Well, America, you got what you wanted...

A Washington DC contract attorney who goes by the nom de plume 'Raised by Wolves' (RBW, in future references) has written an excellent analysis of what is going to happen to contract opportunities (as well as permanent positions) once ObamaCare hits in January 2013. Among other comments, he asks what contract agencies will do when the new requirements that basically force any company with more than 30 employees to either buy them over-priced, horrible government-issued insurance or pay a hefty per-employee penalty. His answer is as follows:

There are only two choices. First, nobody works 30 hours a week for an agency ever again. That probably is an unworkable solution, but it is not unthinkable, given the trend in the industry toward a 40-hour cap on projects. A 30-hour cap would mean more bodies, staggered, but would not be a dramatic departure from the no-OT policy that already governs so many projects. Given the staggering costs of forced health coverage (or penalties), agencies won't consider this option unworkable. They'll think about it, and you'll have to start finding two projects at a time to make a living wage. Assuming, of course, that agencies and the firms that hire them stop enforcing their concurrent employment policies that ban working two projects at a time.

The second choice is, your taxes just got harder. Agencies could deem contract attorneys to be independent contractors and start issuing 1099s instead of W-2s. That means you'll have to make quarterly estimated tax payments for withholding, Social Security and Medicare taxes. Oh, and by the way, it also means you'll be responsible for the employer's half of those Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, as you will now be self employed. Of course agencies will raise your rates to make up for the fact that your share of the payroll taxes doubled while their share disappeared. Don't doubt it for a second.

Now RBW was focusing on the contract attorney field, but his analysis is valid for any field where contracting is common. This includes the high-tech fields where I earn MY living. And my reaction is that RBW is spot-on. I don't know about you, but I've noticed that where I live, there are lots and LOTS of contract offers. Perm? None. Everyone wants to hire contractors. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be that companies know what's coming and are trying desperately to avoid the coming storm? Why, yes, it could. Which is also why permanent opportunities are going to be few and VERY far between for the next ten-twenty years. The Democrats have basically made it uneconomical to hire permanent employees. And so they are desperately trying to get people to do contracting instead. Of course, my sympathy for most of these companies is miniscule since these are largely the same companies whose CEOs are in bed with the Democrats.

But hey, America basically voted for two issues in the 2012 election. These issues, as constantly screamed forth by the Democrat propagandists in the press corps were:

1. Lots and lots of government 'free' shit (paid for with Other People's Money) and...
2. Killing babies so that irresponsible and feckless young women can have lots of fun without consequences while forcing everyone else to pay for that fun, as Sandra the Slut memorably begged for.

Those were the two main campaign issues the Democrats and their media shills pushed over and over again (in between dragging out seventh-grade stories and telling us what a scary and horrible guy that Mitt Romney fellow was, of course). So guess what, America? You got what you wanted. I hope you enjoy it when the inevitable bill comes due.

Another Postscript

I just looked at the post-election map. For conservatives, this should be deeply disturbing. The Democrats now own Virginia, Nevada and Colorado and to all intents and purposes, Ohio as well. This essentially means that no Republican can ever win a Presidential election ever again and even if one should somehow manage to get past the media bias and demonization, there is no chance that Republicans will ever have a majority in Congress either - especially not in the Senate.

Why is this? well, look at the map. Montana and South Dakota both chose to elect Democrats over Republicans, despite being thought of as red states. Republicans failed to beat outright frauds in massachusetts and failed to beat deeply unpopular incumbents in both Missouri and hold a REpublican seat in Indiana.

Overall, this election tells me two things. First, that the Democrats have succeeded in creating a majority built on government-reliant groups. Second, that the media's scare tactics still work too well and no Republican will ever be able to get past them to try to convince these groups that Democrats do NOT have their best interests at heart. And this is a majority that cannot be broken - they will never vote for those who honestly say they will cut their benefits. And of course Democrats will promise anything and scare them by saying REpublicans want to to take away those benefits. The same goes for parasites like the federal unionized bureaucrats. They will never vote for Republicans.

What this means is that we who love this country are watching it die. The takeover is complete. First the Democrats seized control of the educational system and created an indoctrination program. Then they added those indoctrinated fools to a large group who relies on government to live. And now, they have won and the country's federalist roots are finally dead. The plan initiated by Woodrow Wilson and continued by Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Lyndon Baines Johnson is complete. This country is now ruled by a small cadre who plans to turn all of us into beggars dependent on Almighty Government. And never again will any election do anything to stop it. The best we can hope for is to slow the progress, but now we have gone too far. The government, according to the Supreme Court, can tell us what to buy, what to wear, what to eat, where to live, and anything else, as long as they call it a tax.

I don't know if I can offer any comfort. We had the worst President of our lifetimes, a horrid economy, a disastrous foreign policy and yet a majority of Americans STILL voted to re-elect Obama. And not only that, they gave him increased control in the Senate and cut the Republican majority in the House. As a conservative, there is no comfort that I can take tonight. Our side lost and lost big. And from where I sit, the country is beyond repair. I guess we can look forward to becoming just like California now. Yay.

