Election Final

This will be my final political post on StoneHeads- as I previously wrote, criticism of Obama and his party is simply unsafe now that the Democrats have made plain that they intend to shut down all critical thoughts.

So Barack Obama is our President. Congratulations to Senator Obama.

However, our media deserves to be taken out to the dust heap for their performance in this election. And now that the Democrats control all branches of government, we will quickly lose our pre-eminent status in the world.I have already posted my predictions, but i wish to write one last thought.

I predict that Republicans will never win another Presidential election- just as in California, once Democrats gain power, they never relinquish it, and since the Press will not report anything detrimental to a Democrat, they never pay the price for their policies. Just as the Press would not honestly report on the financial crisis which Democrats caused, Democrats can do anything without negative consequences.

Perhaps a new party will emerge, but for Republicans, America has rejected the ideas of self-reliance, small government and strong defense with this election. And that is the Republican brand. The Second Amendment will be emasculated, free speech is already under attack, and the idea that people take responsibility for their actions doesn't seem to apply to Democrats. And so I predict that in less than a one hundred years, this country will no longer exist. Remember, terrorists like William Ayers now have their friends and fellow-travelers running this country. Either the United States will break into component parts, it will be consumed by Mexico or it will be over-run by our Islamic enemies- they are already on the attack through our courts.

Thank you for reading StoneHeads through these last two years. From now on I will focus solely on historical commentary.

UPDATE: One small bright spot- Proposition 8, which deals a setback to activist judges and the gay-rights movement, appears to have passed. Maybe there are still a few people in this country who appreciate tradition and don;'t like a tiny little minority and it's beholden, activist judges dictating to them. The bad news- Obama will almost certainly stack the Supreme Court to change this nationally.

My Last Post

This will be my last political-based post on this blog until I feel safe to speak again. I do not expect to feel safe for the next eight years unless Obama is defeated in his re-election bid (also something I do not expect, since the Press is so in love with The One). However, in my previous post, I forgot to make my predictions about the coming Obama Presidency. Yes, this is a worst-case scenario, but I am depressed and I believe that our country has begun the walk to destruction. It took Byzantium almost five hundred years to die, and the reasons that them to fall are the same ones espoused by the Left and the Democratic Party in this country. I predict that in less than a hundred years, the United States will no longer exist. It will either have splintered into component parts (not entirely a bad thing, in my opinion), be part of Mexico (the mythical Aztlan) or it will be ruled by Islamic imperialists.

So for the next eight years, I will confine myself to posting on history (until the Dear Leader rewrites all our textbooks to his friend Terrorist Bill Ayers' specification). In any event, here are my predictions:

1. Fairness Doctrine is back- goodbye conservative radio. Rush will be either fined out of business or imprisoned for 'sedition'.
2. All conservative websites will be closed down- we're FAR more dangerous than those Islamic terrorists, didn't you know?
3. Taxes will skyrocket, our economy will tank.
4. The Second Amendment will be revoked by a liberal Supreme Court.
5. The US military will be emasculated and used solely as an international police force.
6. Iran will have nuclear weapons in two years.
7. Israel will no longer exist in two years.
8. Iraq will become another Islamic terror sponsor.
9. America will accept UN domination over all aspects of our foreign policy; we will sign a treaty giving the UN the power to control our treasury and our military.
10. No contrary opinions of an Obama Presidency will be tolerated- critics will be fined and possibly even imprisoned.
11. Congress will roll out universal health care and our health care system will become worse than Canada's. Americans will face huge long waits in line and many Americans will die from lack of timely care. Many doctors will go out of business due to their inability to get reimbursed. Getting health care will be worse than a trip to the DMV. (Advice- if you have anything that needs to be addressed health-wise, get it done now. In two years, our health care system will be a disaster).
12. Borders will be flung open- all illegal aliens will be legalized, provoking a fresh flood of illegals wanting citizenship.
13. Human Rights Commissions like those in Canda will form to prevent conservative speech from being heard. Any speech deemed 'hateful' (this only applied to comments made by conservatives, of course- liberals and leftists can do and say anything they wish) will be punished severely.
14. Starting January 20, expect to see the same economic numbers that were deemed to be bad for Bush spun as being wonderful under an Obama Presidency.


There are probably things I have missed, but these are the major initiatives I expect to see from an Obama Presidency. And I ask all of you to ask yourself this- the Press has been telling us for eight years how terrible Bush was. But in eight years from now, ask yourself if you were better off under Bush's Administration or under Obama's? I think the answer might surprise you. Not that the Press will tell the truth, of course.

Farewell. my next post will be about some aspect of history that interests me. I hope that you will bear with me until it once again safe to speak freely.

Election Thoughts

I voted this morning. Since I live in an area that is dominated by the left, I do not expect that my vote will mean anything. However, as this will be perhaps the last opportunity for those of us who are no acolytes of The One to actually speak freely before the Obama Thought Police close down any criticism of His policies, i decided to post my thoughts on this election.

1. The Press: The American press corps has disgraced itself with its unthinking advocacy of the Obama campaign. Not only has the Press refused to do any vetting whatsoever on Obama, they have repeated the sins of the 1992 election, in which they sat on stories that might hurt the Democratic candidate. In addition, the vitriol that the press has aimed at Governor Palin is simply disgraceful. The only reason i could possibly support any version of the Fairness Doctrine would be to pull the MSM into some kind of real journalism. It no longer deserves the title, since it has devolved into a propaganda machine for the Democratic party.

2. Projections: I expect Senator Obama to win the election. He has all the advantages and with his illegal money (and ACORN's illegal voters) and the assistance of his personal propaganda machine (see point 1), the McCain campaign simply is out-gunned. The press has ensured that there can be no honest discussion of the two candidates, sicne they will not run any stories that show The One in an unflattering light. However, if Obama does win (and I expect that he will), I fear our country has taken one more large step toward destruction. Obama is an admitted socialist with a strong streak of arrogance.

3. Free Speech: Obama has not shown any willingness to allow criticism. And of course once he is in office, you can count on the Democratic Congress to shut down any and all critical voices. I write this since I do not believe that we who still have faith in our country will be allowed under an Obama presidency to speak openly. I expect an Obama Justice Department to come for all writers who disagree with The One- he has already shown that side of his personality. We will be threatened, fined and possibly imprisoned if we criticize Obama. Free speech as we know it will end with an Obama Presidency.

