the Bolsheviks-after learning exactly what Stalin was doing. Barack Obama actively worked for a guy who really DID try to overthrow a president; Odinga in Kenya fomented a coup against the duly elected Chief Executive. You come here with these ridiculous conspiracy theories without proof, but we KNOW Obama was involved with Odinga-and terrorist Bill Ayers who bombed the Capitol and Pentagon, as well as the God D### America Jeremiah Wright. And that happened in the last few decades, not 70 years ago.

And let me explain this so you can understand: BARACK OBAMA REPRESENTS NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER!!! HE IS THE EPITOME OF A DISCREDITED, TIRED SOCIAL ENGINEERING SCHEME!!! His economics are socialist, his social policy is coercive and paternalistic, and his plans to defend our nation consist of speaking softly and carrying no stick at all. Everything this man believes has been tried and found wanting, but he believes, so it must work!

Oh, and in case you haven`t figured it out, BUSH ISN`T RUNNING!

You speak of checks and balances, yet you fully intend on putting a radical leftist Democrat in the Executive position, and giving him a radical leftist Democrat House and Senate.  Hmmm. Where are the checks and balances, Miles?  If you worry about balanced government you would support McCain/Palin

``Regarding the tax argument you really have to give me a break, there are enough legal ways to reduce your taxes that no one with a half competent accountant pays anywhere near the rates on their gross income.``

Give ME a break; every such effort costs, in time, money, and productivity. Americans spend their lives trying to circumvent draconian tax and regulation policy when rather than producing. You really should learn something about basic economics.

``Besides to give, charity or taxes, money goes for the most part to your fellow americans, and I don’t see anything unchristian with that.``

Uh, charity is GIVING while welfare is stealing. Charity is temporary while welfare is a way of life. Charity is a hand up, welfare a hand out. The welfare state creates permanent dependency, steals pride and thwarts initiative. If you would ever actually go to the poor neighborhoods and see what the nanny state has wrought you would understand how unChristian taxes and welfare really are. These people are in a hopeless mire, because they have been purchased by our overlords in government. And when you force a person at gunpoint to donate to the welfare of otheres, it is an act of piracy, not charity. They will no longer give of their own free will, because they have been forced. The nanny state spreads poverty around, not wealth.

Once again, I point out that the change Obama offers is the same old thing. Real Conservatism is the only true change, change that hasn`t really been tried. How you can claim Obama is hope for the future when he wants to restore policies that have failed miserably is beyond me.

Tim

But wait: there`s more:

conservatism as change? give me a break. Bush wanted to put your social securit in the stock market. for why? Why didn’t he tap the strategic oil reserve when oil started rising? Why wait till it was $140? The difference between you and me is simple, I’m a pragmatist and a student of history. There will never be a politican republican or democrat as sure white as you present your case. Point is and I believe history will bail me out that this is a depression and the next president will be like Roosevelt doing what is better for the country to rebuild it. Your themes are the same old, same old. There needs to be real change. If Washington can do remains to be seem but I don’t believe McCain can do anything and IMHO he doesn’t look well. And that women scares me. So relax, have a drink and see what you can do after tuesday to make this country better. I can’t another four more years of the last eight. I find your terms describing Obama lacking in reality. There is nothing wrong with the social security and medicare programs instituted to help older folks maintain some sort of standard of living they had while they were working. Perhaps you should go research some of Smedley Butler, the recent changes in SEC regulation which caused the financial markets to go the way they have recently. These were done under Republican administration. And what sort of a country and world you are going to leave future generations? Might I suggest you don’t believe in global warming?

Here is the web page from a ``Smedley Butler`` http://www.eclectica.org/v1n1/reviews/wharton_plot.html and here is the wikipedia entry, if you can ``correct`` them please do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

85% of the american public believes the country is heading in the wrong direction. As do I. Do you feel otherwise?

Comment by Miles Rose  November 2, 2008 @ 2:50 pm |Edit This

Miles, Miles, Miles; Bush was a big government guy, hardly a conservative in any real fashion. He was from the Rockefeller Country Club wing that included Gerald Ford, Richard Nixon, Dwight Eisenhower, and his own father. In what way is Bush Conservative? He was strong on the War. He was good on taxes, and that about rounds it out. No Child Left Behind was pure Rooseveltarianism. He had Ted Kennedy write his education bill. He kept innumerable Executive Orders in place, INCLUDING the ban on offshore drilling and drilling in ANWAR. He took no measures to rein in spending, giving us a 10 trillion national debt. He, like Woodrow Wilson, has a foreign policy to ``make the world safe for democracy``. He surrounded himself with neo-liberals like Colin Powell, Andrew Card, Libby Dole, Stephan Hadley, etc. He did not fire many of the Clinton appointees to the beaurocracy or the federal prosecutors. (Clinton fires ALL of the federal prosecutors when he took over, but Bush let Clinton`s people stay except for a couple, and took a huge amount of heat when he sacked them.) He gave a stimulus rebate when the economy was hurting-something straight out of the Democratic playbook. He has met few government programs he didn`t like.

Uh, Miles, in case you didn`t notice, Bush advocated CHOICE for those who wanted to put a small portion of their own money taken via FICA into stocks, which offer a real yield. There was no compulsion involved-unlike social security. THAT is, in fact, change. That way young people weren`t facing the miserable prospect of paying into a rotten system that wasn`t going to pay out for them. You obviously do not realize that Social Security is going to crash, and that because your beloved Democrats have continually looted the system.

I agree; Bush should have acted on oil earlier. Tapping the Strategic Petroleum Reserve would have been as usefull as genitalia on a mule; there is only 701.8 million barrels in the reserve, and that amounts to a whopping 33 day supply. The artificial increase in supply that this infusion would have caused would not have effected oil prices in any real way. What was needed was the threat of development of our own resources-something that had been blocked by your friends in Congress and will be blocked by Barack Obama a strengthening of the dollar (Bush monetary policy advocated a weak dollar to maintain liquidity and thus prevent recession). We needed to drill, drill, drill, but environmentalists blocked the opening of known oil reserves. It should be pointed out that Bush mandated Ethanol and continued the designer gas blends demanded by Big Environment-things that are very liberal in nature. Both kept the price of oil artificially high. Tapping the strategic reserve would have had a similar effect, allowing OPEC to raise futures prices because that oil would have to be replaced. It`s for emergencies, after all, and what would happen if we had another oil embargo without a full reserve? That oil is for the military, for emergency services.

You say;

``The difference between you and me is simple, I’m a pragmatist and a student of history.``

Grammar aside, your advocacy of Obama illustrates a romanticism, a belief in a savior, a man riding in on a white horse to deliver you. I would scarcely call that pragmatism. Oh, and the assertions you make suggest you do NOT understand history, Miles. Sorry to be so hard on you, but you advocate the very things that have been tried and have failed appalingly. History shows that conservative things-tax cuts, less government regulation, etc. work improve the economy, because the economy is ultimately the people acting in their own interest, and a corporation (something that you seem to despise) is but a voluntary alliance of individuals. Where do you think 401K`s make their money?

Again, you say;

``Point is and I believe history will bail me out that this is a depression and the next president will be like Roosevelt doing what is better for the country to rebuild it.``

First off, we are not even in a recession, which is two quarter of negative growth back to back. A Depression is a recession where GDP declines by more than 10%. Roosevelt took the stupid things done by Hoover-raising taxes and Smoot Hawley-and turned the Depression into the GREAT Depression by establishing innumerable government programs, taking wealth out of the hands of those who would invest it when investment was most needed. Roosevelt was aggressive in regulating and taxing businesses, and of course they then failed to hire or grow. In fact, the economy was beginning to recover and Roosevelt wrecked the recovery, causing ``the Depression in the Depression`` when the Supreme Court (which he had been packing with lackeys) ruled his New Deal Constitutional. Had Roosevelt let the market recover, had he stopped fiddling with monetary values and regulating industry, the economy would have recovered. As things stand, this was the longest such economic downturn in history. Oh, and his policies are strikingly similar to Nazi economic policies at the time. Hitler was clearly left of Roosevelt, but not by much in terms of economics. Hitler`s economic plan included massive defecit spending, an agricultural bill quite similar to Roosevelts, subsidies for roadbuilding, auto manufacturers, a heavy beaurocracy to regulate industry, higher taxes. He instituted the RAD, the National Labor Service, to act in the same fashion as Roosevelt`s WPA, a public works bureau. He instituted the 1933 Farm Law giving subsidies to farmers, just like FDR. He instituted wage and price controls. Hitler compelled workers to join the German Labor Front, a kind of national labor union. Hitler was fortunate, since he came to power as Germany was coming out of the Depression. His military buildup put people back to work (ahem) thus helping to get the German nation out of the downturn. But this does not lead to lasting prosperity, and neither did Roosevelt`s schemes.

YOURS are the themes that are same-old, same-old, Miles; you want a return to Rooseveltian economic fascism.

I don`t care that much for McCain, but your guy should scare any sane person; he has proposed an internal secret police. Liberals complained about the Patriot Act but are going to cheer when Obama creates a truly fascist state. He has already tried to get Democrat prosecutors to strongarm those who do not agree with him. Sarah Palin is the real change in this race, something new and largely untried in modern politics. Yours is the fear born of ignorance here, my friend.

You say;

``There is nothing wrong with the social security and medicare programs instituted to help older folks maintain some sort of standard of living they had while they were working.``

Social Security was a ponzi scheme, and is going to crash to doom in 25 years. Medicare will fail even sooner. Democrats don`t want to fix it, because it gives them a wedge issue to get senior citizens to vote for them. Every election cycle we hear the same mantra ``Republicans are going to take your social security away``. That is a lie, but the Democrats use it and have no interest in averting the disaster that is coming. Also, it should be pointed out that SS has also helped to crowd out private pension funds, making people dependent on government rather than themselves. Socialist schemes tend to do that sort of thing, Miles. Also, if you want to understand the moral arguments against social security, I suggest you read Amity Schales ``The Forgotten Man``. Roosevelt co-opted that term to mean the poor, but the term arose because the forgotten man is the taxpayer who is forced to make charitable donations against his will. His money is taken from him by force to be used for charity-and to buy votes. 

As Alexander Tytler, Lord Woodhouselee, is said to have stated in the 18th Century:

`` A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world’s greatest civilizations has been 200 years.``

Americans have learned to vote themselves largesse from the treasury, whether through social security, medicare, aid to families with Dependent Children, No Child Left Behind, what have you. THAT, my friend, is what is wrong with social security.