4. The World: an Obama win today will end America's strength abroad. Europe has been praying for an Oabma win. Well, be careful what you wish for- Obama intends to eviscerate the US military and that means that nice protective umbrella Europe has lived under since World War II is gone. So Europe, how do you like being on your own? Under Obama, you will be, since The One does not believe in fighting our enemies- he would prefer to surrender.

5. Guns: Obama will take your guns away. Remember, the Supreme Court is already leaning to the Left, and an Obama Presidency will certainly accelerate that trend. And liberals do not like the Constuitution- they prefer to rewrite it as they wish it could be- in otyher words, they want to make the Untied States into a new Soviet Union. Guin rights will be the first to go under an Obama Presidency- don't forget he thinks that we are bitter people who cling to guns and religion. And once the gunsa re gone, who will stop the government from putting us into re-education camps? That is what Bill Ayers wanted to do, and Obama is unquestionably an Ayers acolyte. I expect to see Ayers as Secretary of Homeland Security, so he can implement his re-education plans.

In conclusion, this will probably be my last post for the next eight years, since will not be safe to write anything critical of Obama. Why eight years? Well, regardless of how badly Obama does and how terribly our economy is damaged, the Press will not allow Him to be held accountable for any of His sins. So it is almost certain that we are stuck with The One for the next eight years. Remember- the financial crisis is entirely caused by Democrats, yet somehow the Republicans got blamed for it, despite the facts being available. The mainstream media and their refusal to honestly report the truth has destroyed this great country.

Thank you all for reading this blog over the last few years. If Obama loses today, then I will feel safe to continue writing, but I regret that I cannot be optimistic. Republicans have too many hills to climb and the Democrats are slowly eroding our basic rights while the Press cheers them on. I recommend that all those who can, prepare to emigrate to other countries that still believe in the rights our Founders enshrined in the Constitution- the same Constitution that Obama is about to destroy completely. The United States is not longer a safe place to live if you are not a fervent True Believer in The One.

2008 Election Recommendations

I have been very remiss in keeping up this blog of late, for which I duly apologize- between work and family issues, I have not had the time to blog as I would ordinarily have preferred as we approach this election on November 4. However, I do have my recommendations for the main ballot issues here in California. These recommendations are as follows:

President:
John McCain / Sarah Palin (Republican)- My reasoning has been set out previously, but in short, I do not believe that Barack Obama is qualified for the high office of President, and i believe that the shameless behavior of our major media has prevented most voters from gaining any real understanding of Obama's past or real beliefs. I have many disagreements with john McCain on policy, but I believe him to be a better choice for our nation- especially in these dangerous times- than the inexperienced, insincere Obama.

Propositions:
There are a number of propositions on the California ballot this year, and I will list each of them together with my recommendation. The full information for each of the current ballot propositions are taken from Ballotpedia's page. Official descriptions can be found at the California Secretary of State web site.

1. Proposition 1a: High-speed Rail. In theory, a high-speed railway running through California and linking the major metorpolises is an excellent idea- California is one of the few places in the U.S. where such a rail system makes sense. However, after reading the proposition, I do not believe that this is anything more than one more attempt to spend taxpayer money without anything to show for it. And until our Legislature can fix the financial problems in California, I do not believe that we should hand over any more of our hard-earned money to them to play with. Vote No on Proposition 1a.


2. Proposition 2: Animal Rights. This specifies conditions for raising egg-laying chickens. Folks, we have far more pressing issues than this. And the end result will almost certainly be to raise our food prices, as most egg-producers will leave California, thus raising the price of eggs. I expect this to pass, but it seems a waste of time and something that will ultimately do nothing to improve the lives of captive chickens. Vote No on Proposition 2.


3. Proposition 3: Children's Hospital bond. This specifies over 800 million in bonds for children's hospitals. Of course, many if not all of these are actually private hospitals that were just recently given taxpayer money back in 2004 (Proposition 61). Almost half of that money is not yet spent. in addition, the same groups that pushed through Prop 61 are sponsoring Prop 3. Why are we giving these same groups even more taxpayer money? Vote No on Proposition 3.


4. Proposition 4: Abortion parental notification. Requires parental or guardian notification before abortions can be performed. I think that all of use agree that parents are responsible for minors. And why parents should be left un-notified before their offspring undergoes a medical procedure of this seriousness is unfathomable. Vote Yes on Proposition 4.


5. Proposition 5: Drug Rehab Essentially eliminates drug crimes from punishment. if you think that drug sellers and users are not criminals, you will probably vote yes. I think that users should be treated the same as drunk drivers, and so I do not think that this is a good idea. Vote No on Proposition 5.


6. Proposition 6: Crime Prevention Basically strengthens the penalites for crime and also requires California to spend money from the general fund to pay for the increased penalties. From a fiscal standpoint, it is a bad thing when California is so broke, but on the other hand, crime needs to be reined in. On balance, I think this is probably a better idea than spending money on things politicians want. Vote Yes on Proposition 6.


7. Proposition 7: Clean Power Requires all California utilites to procure 25 percent of their energy from so-called 'clean' sources by 2025- and requires providers such as PG&E and Edison to have 20 percent by 2010. Not only is this virtually impossible, the bill also cuts most current providers out (causing loss of perhaps 60 percent of our current suppliers), creates massive bureaucracy, has hidden costs, will almost certainly raise utilities fees through the roof and has no way to fix any problems. This is yet another clean energy boondoggle. Vote No on Proposition 7.


8. Proposition 8: Gay marriage. Amends California Constitution to make marriage for an adult man and woman only. Judges are not allowed to legislate, but that is exactly what the California Supreme Court did when they over-ruled California's voters. Additionally, if gays want to decide what society can and cannot do, then they need to make their argument at the ballot box- not in court.Vote Yes on Proposition 8.


9. Proposition 9: Victims' Rights This proposition essentially appears to reinforce victims' rights and also makes it much harder for criminals to get early release. It makes a lot of sense to me- anything that increases victim rights and decreases criminal rights cannot be a bad thing. in addition, it's opponents have no strong arguments against it other than they apparently believe that criminals should be released as quickly as possible. this is about as close to a no-brainer as is on the ballot. Vote Yes on Proposition 9.


10. Proposition 10: Alternative Fuels This is mainly proposed and funded by Texas billionaire T. Boone Pickens and would authorize 5 billion dollars to fund alternative energy sources, including wind power- something that both Pickens and Speaker Nancy Pelosi have heavily invested in. I think the best argument is that when California is already so badly in debt, this is NOT the time to be authorizing more spending without any source for that money. Let's tackle more urgent issues first, then talk about Califronia subsidizing alternative energy companies. Vote No on Proposition 10.


11. Proposition 11: Election reform. This is a difficult measure to determine. It proposes to take redistricting out of the hands of the Legislature and put it into a supposedly bipartisan commission. This does have the potential of becoming an unaccountable bureaucracy, and there is a legitimate danger inherent in it. However, since it is opposed by both the California Democratic Party (which controls the Legislature and most State offices) and both Senator Barbara Boxer and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (two of the silliest and most partisan members of the US Congress), I decided that it cannot be worse than the gerrymandering the Democrat-controlled Legislature has inflicted upon us. Vote Yes on Proposition 11.


12. Proposition 12: Veterans' assistance. This allocates bonds to be sold to create a fund to assist veterans. However, the bond also is unique in this election in that the funds it disburses are not gifts- they are loans that will be paid back by the veterans themselves. This makes it the only bond measure i can endorse. Vote Yes on Proposition 12.

Don't forget to vote on Election Day!

Gwen Ifill: 'I'm Objective!'

PBS news anchor Gwen Ifill- who will be moderating tonight's Vice-Presidential candidate debate between Democrat and Republican Sarah Palin, has a book scheduled to be released on Inauguration Day. The title? The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Yet despite this, Ifill claims that she will be an objective arbiter of the debate. According to the Associated Press story, Ifill also did not inform the supposedly bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates- the body that chooses debate moderators- of the upcoming book.

Newsbusters has been all over this story, though of course Ifill seems oblivious to any problem. In fact, Ifill has been dismissing criticism by accusing her critics of racism. According to the AP story, Ifill,

... questions why people assume that her book will be favorable toward Obama.

"Do you think they made the same assumptions about Lou Cannon (who is white) when he wrote his book about Reagan?" said Ifill, who is black. Asked if there were racial motives at play, she said, "I don't know what it is. I find it curious."

Well, considering that the title of Ifill's book is "The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama", it is pretty plain that Ifill is not exactly a critic of the Obama camnpaign. In addition, the very title clues in the potential reader that Ifill is expecting (and presumable hoping for, since that would increase her sales) an Obama victory in November. I cannot imagine any conservative host who would be allowed by the Democrats to host their debates if said host had a book extolling the virtues of McCain scheduled for publication on Inauguration Day. in addition, the fact that Ifill did not inform the Commission on Presidential Debates that she was planning this book is a big red flag. Journalists, who are responsible for accurately informing the public of the events of the day, have an ethical mandate to reveal conflicts of interest. They are certainly vociferous in exposing any such conflicts in business.

In addition, Ifill's excuse- that the book is posted on the publisher's web site, so people knew about it- does not hold water. I don't think most people check publishers' websites on a regular basis and in any event, it is Ifill's responsibility to come clean about her potential conflict of interest BEFORE accepting the invitation to moderate the debate. And her claim that 'people did not question Lou Cannon's book on REagan' also is a red herring. Cannon was no asked to moderate any Presidential debates, nor did he try to hide his work. As the Power Line crew accurately analyze,

The conflict of interest doesn't arise from her view of Obama; if she favors Obama, she is like countless other journalists including (I suspect) at least some of the whites who will moderate other debates. The conflict arises from Ifill's stake, given the book, in an Obama victory.

Ifill has exposed herself as one more of the army of media types who are desperately hoping for an Obama win in November- and doing everything they can to make that eventuality a reality. She should immediately remove herself from the debate as moderator, if she has any professional ethics. But that would require a conscience- something that few media types seem to have.

McCain Wins On Looks, Too!

Since the mainstream media is focused on doing their best to drag the undeserving Obama ticket across the finish line in November, it is unlikely that they would actually report anything that makes McCain/Palin appear in a positive light. However, this focus on serving as Democratic Party lapdogs does free up the blogosphere to actually do their job for them. In the vein, Captain Capitalism decided to do a little objective comparison of the physical appeal of John McCain versus Barack Obama on the site Hot or Not. As the Captain writes,

To prove who was the better looking I took two pictures; one of John McCain in his prime and one of Barack Obama in his prime. I faced the problem that if the pictures were too easily identifiable then the screeners at Hot or Not would reject them.

The methodology was as fair as the Captain could make it. He found pictures of both McCain and Obama in their youthful prime (done from an Internet search for 'young McCain' and 'young Obama'). The resulting pictures were posted on Hot of Not under suitable aliases and the Captain then sat back to await results.

Surprise! It turns out that McCain was rated as a 9.9 out of 10, whereas Obama was a pedestrian 7.2 out of 10. McCain also seemed to be more attractive- his profile was reported to have received requests for meetings from members of the opposite sex and also was invited to be the site's Person of the Week- something that the Obama profile did not receive.

As Captain Capitalism concludes,

Of course, looks are irrelevant when it comes to selecting the president of the United States and this was done largely out of humor and jest. However, while you may not be able to date John McCain, you can vote for him. For while he may beat Barack 9.9 to 7.2 in looks (adjusting for prime), I would surmise he equally, if not, more than trounces him in experience.

Agreed. Now if only the mainstream media would perform their jobs with even a small amount of the professionalism displayed by Captain Capitalism, we MIGHT actually have an informed electorate. of course, if that occurred, the Democratic Party would probably never win another election.

It's........Palin!

Republican Presidential candiadte John McCain selected Alaska governor Sarah Palin as his running mate today. According to the announcement sent out by the McCain campaign,

Governor Palin is a tough executive who has demonstrated during her time in office that she is ready to be president. She has brought Republicans and Democrats together within her Administration and has a record of delivering on the change and reform that we need in Washington.

Governor Palin has challenged the influence of the big oil companies while fighting for the development of new energy resources. She leads a state that matters to every one of us -- Alaska has significant energy resources and she has been a leader in the fight to make America energy independent.