If you believe that Anthropogenic Global Warming is going to kill us all, as it seems you do, I would suggest you click on the Global Warming link in my sidepanel and read through the volumes upon volumes of scientific literature I have amassed here. Science is becomming increasingly convinced that the AGW doomsday theories are a crock. It is pretty clear that Global Warming is hardly unusual, and ended in 1998. Read my posts; I cite those in the field doing the research; Roger Pielke, Sr., the late Roger Revelle, John Christy, Roy Spencer, Anthony Watts, Timothy Ball, etc.

I know all about this ridiculous assertion about the plot to kill Roosevelt, and there are no credible historians who give it the slightest credence. It falls into the category of the plot by Roosevelt to get Japan to attack Pearl Harbor; appealing only to the paranoid. Miles, next you are going to tell me that Skull and Bones was behind the attack on the World Trade Center! You liberals have gone bonkers, if you pardon my refreshing honesty. It bears pointing out that Smedley Butler served Franklin Roosevelt, your Democratic Hero, yet complains about war being a racket. By whom, hmmm? He won all those medals in WWI, serving Democrat Woodrow Wilson. And why wasn`t Prescott Bush and the rest of the cabal put in jail? Roosevelt had the power to do so. Why weren`t they at least prosecuted? Your theory is full of holes, Miles. It should also be pointed out that Butler regularly gave speeches before the Communist Party of America in the 30`s, and was quoted as saying `They told me I’d find a nest of communists here. I told them ‘What the hell of it!’` http://www.rationalrevolution.net/war/major_general_smedley_butler_usm.htm He was also a member of the League Against War and Fascism, a Communist front group. I find your argument less then compelling.

It still doesn`t explain anything. This allegedly happened 70 some-odd years ago, and Bush is not on the ballot. If you like, you can write in John Kerry on Tuesday.

I agree this country is heading in the wrong direction, but Obama wants to march it off a cliff. If you want to really change course, you would support Conservatism. Obama is nothing but the failed policies of the past wrapped in a bright, shiny package with a nice bow. In his own words; ``you can put lipstick on a pig, but it`s still a pig.`` Obama is a very fashionable porker, but he`s still a socialist pig. If you want change you need to look elsewhere. You need to look to the Conservatives. We offer REAL change.

Thanks,

Tim

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:57 AM | Comments (4) | Add Comment
Post contains 4588 words, total size 28 kb.

1 Atta boy, Tim.  Good job.  Egad, man, I'm glad you're on our side! 

Of course, facts matter to conservatives.  They don't matter to liberals.  We've known that for years.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at October 31, 2008 04:00 PM (GmK7c)

2

Thanks, Dana! This guy responded with some really crazy conspiracy theory stuff, which I will post up shortly.

 

 

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at November 01, 2008 06:58 AM (bHxmI)

3 Tim, I'll betcha this Miles character doesn't make a great deal of money (he certainly doesn't earn it by his writing or thinking skills), so he's not concerned about increased income taxes, which will assuredly land upon us should Obama manage to be elected.

Posted by: Dana Mathewson at November 01, 2008 11:44 AM (GmK7c)

4

He speaks good English, though; at least better than Sarah Palin! 

Unfortunately, ignorance rules the public mind these days.  You are undoubtedly correct; he probably doesn`t earn enough to pay taxes.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at November 02, 2008 08:28 AM (bHxmI)

Hide Comments | Add Comment

Timothy Birdnow

Much has been made about bickering in the McCain camp, but what we haven`t heard is that Obama is hemorrhaging as well.

Case in point; former Obama speechwriter Wendy Button has soured on the One because of his attack ads and sexist slurs against Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, and recently announced she was supporting John McCain.

Yet the media remain silent, despite a zealous reporting on problems in the Mac Camp. If we had even slightly biased reporting in this election cycle, Obama would be running 10 points behind. Sadly, the media is acting as the public relations wing of the Obama campaign.

I know I sound like a broken record, but we desperately need regime change in the mainstream media.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:34 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 129 words, total size 1 kb.

A Wall Street Journal article by Daniel Henninger, courtesy of Wil Wirtanen:

The True Meaning of 'Historic Vote'
Shifting America's animating idea from creation to protection.
 
The most basic explanation for why Barack Obama may win next Tuesday is that voters want economic deliverance. The standard fix for this in politics everywhere is to crowbar the old party out and patch in the other one. It is true as well that the historic nature of the nation's first African-American candidacy would play a big role.

Push past the historic candidacy, however, and one sees something even larger at stake in this vote. One sees what Joe (The Plumber) Wurzelbacher saw. The real "change" being put to a vote for the American people in 2008 is not simply a break from the economic policies of "the past eight years" but with the American economic philosophy of the past 200 years. This election is about a long-term change in America's idea of itself.

I don't agree with the argument that an Obama-Pelosi-Reid government is a one-off, that good old nonideological American pragmatism will temper their ambitions. Not true. With this election, the U.S. is at a philosophical tipping point.

The goal of Sen. Obama and the modern, "progressive" Democratic Party is to move the U.S. in the direction of Western Europe, the so-called German model and its "social market economy." Under this notion, business is highly regulated, as it would be in the next Congress under Democratic House committee chairmen Markey, Frank and Waxman. Business is allowed to create "wealth" so long as its utility is not primarily to create new jobs or economic growth but to support a deep welfare system.

An Obama presidency would lead America towards a European "social market economy." (Oct. 30)

The political planets are aligned to make this achievable. In the aftermath of the financial crisis, prominent Democrats, European leaders in France and Germany and more U.S. newspaper articles than one can count have said that the crisis proves the need to permanently tame the American "free-market" model. P.O.W. Alan Greenspan is broadcasting confessions. The question is: Are the American people of a mind to throw in the towel on the system that got them here?

This would be a historic shift, one post-Vietnam Democrats have been trying to achieve since their failed fight with Ronald Reagan's "Cowboy Capitalism."

Of course Cowboy Capitalism built the country. More than any previous nation in history, the United States made its way forward on a 200-year wave of upwardly mobile, profit-seeking merchants, tradesmen, craftsmen and workers. They blew out of New England and New York, rolled across the wildernesses of the Central States, pushed across a tough Western frontier and banged into San Francisco and Los Angeles, leaving in their path city after city of vast wealth.

The U.S. emerged a superpower, and the tool of that ascent was simple -- the pursuit of economic growth. Now China, India and Brazil, embracing high-growth Cowboy Capitalism, are doing what we did, only their cities are bigger.

Now comes Barack Obama, standing at the head of a progressive Democratic Party, his right hand rising to say, "Mothers, don't let your babies grow up to be for-profit cowboys. It's time to spread the wealth around."

What this implies, undeniably, is that the United States would move away from running with the high GDP, high-growth nations rising today as economic and political powers and move over to retire with the low-growth economies we displaced -- old Europe.

As noted in a 2006 World Bank report, spending in Europe on social-protection programs averages 19% of GDP (85% of it on social insurance programs), compared to 9% of GDP in the U.S. The Obama proposals send the U.S. inexorably and permanently toward European levels of social protection. This isn't an "agenda." It's a final temptation.

In partial detail:

Obama's federalized medical insurance system starts the transition away from private medical care and toward Obama's endlessly promised "universal health care." This has always been the sine qua non of planting a true, managed-market economy in the U.S.

Obama's refundable tax credits are direct cash transfers from the federal government. This would place some 48% of Americans, nearly half, out of the income tax system. More than a tax proposal, this is a deep philosophical shift, an American version of being "on the dole."

His stated intent to renegotiate free-trade agreements such as Nafta is a philosophical shift. It abandons the tradition of a hyper-competitive America dating back to the Industrial Revolution, toward a protected, domestic workforce, as in Western Europe. The Democratic proposal to eliminate private union votes -- "card check" -- ensures the spread of a static, Euro-style workforce.

Eliminating the ceiling on payroll taxes changes Social Security from an insurance to a welfare program. Obama's tax credits requires performing government-identified activities, the essence of a "directed economy."

All this would transform the animating American idea -- away from creation and toward protection.

Many voters -- progressive Democrats, the asset-safe rich, academics and college students -- regard this as where America should go. They explicitly want America's great natural energies transferred away from unwieldy economic competition and toward social construction. They want the U.S. to reduce its "footprint" in the world. Monies saved by stepping down from superpower status can be reprogrammed into "investments" (a favorite Obama word) in a vast Euro-style hammock of social protection programs.

One wishes John McCain had been better able to make clear what the truly "historic" meaning of Tuesday's vote is. Once it's done, it's done.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 931 words, total size 6 kb.

Dana Mathewson:

Based on Obama's own words, Michael Barone projects his economic 
policies, figuring he'd attempt to resurrect the New Deal of Roosevelt.

Not a good idea!  As Barone explains, the New Deal was not an attempt 
to stimulate the economy.  It was an attempt (successful) to FREEZE 
the economy in place -- to halt its downward spiral.  And the only 
thing that finally stimulated the economy was World War II.  Some of 
the economy-freezing policies stayed in place until the 60's and 70's, 
in fact.

Read the whole thing.  Barone understands all this better than most.  
Certainly better than Obama!

http://tinyurl.com/5rj3sb

Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it." Saul Alinski `Rules for Radicals`

``I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." Barack Obama to Joe the Plumber, forshadowing his plans to employ Alinski`s 12th rule to the free market.
--
Odd how the sun always seems to be the same distance away, no matter how light
you travel. -- James Lileks

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:19 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 175 words, total size 1 kb.

Dana Mathewson:

I have always had the suspicion that when it came to politics, the 
otherwise excellent Snopes.com website was a bit less than reliable.  
Now there's an article that confirms it, and suggests that the 
TruthorFiction.com site is better.

http://tinyurl.com/5h7qqc

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:28 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 47 words, total size 1 kb.

by Jack Kemp (not the politician):

 
American Thinker had a convoluted legalese discussion of Philip Berg's court case against Barack Obama, requiring his citizenship be proved. It was entitled "Who Enforces the Constitution's Natural Born Citizen Clause?" http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/10/who_enforces_the_constitutions.html .
 
The article raised the proper question(s), and faults the court, but the clearest, most significant answers, in my humble layman's opinion, appear in three of the reader comments.
 