In Alaska, Governor Palin challenged a corrupt system and passed a landmark ethics reform bill. She has actually used her veto and cut budgetary spending. She put a stop to the "bridge to nowhere" that would have cost taxpayers $400 million dollars.

As the head of Alaska's National Guard and as the mother of a soldier herself, Governor Palin understands what it takes to lead our nation and she understands the importance of supporting our troops.

I think this is an excellent choice on many levels. First, Governor Palin has the executive experience that both Biden and Obama (and McCain himself, to be honest) so conspicuously lack. Secondly, as the youngest member of either ticket, she is able to challenge Obama's youth-based celebrity (she was herself a beauty contestant in her younger days). And she, like McCain, is a maverick- she has consistently fought the special interests and corruption in her own party and defeated several Establishment candidates to win her current position. She is someone who can bring a voice of reason to the energy debate, as she is Governor of the state with American's largest oil reserves. Finally, as a working mom, she can connect to women on a level that neither Biden nor Obama can, and McCain's choice shows once again that he is the real agent for change and is willing to take risks- in short, as Pajamas Media's Jennifer Rubin so aptly put it "he thinks he can win".

Palin is solidly conservative. As governor, she reduced spending, exposed corruption and worked to make Alaska independent of federal money. She has a long record of fighting corruption and is not close to either of Alaka's corrupt Congressmen- Senator Stevens or Representative Young. She is also a hunter, a lifelong member of the NRA and she is a confirmed pro-life candidate- she chose to have her latest child even though doctors told her that the child had Downs Syndrome. Her oldest son is in the Army, and is preparing to deploy to Iraq.

The risk here is that Palin's experience is limited. Before being elected governor, she was a member of the city council and later mayor of Wasilla, a small town of only 5400 residents in Alaska. However, both her mayoral and her gubernatorial experience trump either Biden or Obama- neither has any executive experience at all. And she, like McCain, has a long record of reformism- in fact, her reformer credentials are even more solid than McCain's- she was never involved with the Keating Five.

In conclusion, Palin may be weak on the experience bit, having less than ten years in elected office. But she has executive experience as both a mayor and as a governor- no one else on either ticket can make that claim. And she is as much the outsider as McCain- in contrast to the Chicago machine politician Obama and the ultimate Washington insider Biden. And she also brings intangibles that neither Biden nor even Obama himself can- she is a woman, and with the Hillary supporters still unhappy with the way their candidate was treated, she may be able to siphon off some of the female support Obama desperately needs in order to win.

USA Today Targets McCain in Hillary Article

Just in time for the Democratic Convention in Denver this week, is the national press doing their best once again to tilt the playing field in favor of Senator Barack Obama? It would seem that that is indeed the case.

Case in point is an article in the USAToday online edition headlined Poll: More than half of Clinton backers still not sold on Obama. However, once the story passes it's purported main point of listing the challenges faced by Obama in uniting a Democratic Party thoroughly fractured by the rough campaign season, the story manages to include points that are designed to be negative for the Republican candidate, Arizona Senator John McCain.

the writer, one Susan Page, admits that many Clinton supporters are ambivalent at best about Obama, and also does include the fact that many Americans have concerns over Obama's lack of experience, but she then includes several points that are unhelpful to McCain, writing,

A majority say his policies as president would mostly benefit the wealthy. Four in 10 worry McCain is too old to be president — he'll turn 72 on Friday — and 66% say they're concerned he'll pursue President Bush's course. That includes 64% of independents and 35% of Republicans.

McCain also gets more blame for the campaign's negative tone. Nearly half of respondents, 48%, say McCain has attacked Obama unfairly, compared with 30% who say Obama has unfairly attacked McCain.

I wonder what the polls would say if the mainstream media- yes, this includes you, Miss Page- had actually covered the campaigns from an objective point of view? if the media had not relentlessly written misleading stories on the economy (hint- it isn't as bad as they would like us to think) and on McCain's supposedly negative campaigning.

Is it negative to point out one's rivals flaws, faux pases and mis-steps? Is it negative to point out one's rival's many mis-statements and apparent lack of knowledge? And I notice that the real negative comments from the Obama campaign about McCain somehow seem to be entirely acceptable to the MSM. His age, his 28-year old marital affairs and his wealth seem to be acceptable targets, yet any comparable comments about Obama seem to be unacceptable. How is this possible?

in any event, we already know that the mainstream media are in the tank for Obama. this article, though innocuous on the surface, is merely one more shot from a media that desperately wants to prove it can get its man into the White House after failing to give the past two elections to their favored candidates.

Cross-posted on NewsBusters

Congress Ratings Fall Even Lower

Proving once again that most Americans are sublimely indifferent to substance as opposed to style, a new Rasmussen poll shows that Congress' approval rating has fallen into single digits, for the first time in history. However, despite the fact that Democrats can blame only themselves for their abject failure to do anything that they promised when they took control in 2006, the poll also shows Democrats enjoying a substantial lead in the Generic Congressional Poll. So either most voters don't care that Democrats have proven to be even worse at keeping promises and actually governing responsibly than the republicans, or they aren't aware of just how badly Congress is performing. Since Congress' approval ratings consistently come in well below those of the President, it must be the former, although the media's relentless effort to cover up Democratic excesses and failures does not help in exposing just how badly they are doing.

As reported on Rasmussen's website, the new poll find that,

This month, just 9% say Congress is doing a good or excellent job. Most voters (52%) say Congress is doing a poor job, which ties the record high in that dubious category.

In addition, the poll also found that most voters believe that Congressmen are out for Number One. According to the Rasmussen website,

Most voters (72%) think most members of Congress are more interested in furthering their own political careers. Just 14% believe members are genuinely interested in helping people.

Considering members like Louisiana's William Jefferson (he of the freezer filled with cash), and califronia's Laura Richardson (she of the multiple home defaults and expensive car leases), it is easy to agree with the voters. However, until the Press actually does its job in fairly reporting on the peccadillos of Democrats with the fervor it pursues members of the Republican Party, and until voters vote on the actual performance of the parties as opposed to the media's presentation of that performance, I doubt we will see any change.

But may God help the American people if the voters give the Democrats enough of a majority to actually carry out their wishes. I for one do not wish to live in a nanny state where the government has total control over the people's lives. But I fear that it iwll take another four years of Jimmy Carter-like disaster to make the American people realize just how badly Democrats govern. And who knows if we will even have an American nation left by that time, as the judges a Democratic President will appoint will undoubtedly overrule Heller, reinforce Boumediene, disarm our military and grant Sharia law, as is already happening in Britain.