Laura's comment:
 
I saw this same matter occur in the suit against the Secretary of State of Ohio Brunner. There was a statement that the case could not be brought before the court for lack of "standing". Our rights as citizens and our democracy is being assaulted at every level. If we the people no longer have "standing" then we are in a totalitarian state other than the times of elections when we elect representatives. Unfortunately, you see the circular logic. The only time we have a voice according to this standing doctrine - is when we vote. From that time forward we are under the rule of the legislature who can deny us the right to petition our government for a redress of grievances through the court system. The other "loop" that closes the circle and leaves no "loophole" wherein we do have a voice in this circular logic... was closed by the Supreme Court saying that citizens could not sue the Secretary of State of Ohio for allowing voter fraud. Why?? Because they lacked... standing.

What's the problem here?? This isn't the America that I've read about in history and it's not the America our founding fathers created... because it's not functioning as that America and what we have is only on paper. They say a law that is not enforced is not truly existant. Therefore, if we do not have "standing" to access the rights of the Constitution... guess what?? We don't functionally have a Constitution and Constitional rights we can enforce... because we don't have "standing". The Constitution, therefore, for all practical intents and purposes as a democracy of the people, by the people, and for the people... no longer exists.

What we have is a "top-down" government. That's not America as our founding fathers delivered to us through the documents whereby America was incorporated. If we have no "standing"... the Constitution no longer... stands, in effect, in force.

That's a problem.

Laura
END OF COMMENT
 
Mark Roth comment:
 
One might ask the question "If a citizen/voter does not have standing to sue, then who does?" Judge Surrick's ruling leads to the absurdity that their could be a wrong (Obama becoming President although failing the qualifications) without a remedy for lack of any party with the ability to bring the action. This would render the "qualifications" clause nugatory.

It might bear noting that Judge Surrick was a Clinton appointee to the bench.
END OF COMMENT
 
I, Jack, had to look up "nugatory" in my dictionary. It means trifling or invalid. It comes from a Latin word meaning "jokes." In other words, Mr. Roth is saying that citizen's Berg's attempt to have a citizen demand that federal judicial watchdogs prove Obama has complied with Constitutional requirements for a presidential candidate is a joke.

 
Michael Patrick Leahy's comment on the article directs us to a PDF file at his own website www.michaelpatrickleahy.com  entitled "Obama ineligible press release" and found on the left side of his homepage. There he states federal Electors cannot be so easily dismissed as Mr. Berg was by a court if those electors were to file the same request for proof of Obama's citizenship.
 
To quote Mr. Leahy:
 
``Since Senator Obama adamantly refuses to do the right thing and authorize the release of the long form vault copy of his birth certificate, which by the way could resolve this potential Constitutional crisis in about half an hour, we are left with legally requiring the State of Hawaii to release the record.`` Both Federal Courts and the State of Hawaii Courts have recently decided that an average voter (Philip J. Berg in the Federal Case, and Andy Martin in the State case) does not have standing to bring the lawsuit.

Leahy believes that Presidential Electors and members of Congress will be found to have standing. ``Though I am not attorney, my discussions with attorneys on this matter persuades me that Presidential Electors and members of Congress will be determined to have standing by the Federal Courts, and quite possibly the State Courts.``
END OF FIRST QUOTE
 
Despite Mr. Leahy's assumptions and optimism, whether our current Federal Courts would accept a challenge from an actual federal Elector is a conjecture, a guess, at this time.
 
Leahy further goes on conclude:
 
A successful lawsuit that requires the State of Hawaii to produce and verify the long form vault copy of Barack Obama’s birth certificate will have two possible outcomes. It will either confirm his claim that he was born in Hawaii, or it will disprove it.

``I can tell you that at this very moment there are several very competent attorneys who are seriously considering filing such a lawsuit on behalf of Presidential Electors and members of Congress prior to Election Day next Tuesday. Whether that lawsuit is filed before or after the election, I anticipate that such a lawsuit will be filed, probably in Federal Court, prior to December 15, 2008, the date on which each state’s Presidential Electors meet to cast their votes.``
 
If it is confirmed that Obama was born in Hawaii, then the issue is closed. If the evidence disproves his claim that he was born in Hawaii, and if Obama wins enough votes next Tuesday to secure an Electoral College majority, we will see a political and Constitutional crisis between November of 2008 and Inauguration Day, January 2009 that will make the 2000 Presidential Election crisis look like child’s play.

Though the final outcome of such an unprecedented Constitutional crisis is unclear, one possible outcome if BarackObama is ruled ineligible, and Presidential Electors from states he wins casts their votes for him and those votes are disallowed at the joint session of Congress that counts the votes on January 6, 2009, is that no candidate receives an Electoral College majority. ``Under such circumstances,`` Leahy concluded, ``the Constitution requires the House of Representatives to select the next President. That body, which is likely to have a Democratic majority, could select who it wants as President. The leading candidate, I presume, would be Hillary Clinton, though I imagine that both Joe Biden and Nancy Pelosi might also make a claim for the office at that time.``
END OF QUOTE
 
The 2000 Electoral College dispute may indeed seem like child's play in comparison, as Mr. Leahy states. One wonders if this election, with either candidate winning, will result in the Full Lawyers Employment Act of 2008.
 
Jack Kemp

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:20 PM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1151 words, total size 7 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

I suffered through the Ronco production of Barack Obama, necessary White House-hold gadget, and thought I`d share a few thoughts on the Obama-fomercial. Granted, the Big O isn`t as handy as the pocket fisherman or topsy-tail, but after that masterpiece of advertising, those who stay up into the wee hours to purchase cans of Ron Popeil`s spray paint for bald spots will probably be convinced to march into that polling place and pull that lever!

It was, of course, the usual Democrat fare; a parade of helpless people who have no idea how to solve their own problems. Much like the testimonials on any infomercial, these lost souls find salvation and easy housework at the touch of a button; in this case the pushbutton screen of an electronic voting booth. Obama did his usual oily performance, mixing lies with the truth to trick the great unwashed (and largely unbathed).  He gave us the same lies about how those making under $200,000 (it used to be 250) will get a tax break (yes, how many nickels and dimes will the top brackets get? That was a point made recently by Karl Rove-most of this tax break will be in dollars, not tens of dollars) and that businesses will be exempt (except that businesses are taxed as individuals, and according to the SBA most small businesses make over Obama`s magic number.  He talked about energy independence (without any credible plan to get there) and asked us to conserve-the real plan of the anointed one and the Democrats. At every turn he promised more money from Uncle Sam, and talked about being fiscally responsible!  He also promised to keep us safe by talking, which is, of course, what he is best at.

Obama`s attempt to humanize I think fell quite flat; when he smiled he bore a striking resemblence to the archnemesis of the Dark Knight; I fully expected to see him in makeup with a lavender velvet suit and an hysterical cackle and joybuzzer. He was the spitting image of the Joker!  Also, his discourse about the death of his mother struck me as quite cold and clinical, someone incapable of real human emotion. I said it on the John Barnhart radio show-this guy has no soul.

At the end we were treated to a campaign rally, with Obama having two microphones in front of him to catch what comes out of both sides of his mouth. My wife pointed out that there were plenty of enthusiastic people behind him, getting a far clearer view of Obama`s programs since they tend to find egress from his backside.  I liked the parade of Democrat political hacks at the end, too; nice touch!

It seems to me that if Obama had this in the bag-as the media continues to claim-the enormous expenditure of capital to run this in prime time, rather than at the witching hour (sorry to mention Hillary here) suggests that Obama and his cadre are running scared.  That he has the money to run this on all major channels simultaneously suggests he has violated campaign laws in a spectacular fashion. Where is the media investigation of that?  Why isn`t he being asked about the foreign money? 

Bob Dole lost to Bill Clinton because he ran out of cash, and Clinton sold everything that wasn`t nailed down, including the Lincoln Bedroom and our rocket science to the Chinese. He compromised national security for his re-election, but nothing happened because HE WON. That was key, and that is what Obama is shooting for. If he wins nothing will happen. He can gamble, because George W. Bush did nothing to clean up after Clinton in the spirit of his ``new tone`` and McCain`s boast that he will bring a new spirit of bipartisanship suggests that he will let bygones be bygones if he wins. Why not cheat?  CBS News reported on KMOX radio in St. Louis that St. Louis City and County both had more people registered to vote than citizens. Apparently the state of Missouri does in general.  That means that we have vote fraud on a massive scale, and Obama`s former employer ACORN is the king of vote fraud. Again, he and his people are counting on the good nature of their opponenets. If the tables were turned they would use the full force of the law to their own benefit. This is quite likely the most corrupt, dirties campaign in U.S. history, with the Democrats cheating in ways that defy belief. This is certainly the vilest abrogation of journalistic integrity we have ever witnessed, making the old muckrakers and William Randolf Hearst`s creation of the Spanish-American War pale by comparison. The media isn`t even trying to maintain a veneer of objectivity.

Despite this titanic struggle for dominance. the left and media are still unable to close the deal, and had to resort to the time-honored traditions that have given us the George Forman Grill and the Turbitwist. I suspect the cheapness of this has not gone unnoticed by the public. 

Did Obama do himself any favors tonight?  Time will tell, but my guess is no. He needn`t worry if he loses; he has a bright future working with Kevin Trudeau or selling memberships to Hair Club for Men if that White House thing doesn`t work out.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:15 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 892 words, total size 5 kb.

This from the Wall Street Journal, courtesy of Wil Wirtanen:

Policy ala Jimmah Carter.

I was in the Army during his tenure and it was not good.

Wil Wirtanen

 
Will Obama Gut Defense?
Capitol Hill Democrats want to target the Pentagon.
·         By BRET STEPHENS
 
Barney Frank will not soon be named secretary of defense or, insha'Allah, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. So there's really no reason to fear that his recent call to cut defense spending by 25% is a harbinger of what to expect in an Obama administration.

Then again, maybe there is.

When it comes to defense, there are two Barack Obamas in this race. There is the candidate who insists, as he did last year in an article in Foreign Affairs, that "a strong military is, more than anything, necessary to sustain peace"; pledges to increase the size of our ground forces by 65,000 soldiers and 27,000 Marines while providing them with "first-rate equipment, armor, incentives and training"; and seems to be as gung-ho for a surge in Afghanistan as he was opposed to the one in Iraq.

And then there is the candidate who early this year recorded an ad for Caucus for Priorities, a far-left outfit that wants to cut 15% of the Pentagon's budget in favor of "education, healthcare, job training, alternative energy development, world hunger [and] deficit reduction."

"Thanks so much for the Caucus for Priorities for the great work you've been doing," says Mr. Obama in the ad, before promising to "cut tens of billions of dollars in wasteful spending . . . slow our development of future combat systems . . . not develop new nuclear weapons."

Joe Biden also cut an ad for the group that was even more emphatic: "I'll tell you what we cannot afford . . . a trillion-dollar commitment to 'Star Wars,' new nuclear weapons, a thousand-ship Navy, the F-22 Raptor."

Mr. Biden is right that we can't afford a thousand-ship Navy, not that anyone has proposed it. Current levels of funding don't quite suffice to operate 300 ships, or about half the number the U.S. had at the end of the Reagan arms buildup. The Navy would be satisfied with 313.

Current funding is also just adequate to purchase about 65 new planes for the Air Force each year, even as the average age of each plane creeps upward to nearly 24 years. Last year, the entire fleet of F-15Cs -- the Air Force's mainstay fighter -- was grounded after one of the planes came apart in midair. Spending on maintenance alone is up more than 80% from a decade ago. Is that another defense item Mr. Biden thinks we can't afford?

(As for nuclear weapons, the U.S. hasn't built a new warhead in decades. Its mainstay, the W76, is widely suspected of being unreliable, yet Congress has resisted funding the so-called Reliable Replacement Warhead.)

Maybe it seems odd that the Pentagon, whose budget for 2009 runs to well over $500 billion -- not including the supplemental $165 billion for Iraq and Afghanistan -- should struggle to afford the equipment it needs.

But it's not odd. We've been fighting two wars, straining people and equipment. Weapons have generally become more complex and expensive. President Clinton's "procurement holiday" punted the modernization problems to the present. And even after the Bush buildup, defense spending amounts to just 4% of gross domestic product. By contrast, at the nadir of Cold War defense spending under Jimmy Carter, the figure was 4.7%.

All this should argue for at least a modest recapitalization effort by an Obama administration, assuming it really believes a strong military is "necessary to sustain peace." A study by the Heritage Foundation makes the case that defense spending should rise to close to $800 billion over the next four years in order to stick to the 4% GDP benchmark. That's unrealistic in light of the financial crisis. But holding the line at current levels is doable -- and necessary.

But what if a President Obama doesn't actually believe in the importance of a strong military to keep the peace? Or has an attenuated idea of what qualifies as a "strong" military? Or considers military strength a luxury at a moment of financial crisis? Or thinks now is the moment to smash the Pentagon piggy bank to fund a second Great Society?

Does anyone really know where Mr. Obama's instincts lie? During the third debate, he cited former Marine Gen. James Jones as a member of his wise man's circle -- which was reassuring but odd, given that the general made a point of appearing at a McCain campaign event simply to distance himself from the Democratic candidate.

The Obama campaign has also produced a lengthy defense blueprint on its Web site. It reads more like a social manifesto, promising to "improve transition services," "make mental health a priority," and end "don't-ask, don't-tell." All very well, except the document is notably vague on naming the kinds of weapons systems Mr. Obama would actually support.

And so the question remains: If elected, which Obama do we get? The nuanced centrist or the man from Ben and Jerry's?

Some voters may like answers sometime before next Tuesday. Alternatively, they can click the button called "I'm Feeling Lucky."

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:29 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 881 words, total size 5 kb.

Jack Kemp

Tim, sadly, he says it all in this broadcast email. Prof. Eidelberg is at www.foundation1.org, the Foundation for Constitutional Democracy

Jack

Barack Obama: Has America Gone Mad?

Prof. Paul Eidelberg

Did those of you who are old enough thrill to these words of President John F. Kennedy:  ``Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, to assure the survival and the success of liberty.``

Alas, they are unknown or forgotten by Kennedy’s Democratic Party, now headed by Senate majority leader Harry Reid and House majority leader Nancy Pelosi, who, in the midst of our war in Iraq, have vilified America’s commander-in-chief.   Does this treacherous attitude  trouble Americans?

It troubles the present writer, a former officer in the United States Air Force.  I am dismayed by the new and unpatriotic Democratic Party that has arisen in America.  I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when America’s new Democrats compare Barack Obama with John F. Kennedy—Obama, so anxious for the United States to turn tail and withdraw American forces from Iraq.  This is the same Obama that regards Iran, a nation of 70 million people, as a mere ``nuisance.``

(This play-actor does not know that Iran is well-positioned to annex Iraq.  He does not know that the combination of Iran’s current production of 4.21 million barrels of oil a day with Iraq’s 6 mullion would enable Iran to out-produce Saudi Arabia.  He does not know that a 50 percent cutback of this oil would utterly collapse America’s shaky economy for which his party is primarily responsible.  Goodbye Oprah!) 

But what most disturbs me is the appalling number of Americans who adore this political Elvis Presley.  These Americans are oblivious of their country’s heritage.  I have especially in mind the teachings of the American Declaration of Independence, which speaks of man’s unalienable rights to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness, rights derived from the laws of nature and of nature’s God.

The Declaration is a Christian document signed by 56 Christians who said ``with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our  Fortunes and our sacred Honor.``

My fellow-Americans: know well what your professors and politicians and judges have never told you, that the American Constitution was designed to implement the universal principles of the Declaration of Independence,  Know well that the Constitution concludes with these words: ``Done in Convention in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty-seven.``   Know well that America is nothing if it is not a Christian nation.  I say this as a Jew who has written books on the Constitution as well as on the Declaration.

Nevertheless, Barack Obama has the audacity to say. ``America is no longer a Christian nation.``  He writes in The Audacity of Hope, ``I will stand with [Arab and Pakistani Americans] should the political winds shift in an ugly direction."  What `ugly direction`?  There are hundreds of mosques in the United States that preach Jihad and hatred of Americans and Jews.  With whom would Obama stand if the American government prosecuted Arabs or Muslims charged with incitement or hate crimes?

Obama’s father was a Muslim, and under Islamic law a person’s faith is patrilineal.  Would Obama stand on the side of America of which he claims to be a citizen?  Did he not refrain from placing his hand on his heart during a public recital of the American Pledge of Allegiance?  For twenty years he attended a church whose pastor preached “God damn America, the same pastor who embraced the Black Muslim Louis Farrakhan, Supreme Minister of the Nation of Islam and a pronounced anti-Semite and anti-American. 

How can this subversive state of affairs happen in America, the country in which I was born and where I so often proudly said: "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation under God, indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all."  This is the teaching underlying the American Constitution.

How is it, then, that Obama, a candidate for president of the United States, can openly scorn this Constitution to the extent of calling it a barrier to justice?  Like others of his ilk, he reduces justice to equality, by which he means not equality of opportunity—not the elevating equality of the Declaration—but the leveling equality of results—an equality demanded by the Marxist redistribution of wealth preached by his mentors.

How is it that this stage player is not be rejected by an overwhelming majority of the American people?  Has America gone mad?

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:25 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 788 words, total size 5 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Much has been made of the ``Bradley Effect``, the alleged tendency by White America to tell pollsters they will vote for a minority candidate when in fact they have no intention of doing so. Also known as the Wilder Effect, it was named for African American Tom Bradley, who lost the 1982 election for Governor of California despite being ahead in polls.  There has been considerable discussion about this of late, especially as how it might apply to his anointed holiness Barack Hussein Obama.  This discussion centers on how many votes Barry will lose to white racism, how far is America from the goal of a colorblind society.  This asks the wrong question, because what nobody is seriously considering is how many votes Barack Obama is gaining BECAUSE he is a minority.

What I am asking may scandalize, but I`m not the first to bring it up; Geraldine Ferraro suggested this may be the case earlier. Rush Limbaugh likewise made this point when he said the Colin Powell endorsement was about race. The reality is, would a guy with so thin a resume` as Obama be anywhere near the political apex were he white? There are two dynamics at work, and both of them are examples of reverse discrimination.

First, Obama is likely to win a huge majority of African American votes. Now, it is understandable that blacks would wish to have someone they perceive as their own (he is, at most, half black and in reality has considerable Arab blood) ascend to such a lofty position.

According to this piece:

_{``This year, opinion polls show that more than 90 percent of blacks who vote could cast a ballot for Obama, in part because of racial solidarity with a candidate who would be the first black president in U.S. history.}

_{"There is every indication that black turnout in 2008 will surpass all existing records both nationally and in individual states," said a report this week by the Joint Center for Political and Economic Studies.``}
end excerpt

Now, if a white candidate with virtually identical positions as Obama were running, fewer blacks would turn out in support. Is that not a subtle form of Black racism?  Is not Obama benefiting from the fact that he ISN`T White?

But the black votes he is getting isn`t the only thing; many whites, conditioned for generations by a liberal media and educational system, and suffering a healthy dose of ``White Guilt`` will vote Obama to prove to themselves they aren`t really the monsters of prejudice and racism that they have been told they are. Many whites-especially the more liberal and moderate ones-believe the mantra of a racist America. These people consider themselves good and decent, and the penultimate in goodness and decency is racial tolerance according to the prevailing voices in modern society. Now, racial tolerance is indeed a good thing, but it has come to be something far more than just tolerance; rather, a decided pro-minority viewpoint has come to dominate American culture, with an excusing of any sort of bad behavior on the part of minorities and an almost rabid desire to think the worst where non-minorities are concerned.

Case-in-point; the Duke Lacrosse players were dragged through the slime, with an almost universal opinion held in the media and at their own University that they had raped the drugged-up stripper. The default position held by white liberals was that ``of course they did it, it`s what white men do!``  The kids had their lives ruined by a pathological liar and dope fiend, because it played well politically and fit a paradigm that liberals had created. It worked with many well-meaning whites because they WANTED to believe the best for a poor black girl.

Meanwhile, there were people who battled to the end to save the obviously guilty Tookie Williams from the executioner`s IV. There have been numerous other instances, and often the defenders are white. They cannot blame the guilty, because they feel that the white majority somehow caused this through racism. Again, the default is in favor of minorities.

Writer Shelby Steele discusses this concept of White guilt at some length, and illustrates the permicious way it effects our society.

As Mr. Steele so eloquently puts it:

_{``I call this white guilt not because it is a guilt of conscience but because people stigmatized with moral crimes--here racism and imperialism--lack moral authority and so act guiltily whether they feel guilt or not.}

_{They struggle, above all else, to dissociate themselves from the past sins they are stigmatized with. When they behave in ways that invoke the memory of those sins, they must labor to prove that they have not relapsed into their group's former sinfulness. So when America--the greatest embodiment of Western power--goes to war in Third World Iraq, it must also labor to dissociate that action from the great Western sin of imperialism. Thus, in Iraq we are in two wars, one against an insurgency and another against the past--two fronts, two victories to win, one military, the other a victory of dissociation.``}

End Excerpt

Mr. Steele was discussing this in regards to the War on Terror-a war fought largely against aggressor ``brown people``-but his point is equally valid in relations to the current election cycle; Obama is going to have many, many votes cast for him not because of his policies or the content of his character, but because of the color of his skin.