It is no wonder that Osama bin Laden, Hamas and most other of our enemies are working so hard to elect Barack Obama. They know that he will hand victory to them without them needing to fire a shot.

Couric: Hillary Coverage 'Unfair', 'Biased'

Katie Couric will never be recognized for her analytical skills, Nor is she likely to ever go down as a foremost student of history. However, her latest outburst should convince even the most blinded observers of the national media that that institution has lost whatever vestige of objectivity that it pretends to.

According to the website Media Bistro, Couric was honored by he Sewall-belmonth House and Museum. While there, she took the occasion to comment on the press coverage of the recently-ended campaign by Hillary Clinton for the Presidency of the United States. According to Media Bistro,

Some thoughts from Couric at the event:

However you feel about her politics, I feel that Sen. Clinton received some of the most unfair, hostile coverage I've ever seen.

Couric went on to say that latent sexism contributed, in part, to Hillary's defeat.

If Couric thinks that the coverage of Senator Clinton was 'the most unfair, biased coverage' she had ever seen, it would seem that she has been blind to the coverage that current President George W. Bush has been receiving for the entirety of his seven-and-a-half years in office so far. If Couric had any knowledge of history, she would know that this is the most hostile Press Corps any president has faced since Richard Nixon. And in Nixon's case, there was some good reason- the man was a crook. However, in Bush's case, there has yet to be offered any rational reason for the Press' amazing hostility and their ferocious hatred of the man. If Couric can only moan about the coverage of Hillary (which was mostly positive until Obama emerged as a legitimate challenger, and still is far more positive than that received by any Republican, including Presidential nominee John McCain), then she displays her own lack of knowledge in the areas of history and context. And this is the person that we are supposed to trust with the duty of accurately and objectively reporting to us the events of the day?

As for Couric's moan about 'latent sexism', the Democratic Party and their willing enablers in the media have long been completely invested in the politics of class, sex and race. If Obama had not happened to be black, it is my firm belief that Clinton would have continued to sail unimpeded to the nomination. However, she had the misfortune to be running against a member of the one group of victim who have a stronger pull than women- blacks. I do not believe that Barack Obama's sex had anything to do with his victory- other than the fact that he is younger than Senator Clinton.

No, I suspect that the reason Clinton lost had nothing to do with sexism- latent or otherwise. Obama is younger, apparently more attractive to women than Clinton is to men, and a far better orator. And of course, he is racially identified as black. Clinton on the other hand, arouses strong emotions, much of which are negative. She is not seen as trustworthy, and is certainly not going to fire anyone up as Obama does on a regular basis. In the Democratic Party, it is all about winning- regardless of the costs. Obama was seen as a better shot to beat the Republicans and return the White House to it's rightful occupants, thus the Press turned on Clinton to help Obama sew up the nomination as quickly as possible. Had Obama not been in the race, I believe the Press would have been as firmly in Clinton's pocket as they have in the past. And if Katie Couric does not understand that, then she has proved once again how unfit she is to be a news anchor and why the mainstream media is losing subscribers and viewers in droves.

Goodbye Hillary- for now

Well, it appears that after the primaries earlier this week, Hillary Clinton has bowed to the inevitable and is ending her candidacy for the Presidency. According to the story in the Associated Press,

Hillary Rodham Clinton will end on Saturday her historic bid to become the first woman president but Barack Obama said he won't be hurried into a decision on whether to make her his running mate.

Clinton, in an e-mail to supporters, said she "will be speaking on Saturday about how together we can rally the party behind Senator Obama. The stakes are too high and the task before us too important to do otherwise."

The e-mail was a shift in tone by the former first lady, who announced 17 months ago that she was "in it to win it." Many of her supporters now are pushing for her to be included as the vice presidential candidate, in their minds a "dream ticket" that would bring Obama her enthusiastic legions and broaden his appeal to white and working-class voters.

The Democratic Party has long based its strategy on the politics of race, sex and class division. In any other year, it seems certain that Hillary, despite her well-documented weaknesses as a candidate, would have swept to the nomination. However, Barack Obama, just as Bill Clinton did in 1992, took advantage of a relatively small field and the weakness of the front-runners to eke out a narrow victory in the primaries. However, there can be no doubt that neither Hillary nor Obama would have been in this position if it were not for their sex and color respectively. No white male with the thin resumes both of these candidates had would have been considered. However, Barack Obama is now the Democratic Party's candidate for President. Hillary now has to hope that she is offered a spot as the Vice-Presidential candidate.

I do not see Obama offering her the spot, however. Despite her appeal to a large percentage of the Democratic Party, I believe that she was more the anti-Obama candidate for voters who were appalled at Obama's arrogance, naivete, and the positions of some of his long-standing advisors. And the campaign exposed some serious fault-lines within the Democratic Party, between the various 'favored victim' groups, with personal dislikes between the candidates playing a factor as well. There is some real dislike between Hillary and Obama, and it may be too much to ask that they bury those before the general election. Of course, Democrats as a party are all about winning at any cost- they have a long history of being willing to say and do anything in order to get elected.

If Obama does put Hillary on the ticket, that will mostly assuage her supporters within the party. But on the other hand, it will certainly fire up the opposition. Hillary remains an incredibly divisive figure, and her inclusion on the ticket will bring out Republicans and conservatives who might otherwise sit this election out. I wold suspect that Obama will only put her on the ticket if he is forced to by Democratic Party leadership- if left to his own devices, I believe he will choose someone else- someone who is less well-0known and polarizing than Hillary.

And what of Hillary's own ambitions? If Obama wins, she cannot run for President again for eight years. However, if McCain wins, she will almost certainly run again in 2012. However, regardless of whether she runs in 2012 or not, I believe that this was her best chance to win. Unless she is the Vice-President in an Obama Administration, she will probably be facing a Vice-President in 2012. And she has now shown that she is very vulnerable in a national campaign- her stiffness, arrogance and general unlikability, coupled with her claims to experience she simply doesn't possess, make her unlikely to win against a serious opponent. the fact that she could not even beat Obama- and in fact lost to him- makes it unlikely she will win the big one. However, don't ever count the Clintons out. After all, there is always Chelsea...