So this discussion of how many votes Barack will lose to racism is an exercise in profound misdirection; the real question is how many votes he gained from reverse discrimination-by both blacks AND whites!

We may elect a man with no experience, one horribly outside the mainstream of American society, one we know little about, solely based on economic factors and on his race. The Hillary-supporting PUMA`s are right; anybody but Obama.  Yet millions will cast their ballots for this dubious individual, largely to make a racial statement-if only to themselves.

THAT is the real story of this election.  I don`t expect to hear much from our valiant friends in the media about it.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:18 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1032 words, total size 7 kb.

This from the Wall Street Journal, courtesy of Wil Wirtanen:

Obama's 'Redistribution' Constitution

The courts are poised for a takeover by the judicial left.

By STEVEN G. CALABRESI

 
One of the great unappreciated stories of the past eight years is how thoroughly Senate Democrats thwarted efforts by President Bush to appoint judges to the lower federal courts.

Consider the most important lower federal court in the country: the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. In his two terms as president, Ronald Reagan appointed eight judges, an average of one a year, to this court. They included Robert Bork, Antonin Scalia, Kenneth Starr, Larry Silberman, Stephen Williams, James Buckley, Douglas Ginsburg and David Sentelle. In his two terms, George W. Bush was able to name only four: John Roberts, Janice Rogers Brown, Thomas Griffith and Brett Kavanaugh.

Although two seats on this court are vacant, Bush nominee Peter Keisler has been denied even a committee vote for two years. If Barack Obama wins the presidency, he will almost certainly fill those two vacant seats, the seats of two older Clinton appointees who will retire, and most likely the seats of four older Reagan and George H.W. Bush appointees who may retire as well.

The net result is that the legal left will once again have a majority on the nation's most important regulatory court of appeals.

The balance will shift as well on almost all of the 12 other federal appeals courts. Nine of the 13 will probably swing to the left if Mr. Obama is elected (not counting the Ninth Circuit, which the left solidly controls today). Circuit majorities are likely at stake in this presidential election for the First, Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal. That includes the federal appeals courts for New York City, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia and virtually every other major center of finance in the country.

On the Supreme Court, six of the current nine justices will be 70 years old or older on January 20, 2009. There is a widespread expectation that the next president could make four appointments in just his first term, with maybe two more in a second term. Here too we are poised for heavy change.

These numbers ought to raise serious concern because of Mr. Obama's extreme left-wing views about the role of judges. He believes -- and he is quite open about this -- that judges ought to decide cases in light of the empathy they ought to feel for the little guy in any lawsuit.

Speaking in July 2007 at a conference of Planned Parenthood, he said: "[W]e need somebody who's got the heart, the empathy, to recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom. The empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old. And that's the criteria by which I'm going to be selecting my judges."

On this view, plaintiffs should usually win against defendants in civil cases; criminals in cases against the police; consumers, employees and stockholders in suits brought against corporations; and citizens in suits brought against the government. Empathy, not justice, ought to be the mission of the federal courts, and the redistribution of wealth should be their mantra.

In a Sept. 6, 2001, interview with Chicago Public Radio station WBEZ-FM, Mr. Obama noted that the Supreme Court under Chief Justice Earl Warren "never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society," and "to that extent as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical."

He also noted that the Court "didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted." That is to say, he noted that the U.S. Constitution as written is only a guarantee of negative liberties from government -- and not an entitlement to a right to welfare or economic justice.

This raises the question of whether Mr. Obama can in good faith take the presidential oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution" as he must do if he is to take office. Does Mr. Obama support the Constitution as it is written, or does he support amendments to guarantee welfare? Is his provision of a "tax cut" to millions of Americans who currently pay no taxes merely a foreshadowing of constitutional rights to welfare, health care, Social Security, vacation time and the redistribution of wealth? Perhaps the candidate ought to be asked to answer these questions before the election rather than after.

Every new federal judge has been required by federal law to take an oath of office in which he swears that he will "administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich." Mr. Obama's emphasis on empathy in essence requires the appointment of judges committed in advance to violating this oath. To the traditional view of justice as a blindfolded person weighing legal claims fairly on a scale, he wants to tear the blindfold off, so the judge can rule for the party he empathizes with most.

The legal left wants Americans to imagine that the federal courts are very right-wing now, and that Mr. Obama will merely stem some great right-wing federal judicial tide. The reality is completely different. The federal courts hang in the balance, and it is the left which is poised to capture them.

A whole generation of Americans has come of age since the nation experienced the bad judicial appointments and foolish economic and regulatory policy of the Johnson and Carter administrations. If Mr. Obama wins we could possibly see any or all of the following: a federal constitutional right to welfare; a federal constitutional mandate of affirmative action wherever there are racial disparities, without regard to proof of discriminatory intent; a right for government-financed abortions through the third trimester of pregnancy; the abolition of capital punishment and the mass freeing of criminal defendants; ruinous shareholder suits against corporate officers and directors; and approval of huge punitive damage awards, like those imposed against tobacco companies, against many legitimate businesses such as those selling fattening food.

Nothing less than the very idea of liberty and the rule of law are at stake in this election. We should not let Mr. Obama replace justice with empathy in our nation's courtrooms.

Mr. Calabresi is a co-founder of the Federalist Society and a professor of law at Northwestern University.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:39 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1106 words, total size 7 kb.

Wil Wirtanen:

I have stated numerous times that there are some parallels with the Great Depression even though I do not believe that we are going into a depression. 

The two main actions that kept us in the Great Depression were the Smoot-Hawley Tariff and an increase in taxes.  Does it sound familiar to another messiah candidate?

Speaking of messiah candidates, we have the same smooth talking candidate that has no economic knowledge in Bunny Ears as we did in FDR.

Then you have the same type of solutions, infrastructure projects ala WPA & CCC, pillor industry as the fault, manipulate the currency, and actions like the article below.

The other parallel that I see is that we have a global threat to liberty and freedom in Al Quada that is eerily similar to Fascism.

Lets hope that we don’t have to get into war to end this financial crisis like we did in WWII.

Wil

Labor Unions Prolonged the Depression

Obama wants a new Wagner Act.

By MARK MIX

 
By the mid-1930s, the U.S. economy appeared to be climbing out of the Great Depression. The Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA), which had bottomed out at 41 in 1932, was advancing. It increased 73% from the beginning of 1935 through the end of 1936, when it hit 180. The number of unemployed, 13 million in 1933, dropped to 9.5 million in 1935 and 7.6 million in 1936.

Then, in 1937, the DJIA plunged 33% in what is often called "a depression within a depression." Joblessness skyrocketed.

A principal factor in the meltdown that year was the U.S. Supreme Court's surprise 5-4 decision in early April to uphold the constitutionality of the Wagner Act, which had passed two years earlier. This measure, which is still the basis of our labor relations regime, authorized union officials to seek and obtain the power to act as the "exclusive" (that is, the monopoly) bargaining agent over all the front-line employees, including union nonmembers as well as members, in a unionized workplace.

As Amity Shlaes observed in her recent history of the Great Depression, "The Forgotten Man," within a few months after the Wagner Act was upheld, industrial production began to plummet and "the jobs started to disappear, with unemployment moving back to 1931 levels," even as the number of workers under union control was "growing astoundingly."

Given the reality of unions in the workplace, the law meant that efficiency and profitability were compromised, by forcing employers to equally reward their most productive and least productive employees. Therefore subsequent wage increases for some workers led to widespread job losses.

Pre-Depression-era growth and prosperity did not return to the private sector until the early 1950s, when the spread of state right-to-work laws prohibiting forced union membership and dues greatly reduced the detrimental effects of the Wagner Act.

The U.S. has just experienced another stock market crash, and Barack Obama, the candidate now favored to be the next president, is in favor of what amounts to a new Wagner Act.

If the mislabeled "Employee Free Choice Act," becomes law, it will likely have a similar effect on the economy as the original Wagner Act, transforming what could have been a recovery into a lengthy, deep recession, or worse.

The bill would greatly facilitate organization in workplaces by effectively eliminating secret ballot elections, allowing unions to become exclusive bargaining agents when a majority of the workers sign a card indicating they want a union -- before they've heard a word from their employer about the potential downside of unionization.

The cards themselves may be signed under duress. Service Employees International Union (SEIU) czar Andy Stern predicts that its enactment would cause unions to "grow by 1.5 million members a year, not just for five years but for 10 to 15 straight years."

Sen. Obama voted for one version of the card-check bill in June 2007 and pledged to Big Labor that he will push for enactment as president. With a handful of pickups he will have a filibuster-proof majority in the next Senate, and can make good his pledge.

"I owe those unions," Mr. Obama explained in his 2006 political memoir, "The Audacity of Hope." "When their leaders call, I do my best to call them back right away. I don't consider this corrupting in any way . . ."

John McCain voted against card-check legislation in 2007, and has pledged to veto such legislation as president. He also supports a national right-to-work law that would repeal all current federal labor law provisions authorizing forced union dues and fees. Unfortunately, his campaign has done little to alert the nation to the dangers of the card-check bill.

Before they cast their votes, the American people ought to be aware of Mr. Obama's commitment to the passage of a new Wagner Act, and of what the economic consequences of such a law are almost certain to be.

Mr. Mix is president of the National Right to Work Committee.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 07:33 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 836 words, total size 5 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Tribalism predates civilization, even predates Homo Sapiens. The genesis of tribalism is undoubtedly the extended family, where the children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, etc. marry or, as was likely the case in the paleolithic, procreate through acts of violence or other less-than-welcome ways and these offspring stayed with the family, forming a clan inside the budding tribe.  The tribe is the most fundamental social unit next to the family; an extension thereof.

And Mankind has been dilligently building more elaborate social units ever since. The taming of beasts of burden lead to larger, more mobile tribes in the Neolithic, and agriculture lead to tribes settling permanently on fertile plots of land, building walled cities for their mutual defense. The city-state gave way to the monarchy, in which collections of city-states came under the dominion of one powerful soldier. These kingdoms gave way to empires, in which ``kings of kings`` ruled over vast swaths of territory, over kings and princes and democracies.

But empire proved too unwieldy-especially when the disparate peoples were forced by military power to associate under common law by a conqueror.  Always, the empire fell either to a stronger emperor, or to barbarians from outside.

So when the Roman empire collapsed under the weight of an overbearing beaurocracy and the weakness born of immorality and the pursuit of pleasure at the hands of a more vigorous tribal people, Europe fell back to bonds of family and tribe. Where once Pax Romana maintained order through legions of the Emperor, tribes of Vandals, Saxons, Goths, Scots, Normans build kingdoms ruled by wealthy and powerful men, petty kings who dealt with each-other through familial ties and bonds of fealty based on sacred oaths.

The Medieval system worked because it was flexible, based on family and duty to an extended system of clans. Few great kings could wield more than modest control of the fealty system, because few great kings had the power to react in a swift and decisive manner at that time. With Vikings striking at a moment`s notice, say, who would offer fealty-and money-to a remote king who could not offer protection? Communities offered their loyalty to the local prince who kindly let the locals use his castle while fighting the invaders.

But that ended with the union of Castille and Aragon on the Iberian Peninsula. The kingdoms of Iberia fought a long, bitter conflict known as the Reconquista in which the invading Moors were driven out, and this was completed with the union of these two most powerful Christian kingdoms. Advances in technology made it possible for the king of the new nation called Spain to do what kings were unable to do during the Medieval period; Spain could protect her citizens, making the loyalty to the local lord secondary to loyalty to the king. The king was the more powerful, and his word became the law of the land because he could enforce it.

The nation-state was something new; a union of peoples with shared cultural traits under a hegemonic government. Instead of the Medieval hodgepodge of scattered tribal groups with autonomous political structure or the imperial arrangement where disparate national groups were subjects of the military force of a ruling city or king, you had a seamless political entity, with commonality as the basis of their allegiance and structure. Language, cuisine, religion, political structure were held in common by peoples of a generally common ancestry. (It`s why the Inquisition was so aggressive; part of Ferdinand`s ambition was a common religion, and Jews and Moslems disrupted the cultural homogenaity he sought to create.)

The British, with peoples from very different backgrounds, found the ability to incorporate the many into one, the original melting pot. Instead of Angles, Saxons, Jutes, Danes, Normans there were English. Then the Welch-the former Britons-were incorporated, then Ireland and Scotland and the amalgamation became known as Great Britain.

This went even further in America, where the sons of the British nation-state adopted almost anyone who wanted to come and be Americans.

The nation-states metastasized into national empires, and the series of wars fought over economic and political power grew increasingly violent, ending in World War II. The rise of Socialism meant hegemonic international states based not on common culture but ideology and philosophical ideas. The socialist paradigm has yet to fully depart, although American exceptionalism and the willingness to fight the Cold War has seriously weakened this belief system.

So, when modern liberalism came about, the series of progression in human civilization seemed to require a next step; the subsuming of nation-states into an overarching entity. The modern liberals, believing in the perfectibility of Man, see the rise of a new world order as an absolute necessity for the continued survival and prosperity of homo sapiens. To be a patriot is not to be proud of your particular nation-state any more than it is to be proud of your tribe or clan. Patriotism to the Left is being willing to build and nurture these international structures into which the obsolete nation-states can be subsumed. To the Left, patriotism means internationalism.  It`s that simple.

The notion that the nation-state may be the best we can do, that this scarlet beast they have spawned in New York City may be a terrible idea, a return to the follies of the past, does not occur to them; civilization is about progress, they believe, and to progress to the final destination of a socialist utopia means the destruction of these primitive forms of order. The Left would never pause to question this premise.

Internationalism is progress, and is therefore patriotic. Barack Obama is a true patriot, because he would foster this ideal

That is why I find this piece from the Ashbrook Update so fascinating; it explains the bizarre view of patriotism held by those on the Left:

  Questioning Obama's Patriotism?

For years, at least since Michael Dukakis ran for President, Democrats have been complaining that Republicans are questioning their patriotism. For the most part, this is simply clever demagoguery. Questioning someone's patriotism does not sit well with voters, and hence it is useful to play the victim card.

But all this does raise a question: is there something to the charges? As I understand liberalism, it does not believe in patriotism. The reason why liberals always wish to build international institutions like the UN and th World Court, and the reason why liberal lawyers believe in applying internationally popular laws to America is because liberalism is an ideology that wishes to transcend the nation-state. Liberals wish to create a world in which patriotism is not necessary. In that sense, liberals don't believe in partiotism. To the degree that they love America, it is because they see America as a vehicle for furthering that vision.

Conservatives, by contrast, believe that we are, of necessity, stuck with a world of particular nations and balance of power. Hence patriotism can be a good. We believe that our nation is particularly good, and hence particularly deserving of love. I suspect this is what they mean when they suggest that conservatives are mean-spirited and divisive. They are blaming the messenger. Human nature ain't what liberals think it is. The hatred we have seen in the Left, since it was invented during the French Revolution, is the result of reality clashing with their hopes for universal peace, harmony, and brotherhood. It is what happens when a vision of the future crosses the fine line between idealism and misanthropy.

Posted by Richard Adams

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:48 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1255 words, total size 8 kb.

Dana Mathewson forwards this:

The following screed is 'edited' from a long letter by a Michael 
Martin of McLean, VA. It is still long, even when shortened by a 
couple of pages. Most of the facts are worthy of passing on. Some most 
of us already know.

It's Choice not Chance that Determines Your Destiny.
  Jean Nidetch
   ____________________________________

To Barack Hussein Obama ,

  The New York Times carried a story on Saturday, October 4, 2008, 
that proves you had significantly closer relationship with Bill Ayers 
than what you previously admitted. While the issue of your 
relationship is of concern, the greater concern is that you lied to 
America about it.

The Chicago Sun reported on May 8, 2008,that FBI records showed that 
you had a significantly closer relationship with Tony Rezko than what 
you previously admitted. In the interview, you said that you only saw 
Mr. Rezko a couple of times a year. The FBI files showed that you saw 
him weekly.
While the issue of your relationship is of concern, the greater 
concern is that you lied to America about it.

Your speech in Philadelphia on March 18, 2008, about 'race' 
contradicted your statement to Anderson Cooper on March 14, 2008, when 
you said that you never heard Reverend Wright make his negative 
statements about white America. While your attendance at Trinity 
Church for 20 years is of concern, the greater concern is that you 
lied to America on March 14.

  In your 1st debate with John McCain, you said that you never said 
that you would meet with the leaders of Cuba, Venezuela, Iran, and 
North Korea without 'preconditions' at lower levels. Never mind that a 
UN rule forbids any nation meeting with a nation that has not first 
complied with UN resolutions ...  Joe Biden repeated your words in his 
debate with Sarah Palin  ... while the video tape from your debate 
last February clearly shows that you answered 'I would' to the 
question of meeting with those leaders within 12 months as president 
without 'any' preconditions. While your judgment about meeting with 
enemies of the USA without pre-conditions is of concern, the greater 
concern is that you lied to America in the debate with McCain.

  On July 14, 2008, you said that you always knew that the surge would 
work while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago show that 
you stated that the surge would not work. While your judgment about 
military strategy as a potential commander-in-chief is of concern, the 
greater concern is that you lied to America on July 14.

  You now claim that your reason for voting against funding for the 
troops was because the bill did not include a time line for 
withdrawal, while the video tapes of you from more than a year ago 
show that you voted against additional funding because you wanted our 
troops to be removed immediately ...  not in16 months after the 2008 
election as you now claim. While your judgment about removing our 
troops unilaterally in 2007 is of concern, the greater concern is that 
you lied to America about your previous position.

  You claim to have a record of working with Republicans while the 
record shows that the only bill that you sponsored with a Republican 
was with Chuck Lugar ... and it failed. The record shows that you vote 
97% in concert with the Democrat party and that you have the most 
liberal voting record in the Senate. You joined Republicans only 3% of 
the time in your votes and those 3% were only after agreement from the 
Democrat party. While it is of concern that you fail to include 
conservatives in your actions and that you are such a liberal, the 
greater concern is that you distorted the truth.

  In the primary debates of last February 2008, you claimed to have 
talked with a 'Captain' of a platoon in Afghanistan 'the other day' 
when in fact you had a discussion in 2003 with a Lieutenant who had 
just been deployed to Afghanistan. You lied to us in that debate.

  In your debates last spring, you claimed to have been a 'professor 
of Constitutional law' when in fact you have never been a professor of 
Constitutional law. In this last debate, you were careful to say that 
you 'taught a law class' and never mentioned being a  'professor of 
Constitutional law.' You lied last spring.

  You and Joe Biden claimed that John McCain voted against additional 
funding for our troops when the actual records show the opposite. You 
distorted the truth to discredit McCain.

  You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted against funding for 
alternate energy sources 20 times when the record shows that John 
McCain specifically voted against funding for bio fuels, especially 
corn  ... and he was right ... corn is too expensive at producing 
ethanol, and using corn to make ethanol increased the price of corn 
from $2 a bushel to $6 a bushel for food. You distorted the truth for 
perceived political gain.

You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted like both of you for a 
tax increase on those making as little as $42,000 per year while the 
voting record clearly shows that John McCain did not vote as you and 
Joe Biden. You and Joe lied to America.

  You and Joe Biden claim that John McCain voted with George W. Bush 
90% of the time when you know that Democrats also vote 90% of the time 
with the President (including Joe Biden) because the vast majority of 
the votes are procedural. You are one of the few who has not voted 90% 
of the time with the president because you have been missing from the 
Senate much of the time since you took office. While your absence from 
your job in the Senate is of concern, the greater concern is that you 
spin facts.

  You did not take an active role in the ‘financial rescue’ plan. You 
claimed that the
  Senate did not need you while the real reason that you abstained was 
because of your close relationships with the fired executives, Fred 
Raines of Fannie Mae, and John Garlick of Freddie Mac, as well as 
Countrywide and ACORN...  all who helped cause the financial problems 
of today… and they all made major contributions to your campaign. 
While your relationship with these executives and your protection of 
them for your brief 3 years in the Senate (along with Barney Frank, 
Chuck Schumer, Maxine Waters, and Chris Dodd) is of concern, the 
greater concern is that you are being deceitful.