So can Obama beat John McCain in the general election, with or without Hillary on the ticket? In part, it depends on McCain's campaign and his choice of a running mate. If he chooses wisely and if he runs a strong campaign, he could beat Obama, though ther is no doubt that he is an underdog- especially when one considers taht the antional Press corps will do everything in their power to elect Obama. After their narrow misses in throwing the election to Democrats in 2000 and 2004, the media is desperate to hand this one to Obama. Thus, McCain will be a decided underdog, but he has a resume and experience that Obama cannot hope to match. In addition, while Obama may like to hype his work as a 'community organizer', McCain has real service- he was a prisoner-of-war to the North Vietnamese while serving his country.

But I think ultimately the election will come down to whether or not McCain can pull the independent vote that the Democrats desperately need. I do not believe that McCain can count on the Democrats crossing over- they tend to be far more partisan and vote the party line, as opposed to actually comparing candidates. But if McCain can get the independents, then he has a real shot at beating Obama, despite the fact that this is shaping up to be a Democratic year in politics.

More Economic Good News- Press Displeased

In another strike at the 'recession coming' meme so beloved of the mainstream media, the AP was forced to report today that the economy grew faster than expected in the first quarter of 2008. Of course, this did not prevent the writers from including a heavy dose of doom-and-gloom despite the undeniable positives in their own report. After admitting in the opening paragraph that the economy grew at a 0.9 percent rate- faster than expected- the writers proceeded to do their best to downplay any positive effects. According to the story,

The economy plodded ahead at a 0.9 percent pace in the first quarter -- slightly better than first estimated -- but still underscoring caution on the part of consumers and businesses walloped by housing, credit and financial problems.

The new reading on gross domestic product, released by the Commerce Department on Thursday, was an improvement from the government's initial growth estimate for the January-to-March quarter as well as the economy's performance in the final quarter of last year. Both periods were pegged at a 0.6 percent growth rate.

Gross domestic product, or GDP, measures the value of all goods and services produced within the United States.

The first-quarter performance matched analysts' forecasts and offered a somewhat encouraging sign because it showed the economy was still growing at that time. The figure didn't meet a definition of recession, which under a rough rule is two straight quarters of shrinking GDP, and might raise hopes the country can dodge a full-blown downturn.

If the press had any objectivity at all, they might have mentioned that despite their best efforts to paint it in a negative light, the economy is actually doing quite well. Housing prices may be down, but the economy continues to grow, despite the pundits' predictions (and secret wishes). And as has been pointed out previously, the economy is in fact very healthy- most of the economic indicators are at or above the Clinton-era marks and the job market continues to be fairly robust, with unemployment hovering around 5 percent- better than at any time in the 1990s, which were hailed as a economic powerhouse.

If government would get out of the way, lower taxes and simply allow the economy to work as it does, then I do not believe that we would have most of these worries. However, the PRess is heavily invested in a bad economy, as they are well aware that a bad economy will boost their chances to win the White House in November. I cannot help but think that there is something not quite right about minds that wish their country and their fellow Americans ill simply to win a political victory. Personally, I would rather see the country doing well, no matter who sits in the White House. But then I am not a Democrat.

Hagee V. Wright

The intemperate and anti-American sermons of Barack Obama's minister Jeremiah Wright have received surprisingly wide airplay. Perhaps because this is something that even the dinosaur-like media know they cannot hide in this day and age. However, they are not defenseless- they are pointing to Pastor John Hagee as McCain's equivalent of Wright, right down to the fiery sermons. The only problem is that according to Joel Mowbray in the Washington Times newspaper- the two men are not comparable. wright is by any definition an anti-American, highly racist preacher whose brand of Christianity is questionable. Hagee by contrast is a preacher whose devotion to inter-religious harmony appears to be extremely strong. According to Mowbray,

The long knives are out for Rev. John Hagee. The fiercely pro-Israel evangelical leader is being branded a bigot—again—but this time the media have tagged him with the worst possible association: Hitler.

Granted, Hagee himself raised the specter of Hitler in a sermon reportedly from a decade ago that was recently dredged up by a left-wing blogger, in which he said that God sent Hitler and “allowed” the Holocaust to happen “because God said my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel.”

Far from the ugly media-driven perception that Hagee was justifying—or even somehow praising—the Holocaust as Heaven-sent, he was actually trying to answer the question with which countless rabbis and survivors have grappled ever since: How could there be both an all-powerful God and the unimaginable horrors of the Holocaust?

While anyone could rightly be outraged at his theology or even his apparent hubris in purporting to know God’s motives, it cannot be said that he is anti-Semitic. The charge, in fact, is completely counter to what is most beautiful about Rev. Hagee’s ministry, that it has been so dedicated to combating Christian anti-Semitism.

Mowbray's article is a must-read if one wants to understand the controversy swirling around Pastor Hagee and the endorsement of John McCain that McCain refused to accept. But to compare Hagee with Wright is merely another example of why the mainstream media is mostly a lazy, partisan group of camp-followers. As Mowbray so accurately writes,

In an ideal world, anyway, journalists should be in search of the truth.

In the real world, sadly, most journalists are too busy—and lazy—to meaningfully research Rev. Hagee’s theology and documented teachings. Even given this reality, however, it might seem appropriate that before rushing to reduce 40 years of a man’s career down to a headline-worthy Hitler association, the media ought to spend 40 minutes to see if they’re actually getting the story right.

But that of course could prevent the press from accomplishing their goal- getting a Democratic President. And for the American press, partisanship trumps professionalism any day of the week. Hat tip to the guys over at the Power Line.

Home Prices Rise- Press Spins Gloom

In the midst of the press' ongoing doom-and-gloom meme on the United States economy, those pesky little economic indicators suimply don't seem to be cooperating. First, the PRess' attempts to paint the current economy as the worst since the Great Depression were scuttled by the facts- the current economic indicators are all better than the supposedly record highs of the CLinton 1990s. Now, as they prepare for Round Two of the malaise meme, come s the news that the housing market is perhaps not as bad as they would like it to be.

According to a story by the Associated Press on Yahoo! News, the Commerce Department reported today that home sales rose in April. However, the press cannot simply report the good news- they have to inject a little negativity into the story. Reporter Martin Crutsinger writes,

Sales of new homes rose in April for the first time in six months although the unexpected increase still left activity near the lowest level in 17 years.
ADVERTISEMENT

The Commerce Department reported Tuesday that sales of new homes rose 3.3 percent in April to a seasonally adjusted annual rate of 526,000 units.

But the government revised March activity lower to show an even bigger drop of 11 percent to an annual rate of 509,000, which was the weakest pace for sales since April 1991. Economists believe that new home sales will remain weak for some time as the housing industry struggles with falling prices and rising mortgage foreclosures, which are dumping even more homes on an already glutted market.

It seems to me that if the press would simply cease their scare tactics and allow the market to work as designed, then maybe the economy would do just fine. But that, of course, would put a crimp in the chances for a Democrat to take the Presidency- something that the Press has no intention of allowing to occur.

Chelsea in Waiting

Well, it was only a matter of time before the Clintons admitted what everyone already knew- Chelsea will be groomed to run for President. Bill Clinton finally admitted it today in an interview with People magazine. As reported by ABC News,

ABC News' Ed O'Keefe Reports: Perhaps there will be a Madame President Clinton after all. No, not Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y. How about former first daughter and active campaigner Chelsea Clinton?

"If you asked me (if Chelsea would run for office) before Iowa, I would have said, 'No way. She is too allergic to anything we do.' But she is really good at it," former President Bill Clinton tells PEOPLE magazine in their latest issue, hitting newsstands Friday.

There was an old joke floating around prior to Hillary admitting that she was running for President to the effect that even if Hillary won two terms Chelsea would still be too young. However, with the almost-certain failure of Hillary's bid for the White House in 2008, it would appear that the Clintons are beginning to plan for when Chelsea will be old enough. And it has the added benefit that when Chelsea is running, few people will remember the scandal-ridden Clinton Administration- the memories that I believe are playing at least some role in the failure of Hillary's bid this time around.

As far as Chelsea herself, I have little knowledge, since she has heretofore stayed out of politics. But considering her parentage, i cannot believe that she is less ambitious than her parents, or that her ethics will be any higher than theirs. All i can say a this point is that keeping the Clintons away from the White House is a Good Thing and so a future Chelsea campaign is something that the conservatives should be wary of.

More Obama Naivete

Barack Obama has displayed his lack of qualifications for the Presidency throughout the campaign, whether by suggesting that the United States should talk to our enemies without conditions or whether by adopting the mantra that the United States is the problem.

Today the AFP has a story that demonstrates how frighteningly naive Obama really is. According to the story, Obama is quoted as saying,

"We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times ... and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK," Obama said.

"That's not leadership. That's not going to happen," he added.

That may not be leadership, but then the Constitution doesn't require other nations' permission for what we as a nation do either, Mr. Obama. Talking with one's allies is indeed important. But it sounds to me as though Obama believes that we should give other countries- including those that are decidedly against our beliefs- veto power over what we as a nation do.

And why should we give other nations veto power over what (and how much) we eat? Why should other nations have any role in deciding what kind of vehicles we drive? If we believe in personal responsibility, yes, we should keep things like gas mileage in mind, but again, that is our responsibility, and nowhere in the Constitution does it give other nations or institutions any role in our domestic decision-making process. I would recommend to Mr. Obama that he might want to study the Constitution a little closer, since he seems to be unfamiliar with some of its content.

Obama has also been justly criticized on his view of relations with America's enemies. On the topic of states such as North Korea and Iran- neither of whom have the United States' best interests at heart- the story states,

Reviving Friday's furious row sparked by President George W. Bush's suggestion that Democrats wanted to appease terrorists, Obama said that not talking to North Korea and Iran had only made those states stronger.

"I want everybody to be absolutely clear about this because George Bush and McCain have suggested that me being willing to sit down with our adversaries is a sign of weakness and sign of appeasement," he said.

There are at least two major problems with this. First, President Bush did not name any Democrat in his speech celebrating Israel's anniversary. Nor did he suggest that Democrats are appeasers, at least not according to my analysis. The fact that the Democratic Party and much of the American media does seem to want to appease our Islamic and Communist enemies is their problem, but Bush himself did not actually suggest that at all.

The second problem is that Obama once again clearly marked himself as a would-be appeaser. He said that not talking to states like North Korea and Iran had "made them stronger". Really? I would disagree. In fact, the Six-Party talks, led by the United States, have had an effect on North Korea- they have not in fact become stronger- they have only isolated themselves further, and the Bush Administration's actions in shutting down Pyongyang's massive counterfeiting operations have hurt their ability to raise hard cash. So how has that made them stronger?

As for Iran, the only reason they have become stronger is that the United Nations is a toothless, corrupt body that cannot or will not take action against aggressor states- they prefer to spend their time passing resolutions criticizing Israel and the United States, while begging the U.S. to give them more money. And as a corollary, many European states are so busy selling Iran equipment that they do not want Iran's pursuit of nuclear weapons stopped. Precisely what would Obama do differently from the Bush Administration, other than talk? How does that prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons?

If the Press would critically analyze the statements that Obama is actually making, perhaps the American people would realize just how naive this one-term Senator really is. And how dangerous his opinions are to the United States. Any candidate who would willingly hand over veto power over domestic decisions to foreign countries, who would engage in discussion without conditions with America's enemies and who has a history of corrupt party politics as Obama does is someone who has no business being President of the United States. And the media, if he does win, will bear a great deal of responsibility for falling down on the job and refusing to present an accurate picture of just who Barack Obama really is.

UN Racial Time-Wasting

According to the Drudge Report this morning, a United Nations race investigator will be visiting the United States to check on allegations of racial injustice during the Presidential campaign. As reported by the Reuters news agency,

A special U.N. human rights investigator will visit the United States this month to probe racism, an issue that has forced its way into the race to secure the Democratic Party's presidential nomination.

The United Nations said Doudou Diene would meet federal and local officials, as well as lawmakers and judicial authorities during the May 19-June 6 visit.

Reporter Stephanie Nebehay goes on to write that,

Race has become a central issue in the U.S. election cycle because Sen. Barack Obama, the frontrunner in the battle for the Democratic nomination battle, stands to become the country's first African American president.

His campaign has increased turnout among black voters but has also turned off some white voters in a country with a history of slavery and racial segregation.