  You neglect to mention that you personally represented Tony Rezko and ACORN.
  Tony Rezko, a Syrian born Arab, and close friend, was convicted of fraud in
  Chicago real estate transactions that bilked millions of tax dollars 
from the Illinois government for renovation projects that you 
sponsored as a state senator ... and ACORN has been convicted of voter 
registration fraud, real estate sub prime loan intimidation, and 
illegal campaign contributions. Tony Rezko has bundled hundreds of 
thousands of dollars to your political campaigns. You personally used 
your political positions to steer money to both Tony Rezko and ACORN, 
and you used ACORN to register thousands of phony voters for Democrats 
and you. While your relationships with Rezko and ACORN are of concern, 
the greater concern is that you omitted important facts about your 
relationships with them to America.

  During your campaign, you said:  'typical white person.' 'They cling 
to their guns and religion.' 'They will say that I am black.' You 
played the race card. You tried to label any criticism about you as 
racist. You divide America, not unify it.

  You claim that you will reduce taxes for 95% of American workers, 
but you neglect to tell America that those reductions are after you 
remove the Bush tax reductions. You have requested close to $1 billion 
in earmarks and several million for ACORN. Your social programs will 
cost America $1 trillion per year and you claim that a reduction in 
military spending ($100 billion for Iraq) can pay for it. While your 
economic plan of adding 30% to the size of our Federal government is 
of concern, the greater concern is that you are deceiving America 
about lowering taxes.

  The drain to America's economy by foreign supplied oil is $700 
billion per year (5% of GDP) while the war in Iraq is $100 billion 
(less than 1% of GDP). You voted against any increases to oil 
exploration for the last 3 years and any expansion of nuclear 
facilities. Yet today, you say that you have always been for more oil 
and more nuclear. You are lying to America.

  Mr. Obama, you claimed that you 'changed' your mind about public 
financing for your campaign because of the money spent by Republican 
PACs in 2004. The truth is that the Democrat PACs in 2004, 2006, and 
2008 (especially George Soros and MoveOn.org). spent twice as much as 
the Republican PACs. You are lying to America.

  Teddy Roosevelt said about a hundred years ago that Americans should 
first look at the character of its leaders before anything else.

While you make glittering, motivating speeches, you can talk the talk, 
but your record, shows you do not walk the walk.

  1. You lied to America too many times. You distorted facts in dishonest ways.

  2. You distorted the record of John McCain in your words and in your 
campaign advertisements.

  3. You had close associations with some very questionable people and 
then lied about those associations.

  4. You divide, not unite America, using race and class warfare.

  Therefore, by copy of this letter, all who read it are asked to send 
it to everyone in America before it is too late. We need to do the job 
that the media will not do. We need to expose your dishonesty so that 
every person in America understands who you really are before election 
day.

  Mr. Obama, in a democracy, we get what we deserve. And God help America if
  it deserves you.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 10:37 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1682 words, total size 11 kb.

Wil Wirtanen forwards this Wall Street Journal piece:

The Age of Prosperity Is Over

This administration and Congress will be remembered like Herbert Hoover.

By ARTHUR B. LAFFER

 
About a year ago Stephen Moore, Peter Tanous and I set about writing a book about our vision for the future entitled "The End of Prosperity." Little did we know then how appropriate its release would be earlier this month.

Financial panics, if left alone, rarely cause much damage to the real economy, output, employment or production. Asset values fall sharply and wipe out those who borrowed and lent too much, thereby redistributing wealth from the foolish to the prudent. This process is the topic of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's book "Fooled by Randomness."

When markets are free, asset values are supposed to go up and down, and competition opens up opportunities for profits and losses. Profits and stock appreciation are not rights, but rewards for insight mixed with a willingness to take risk. People who buy homes and the banks who give them mortgages are no different, in principle, than investors in the stock market, commodity speculators or shop owners. Good decisions should be rewarded and bad decisions should be punished. The market does just that with its profits and losses.

No one likes to see people lose their homes when housing prices fall and they can't afford to pay their mortgages; nor does any one of us enjoy watching banks go belly-up for making subprime loans without enough equity. But the taxpayers had nothing to do with either side of the mortgage transaction. If the house's value had appreciated, believe you me the overleveraged homeowner and the overly aggressive bank would never have shared their gain with taxpayers. Housing price declines and their consequences are signals to the market to stop building so many houses, pure and simple.

But here's the rub. Now enter the government and the prospects of a kinder and gentler economy. To alleviate the obvious hardships to both homeowners and banks, the government commits to buy mortgages and inject capital into banks, which on the face of it seems like a very nice thing to do. But unfortunately in this world there is no tooth fairy. And the government doesn't create anything; it just redistributes. Whenever the government bails someone out of trouble, they always put someone into trouble, plus of course a toll for the troll. Every $100 billion in bailout requires at least $130 billion in taxes, where the $30 billion extra is the cost of getting government involved.

If you don't believe me, just watch how Congress and Barney Frank run the banks. If you thought they did a bad job running the post office, Amtrak, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the military, just wait till you see what they'll do with Wall Street.

Some 14 months ago, the projected deficit for the 2008 fiscal year was about 0.6% of GDP. With the $170 billion stimulus package last March, the add-ons to housing and agriculture bills, and the slowdown in tax receipts, the deficit for 2008 actually came in at 3.2% of GDP, with the 2009 deficit projected at 3.8% of GDP. And this is just the beginning.

The net national debt in 2001 was at a 20-year low of about 35% of GDP, and today it stands at 50% of GDP. But this 50% number makes no allowance for anything resulting from the over $5.2 trillion guarantee of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac assets, or the $700 billion Troubled Assets Relief Program (TARP). Nor does the 50% number include any of the asset swaps done by the Federal Reserve when they bailed out Bear Stearns, AIG and others.

But the government isn't finished. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid -- and yes, even Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke -- are preparing for a new $300 billion stimulus package in the next Congress. Each of these actions separately increases the tax burden on the economy and does nothing to encourage economic growth. Giving more money to people when they fail and taking more money away from people when they work doesn't increase work. And the stock market knows it.

The stock market is forward looking, reflecting the current value of future expected after-tax profits. An improving economy carries with it the prospects of enhanced profitability as well as higher employment, higher wages, more productivity and more output. Just look at the era beginning with President Reagan's tax cuts, Paul Volcker's sound money, and all the other pro-growth, supply-side policies.

Bill Clinton and Alan Greenspan added their efforts to strengthen what had begun under President Reagan. President Clinton signed into law welfare reform, so people actually have to look for a job before being eligible for welfare. He ended the "retirement test" for Social Security benefits (a huge tax cut for elderly workers), pushed the North American Free Trade Agreement through Congress against his union supporters and many of his own party members, signed the largest capital gains tax cut ever (which exempted owner-occupied homes from capital gains taxes), and finally reduced government spending as a share of GDP by an amazing three percentage points (more than the next four best presidents combined). The stock market loved Mr. Clinton as it had loved Reagan, and for good reasons.

The stock market is obviously no fan of second-term George W. Bush, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Ben Bernanke, Barack Obama or John McCain, and again for good reasons.

These issues aren't Republican or Democrat, left or right, liberal or conservative. They are simply economics, and wish as you might, bad economics will sink any economy no matter how much they believe this time things are different. They aren't.

I was on the White House staff as George Shultz's economist in the Office of Management and Budget when Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls, the dollar was taken off gold, import surcharges were implemented, and other similar measures were enacted from a panicked decision made in August of 1971 at Camp David.

I witnessed, like everyone else, the consequences of another panicked decision to cover up the Watergate break-in. I saw up close and personal Presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush succumb to panicked decisions to raise taxes, as well as Jimmy Carter's emergency energy plan, which included wellhead price controls, excess profits taxes on oil companies, and gasoline price controls at the pump.

The consequences of these actions were disastrous. Just look at the stock market from the post-Kennedy high in early 1966 to the pre-Reagan low in August of 1982. The average annual real return for U.S. assets compounded annually was -6% per year for 16 years. That, ladies and gentlemen, is a bear market. And it is something that you may well experience again. Yikes!

Then we have this administration's panicked Sarbanes-Oxley legislation, and of course the deer-in-the-headlights Mr. Bernanke in his bungling of monetary policy.

There are many more examples, but none hold a candle to what's happening right now. Twenty-five years down the line, what this administration and Congress have done will be viewed in much the same light as what Herbert Hoover did in the years 1929 through 1932. Whenever people make decisions when they are panicked, the consequences are rarely pretty. We are now witnessing the end of prosperity.

Mr. Laffer is chairman of Laffer Associates and co-author of "The End of Prosperity: How Higher Taxes Will Doom the Economy -- If We Let it Happen," just out by Threshold.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 06:33 AM | Comments (2) | Add Comment
Post contains 1261 words, total size 8 kb.

By Jack Kemp

 
There is a serious question regarding the often discussed question of Barack Obama's citizenship. I heard a passing remark in a YouTube segment that I can't recall to identify exactly, perhaps an Attorney Philip Berg conjecture, in which the speaker speculated that Obama's lack of verification of his citizenship could cause him problems with foreign countries if he were to win the election. It was a brief, though worthy,remark. And I can imagine a number of Constitutional crises and international conundrums this lack of citizenship verification could produce.
 
The fifty Secretaries of State don't seem to want to seek verifiable proof of Sen. Obama's citizenship. Private citizens have tried to force the issue in court. Newsmax has stated recently that: http://www.newsmax.com/headlines/obama_birth_certificate/2008/10/24/143882.html
 
"The latest suits have been filed in state and federal courts in Hawaii, Washington, California, Florida, Georgia, New York, and Connecticut to compel Obama to release his birth records."
END OF QUOTE
 
But it is unlikely that these cases will produce a serious discovery of documents before the November 4th election. The Berg case has been dismissed and is being appealed to the Supreme Court which recently showed support for ACORN in Ohio. I'd gladly be proven wrong on my assessment here -- and would literally eat crow if I was overly pessimistic. But there appears to be no DOMESTIC challenge that can't be overcome -- or stalled in court for weeks -- by the DNC and the Obama campaign.
 
But others not accountable to US courts, and and newfound allies in the US, could produce post election problems of a larger scale.
 
Let us assume the US signs a trade and military aid treaty in the next four years with Pakistan. The Pakistani opposition party to their president could claim, if Obama were to win the election, that he isn't a valid American citizen and thus his signature on the treaty is not valid. It would make for an interesting and ironic trial in front of the highest court in Pakistan. And no one could plead the Fifth Amendment.
 
We could also be treated to the spectre of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad asking for proof that Obama is a valid US citizen before he would talk to the American. Laugh though you may, without a valid birth certificate, this would be a valid argument and doubt if the Iranian leader mentioned it to the press. Or he could mention it in private, as a blackmail threat.
 