Well, really! Of course the Reuters 'reporter' somehow managed to miss the fact that the United States is one of the few countries that actively fights racism, and is one of the very, very few in which minorities have achieved progress. And Ms. Nebehay might have done some research and realized that there are actually race violence in much of the world- like in Europe, while the US does not experience much of that at all. The UN might ask whites in Africa how well they are treated by black majorities there, as well as asking how well non-Arabs are treated in the Middle East. But that of course would require some actual context and analysis. Too much to ask of Reuters, apparently.

Like so many stories regarding the UN, this one simply highlights the colossal waste of time and money the UN has become. And Reuters is wasting newsprint by even printing it. Until the UN actually focuses its efforts on countries that have real race problems, forgive me if I fail to take them seriously as a force for good in the battle against racism.

Democrats Finally Notice Media Bias

Democrats have long been used to having an echo chamber of fellow-travelers in the national media. They are so used to it that they expect the blatant favoritism most reporters shower on them during campaign season. Republicans and conservatives, on the other hand, are used to being portrayed as evil, and having their positions mis-stated and their actions painted in the most negative light possible. DEspite this, Democrats have long claimed that the media is 'fair'.

The problem is that Democrats are sso used to this favorable treatment, they aren't sure what to do when they are not its beneficiaries. I can recall the CLintons claiming media fairness, even as the national media did their best to sit on negative Clinton stories, and portray the impeachment as 'just about sex', as opposed to what it actually was- abuse of power and perjury. However, now that Senator Barack Obama is threatening to end the Presidential aspirations of Senator Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign's chairman, former Democratic National Committee chair Terry McAuliffe, is complaining that the media are biased in Obama's favor.

According to a story in the TheHill online edition today, McAuliffe says that as much as ninety percent of the national media is blatantly favoring Obama.

“Clearly it has been a biased media, no question about it,” McAuliffe said on Fox News. When asked how much of the mainstream media is “in the tank” for Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), who leads Clinton in the race for the Democratic nomination, McAuliffe estimated that about 90 percent of the media favor Obama.

“It is what it is. We’re not complaining,” he stated. “We have to deal with the hand we’re dealt with.”

McAuliffe added that “every independent study has said that this is the most biased coverage they’ve ever seen in a presidential campaign.”

I wonder where this realization was during the many times that the media have shilled for Democrats and Democratic causes in recent years. In any event, it is nice that at least some Democrats recognize just how biased the mainstream media is. Now is they could only agree that it is conservatives who mainly get the worst of this bias- Clinton is merely feeling the media's desire to crown Obama as the nominee and end a bloody primary campaign so that Democrats can re-focus on the real enemy- Senator John McCain. If McAuliffe thinks that media bias was bad during this primary campaign, I can only suggest that he observe the general election with open eyes and mind. In the words of Al Jolson "You ain't seen nothing yet."

Paul Plots Revolt

The antipathy that much of the Republican Party holds toward John McCain has been well-documented. Today, a story in the Los Angeles Times highlights that antipathy, and also contains a possible threat to McCain's smooth nomination at the convention in September.

According to the LA Times, Ron Paul's forces are trying to organize a public revolt against McCain at the convention. The main goal, at least according to the Times, is to influence the party's platform and get Paul a high-profile speaking slot. The Times writes,

In the last three months, Paul's forces, who donated $34.5 million to his White House effort and upward of a million total votes, have, as The Ticket has noted, been fighting a series of guerrilla battles with party establishment officials at county and state conventions from Washington and Missouri to Maine and Mississippi.Their goal: to take control of local committees, boost their delegate totals and influence platform debates.

Paul, for instance, favors a drastically reduced federal goNobody told these supporters of Texas Rep. and Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul that the French can't vote in American electionsvernment, abolishing the Federal Reserve, ending the Iraq war immediately and withdrawing U.S. troops from abroad.

They hope to demonstrate their disagreements with McCain vocally at the convention through platform fights and an attempt to get Paul a prominent speaking slot. Paul, who's running unopposed in his home Texas district for an 11th House term, still has some $5 million in war funds and has instructed his followers that their struggle is not about a single election, but a long-term revolution for control of the Republican Party.

I am not sure how seriously to take this story. On the one hand, it is certainly true that the rank-and-file of the Republican Party, including myself, have some serious disagreements with Senator McCain on a number of issues. Speaking only for myself, I take issue with the Senator's approach to border security and his ideas about the proper treatment of enemy aliens. However, I also am well aware that the mainstream media, despite their preference for Senator McCain during the primary season, will do their best to enhance his opponent during the general campaign. This story may be a simple test to see if they can spread disarray in the Republican Party to match that on display in the Democratic Party.

While I do believe that Senator McCain needs to do more work to convince conservatives that he can respect their wishes, it is patently obvious that neither of the Democrats will do a better job in that area. Thus if conservatives wish to throw the election to either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, then by all means they should try to undermine the Republican Party. However, they need to ask themselves if they would be better served by a Democrat in the White House. For myself, the answer is a definite no.

Ultimately, I believe that conservatives should (and probably will) support Senator McCain, considering his opponents in November. So this story to me is most likely an early attempt by the MSM to stir up controversy and discord in the conservative ranks.

Those Annoying Economic Facts

The Corner at National Review has posted an interesting and educational reminder of the Democratic Party's hypocrisy regarding the economy. And as a side note, it provides a reminder why the mainstream media is not to be trusted on any topic that might affect their patent desire to elect a Democrat to the White House in 2008.
According to the Corner,

A Hill staffer sends this along:
It’s the Politics, Stupid:
Comparing Labor Market Data in 1996 and 2008

Democrats on the Economy in 1996:
“Our economy is the healthiest it has been in three decades.” (President Bill Clinton, State of the Union Address, January 23, 1996)

Democrats on the Economy in 2008:
“The bottom line is that this administration is the owner of the worst jobs record since Herbert Hoover." (Senator Charles Schumer, Press Release, March 7, 2008)

So what is interesting about this? The fact that in 2008 virtually every major indicator of economic health surpasses those of 1996, yet the tone adopted by Democrats and their flunkies in the Press is of unmitigated gloom and doom. A useful chart of the actual numbers is also included in the Corner's posting. Read the whole thing, then ask yourself if the media and the Democrats' lines of economic disaster ring entirely true.

Hat tip to Glenn Reynolds.