Also North Korea could claim that they don't have to talk to/negotiate with Obama because they are not sure he is an American born citizen eligible for the presidency. But they would be glad to judicare the matter in a North Korean high court! The North Koreans could also make the same claim to the world press, saying that no actions under Obama's orders or written US presidential directive is valid.
 
Would the US want to send troops to Darfur under an Obama administration? The Sudanese government could claim in both The World Court -- and a US federal court in New York or Washington -- that Barack Obama is not a valid American citizen president, thus not legally qualified to be Commander-in-Chief, and that his real legal name is "Barry Soetoro" who  was not elected president. Ron Paul might even join the dispute as a "friend of the court." So might a Vice President-Elect Biden. I suspect Sen. Biden would want this matter cleared up before the possible January 20, 2009 Inauguration of his best friend in politics as president -- namely, himself.
 
I could see a certain lady Senator from New York also having a great interest in the outcome of this proof of citizenship situation. Right now, Hillary might prefer John McCain to be her main opponent in 2012. On November 5th, she might then prefer it to be Joe Biden in the primaries, followed by John McCain.
 
While I'm speculating, what if the Judge Advocate's General command was asked about a clarification of Obama's citizenship by the head of the American Joint Chiefs of Staff? Or the Commandant of the US Marines? Could the military ask for proof of their Commander-in-Chief's citizenship? This could make for some new groundbreaking Constitutional law, to say the least. I wonder if Bill Clinton would argue the case as a "Friend of the Court?" But I digress.
 
So Barack Obama's citizenship isn't just a matter of interest to a bunch of Joe the Bloggers "bitterly clinging to their guns and religion." This has the makings of an international crisis as well. Some of the speculation by journalist Andy Davis that Barack Obama Senior isn't the father of the Democratic presidential candidate. http://citizenwells.wordpress.com/2008/10/22/andy-martin-hawaii-obama-not-barack-obama-frank-marshall-davis-father-obamas-original-birth-certificate-incomplete-or-tampered-with/
Could court orders, issued by the World Court (at the behest of Vladimir Putin or President Hu Jintau of China) and/or the US Supreme Court, order the digging up of both of Obama's parents to test their DNA in comparison to a blood or hair sample from Barack Obama?
 
Gee, I wonder if George Soros would precipitate such a citizenship-proof crisis so that he could make a fortune on a once-again panicked stock market? If Mr. Soros proves to be too concerned about America's good standing to do that (yes, I am being sarcastic), there are others who may be interested. I'm sure there would be some hedge fund operators elsewhere in the world -- including the US -- who would very much like to create a Constitutional crisis so that they could personally make a fortune while Barack Obama searches for a Certificate of Live Birth that doesn't have the numbers blacked out.
 
In a recent article by Joan Swirsky in the Canada Free Press, http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5745 she spoke of her tracing her mother's small town Connecticut birth certificate from 1913 in order to qualify for her placement in a nursing home. It took her ten minutes on the phone to locate proof of her mother's birth.
 
Could Barack Obama duplicate this quick search for documentation, if he had to? A number of voters might want to ask themselves that question before they enter a voting booth on November 4th. And they might want to ask themselves why he hasn't produced that document yet. And why those voters should take a chance on it not mattering.
 
Jack Kemp
not the politician

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 04:34 PM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1062 words, total size 7 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

The liberal Pew Research Center is even admitting that the media is in the tank for Barack Obama. 

http://journalism.org/node/13307

When the Democrats reimpose the ``Fairness Doctrine`` will it cover the mainstream media?  Somehow I find it unlikely.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:57 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 42 words, total size 1 kb.

Jack Kemp (not the politician):

Once again, a citizen compares the burdens of proof of citizenship put on an Average Joan vs. Obama's free ride in the law and the press. Consider it a "Joan the Writer" question and story. I quote various sections, leaving out previously widely dispersed (on the internet) facts about Obama citizenship investigations. The title and opening paragraphs of the article gives an anecdote from "Joan the Writer's" everyday life. I don't think McCain is willing to raise this question for fear of being considered a racist and losing those few black votes that will go to him. It is up to Average Joe and Joan citizens to raise it.
Jack
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/5745
My Mother’s Birth Certificate – And Obama’s

By Joan Swirsky Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Four years ago, when I had just about completed the lengthy legal and financial vetting process required by the U.S. government to place my then-92-year-old-mother in a nursing home, I was asked to produce her birth certificate as “proof” of her citizenship. While she was born in America, had voted in every election for untold decades, and paid her taxes religiously, that wasn’t good enough to qualify my elderly mother –deaf, legally blind, and confined to a wheelchair – to be admitted to the facility I had chosen for her near my home.

Frankly, I didn’t think finding my mother’s birth certificate was possible, given the fact that she had been born in a farmhouse in Storrs, CT, along with nine of her 10 siblings, to parents who didn’t speak English. Despairing that she would never be “qualified” to receive the care she desperately needed, I set about to find the document, which I was sure had vanished in the unreliable record-keeping of 1913.

First I called an official in Hartford, the capitol of Connecticut, who recommended that I call the Storrs record-keeping office.
That took two minutes.
Next I called the Storrs office and was told to call another number.
That took two minutes.
When I called the third number, I explained to the woman who answered the phone that I was “asking something impossible.” I gave her my mother’s first name and her father’s last name.
Within four minutes, she said, “Here it is!” She had found my mother’s birth certificate, and it surprised me when I learned my mother’s “real” first name and “real” last name had changed significantly as she and her family became Americanized.

When I expressed my amazement, the woman said: “That’s nothing…we’re routinely asked to find birth certificates from the 1800s, and we do that all the time!”

Total time it took me to find my mother’s 1913, born-in-a-farmhouse birth certificate: 10 minutes!

WHERE IS OBAMA’S?
To this date, Barack Obama has refused – or been unable –to produce an authentic birth certificate that attests to the fact he is an American-born citizen. He has had more than the two-years of campaigning for the presidency of the United States to do this, but failed.

Why is this important? Because the Constitution of the United States expressly forbids anyone born on foreign soil to run for the highest office in our land!

You would think that Obama would have volunteered the “proof” of his eligibility within a nanosecond of entering the race. But here we are, less than two weeks away from the election, and Americans still don’t know if Obama is an American!

While Obama’s camp submitted a supposedly authentic birth certificate to the far-left blog Daily Kos, it was found to have been a photo-shopped version of the birth certificate of his half-sister, who was actually born in Hawaii, as Obama claims he was.

While this glaring omission in Obama’s eligibility to become the most powerful man on earth mystified some and rankled others, a few people – clearly alarmed at what they considered a stealth candidate’s attempt to dance his way around the Constitution and venture into the realm of criminality– took action.

END OF QUOTE, FOLLOWED BY SECTIONS OMITTED

The article then goes on to summarize the current state of the Philip Berg and Andy Martin court actions and investigations into Barack Obama's certificate and location of birth, facts and stories that have appeared in various websites. Joan Swirsky continues with an assessment of Obama's campaign-stopping trip to visit his grandmother in Hawaii. I quote:

'GRAMMY DEAREST

 Now – belatedly – that the net is closing in on Obama, and the suspicions, as many have alleged, are that he is a Trojan Horse for Islamic interests, or a Manchurian Candidate, or a total fraud – Obama has seemingly discovered an interest in his ailing grandmother. Yes, that Grammy who he so facilely threw under the bus during the early days of his campaign.
 
He is now so worried about Grandma Dunham – the woman who raised him but strangely didn’t attend his nomination – that he is taking a few days off from his intense campaign to visit this ailing widow.
 
Or could his strangely-timed trip to Hawaii really be to “clear up” the sticky case of his missing birth certificate?
 
I live in New York, where it is not uncommon for BIG payoffs to influence people to come up with “the goods.” A half-a-million here, a dire threat there, often influence people to do things – like perjure themselves, produce phony documents, et al – that they would never do under less “pressured” circumstances.
 
If the magic document doesn’t appear, it is possible, and entirely legal, that Obama could be removed from the ballots in states that are questioning his eligibility.
 
According to a recent article in The Daily Herald in Everett, WA, a civil action was filed in Washington State Superior Court against Sam Reed, Secretary of State, demanding that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama be removed from the ballot in Washington unless he can provide verification of his status as a United States citizen. The citizen who filed the suit, Steven Marquis, asked that Reed verify – by looking at “original or certified verifiable official documents” – that Obama is a natural-born citizen of the United States and eligible to serve as president, and that the office do so by Election Day.
 
Like others investigating the matter, Marquis said that answering the unanswered questions about Obama’s citizenship and background would “preclude a constitutional crisis and likely civil unrest” that would arise if information about Obama’s ineligibility came to light after the election.'

END OF QUOTE & A FOLLOWING SECTION IS OMITTED

After noting Mr. Berg's claim that Obama has not replied to his September 15th charge in over 30 days, thus making the charges a de facto uncontested claim of the truth, Berg then states Obama is not eligible to run for President of the United States. This is followed by the Ms. Swirsky's conclusion of her article:

ENDING ARTICLE QUOTE:
'WHAT HAPPENS NOW?
Interest in this case is understandably intense. Berg’s website has already received over 55 million hits. But predictably, the overwhelmingly liberal media has yet to pick up on this story, as if ignoring a story that has profound implications for our Republic and for the potential of a Constitutional crisis is less important than discussing Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

It’s possible that all the states that are working on obtaining Obama’s birth certificate will simultaneously remove him from the ballot at one time.

It’s also possible that, failing to produce the birth certificate, Obama will voluntarily step aside, leaving a breach through which Hillary will walk.

Meanwhile, as legal challenges proceed at warp speed, and Obama’s lawyers scramble to avoid the Scandal of the Century, one thing remains intractably the same: Obama still hasn’t produced proof of his U.S. citizenship!'

END OF QUOTE AND ARTICLE

I can only add the almost word-for-word quote from a Lucianne.com poster: When my son wanted to join the Little League, I had to provide more documentation of his being an American Citizen (than Obama has given).

Jack

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:49 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 1337 words, total size 9 kb.

Timothy Birdnow

Yep-Obama was a member of the socialist New Party.

So, America is poised to elect a cocaine using socialist with no executive experience who is quite possibly ineligible to hold office. 

As Yakov Smirnoff would say ``What a country!``

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 11:46 AM | No Comments | Add Comment
Post contains 45 words, total size 1 kb.