Get Ready for Taxachusetts

Now that Barack Obama has won re-election, and the Democrats have strengthened their hold on the Senate, taxes will go up on January 1. The Republicans have lost seats in the Senate and cannot stop any of Obama's legislation. And after tonight's shellacking, I don't expect them to try. I wouldn't if I were them. Why bother? If they try to stand up for ordinary Americans, they will be demonized in the press and they obviously lack the spine - they didn't even nail the president on his many failures during his first term. But this means that Americans will face a massive tax increase. All the Bush tax cuts will expire and not only that, ObamaCare's taxes kick in on January 1 as well. So we are facing the largest tax hike in US history. Thanks, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Barack Obama!

So, what will this tax hike entail? No one knows for sure, but CNBC says that most Americas will see their investment taxes rise by approximately 3.8 percent. In addition, CNBC says that with the expiration of the Bush tax cuts, that means wealthy Americans will see those taxes rise by close to 45 percent.

But that is not all. As Daily Finance.com points out, the expiration of the afore-mentioned Bush tax cuts also means that the average US family will pay 15 percent more in taxes immediately - in addition to those massive investment income tax hikes.

So, get ready for a much higher tax bill in 2013. Thanks to Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress of 2007-2010, it's coming. The only question is whether or not the Democrats will reach for even more tax hikes as well. Personally, I wouldn't bet against it. After all, as Obama famously said in 2009, 'I won."

More Media Hypocrisy - Solyndra vs Enron

Yes, the title is redundant. We should expect to see media hypocrisy when it comes to how they cover Democrat scandals versus Republican scandals. The differing treatment received by John Edwards and Mark Foley should tell us that. But I digress..

I was perusing the Solyndra scandal and a few thoughts came to mind. Remember how the media relentlessly tied Enron to George W. Bush's Administration? Yet most people forget Enron's extensive ties to the Clinton Administration, as well as the undisputed fact that the only government official to openly attempt to secure special treatment for Enron during Enron's troubles was in fact Robert Rubin, a former Clinton official. As the Seattle Times admits in their article,

In late 2001, after revelations about Enron's accounting made headlines, Citigroup and J.P. Morgan sought to arrange the company's sale to rival Dynegy so they could split a $90 million investment banking fee and stave off its likely bankruptcy. The suit said calls by Citigroup Vice Chairman and former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin and J.P. Morgan Chairman William Harrison to credit-rating firm Moody's Investors Service were attempts to "strong-arm" the firm from downgrading Enron before a sale could be completed.

Now the Bush Administration's ties to Enron were in fact far less than the Obama Administration's ties appear to be with Solyndra. Both companies used political connections to try to get ahead. The situations seem pretty similar. So...Will the Press treat this the same way? I'm not holding my breath...

Citizen Verbally Assails Reid - Left Promptly Complains

G.M. Heller's excellent Berkshire Blog had a wonderful story today. It seems that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D - NV) was out shopping (at an upscale market, naturally) when he was recognized by a citizen who proceeded to ask his vocally and repeatedly why he was holding up the repeal vote on ObamaCare. Reid refused to answer and literally ran away from the encounter, leaving in a fleet of black SUVs. An interesting discussion has developed in the comments between those who (like myself) see this as a good thing and those who seem to thin that now the Democrats run the country, dissent should no longer be allowed. A typical comment from this side of the aisle is the 7:19 PM comment from 'Anonymous' re-posted below:

That's what you would expect from a stupid Republican. Thank God he did not have a gun and shoot Harry. Republicans love to RELOAD their guns. Normal people don't act like those Tea Bagger wackos. Where are the Death Pannels Consevative Republicans lied about for months. Oh yeah - Death Pannels are where the Iraq missles of mass destruction are. I guess with my statement I'm being an ass just like the person that annoyed Harry.What goes arround comes arround.

This is sadly typical of so many on the political left. They cannot argue; they can only post vile epithets and baseless accusations. In response to the thread, I posted the following comment:

Senators, Representatives and the President himself are all elected representatives of The People. This is a point we would do well to remember. They work for we the people. We are not their servants, their subjects or any other position less prestigious.

If said representatives actually held regular meetings with their constituents (as opposed to the reality we witnessed during the run-up to ObamaCare when most of them ducked and ran) this sort of behavior would not be necessary. Unfortunately, most if not all of these self-important hypocrites do their utmost to restrict their actual meetings with their constituents to stage-managed affairs where as many attendees as possible are hand-picked from their special-interest supporters.

In light of that reality, this citizen was not out of line, from what I can discover. I do not see any indication that profanity, violent rhetoric (unlike that seen constantly among the Democrats and their tools in leftist media) or any threatening behavior was used in this encounter. The citizen appears to have been merely verbally forceful. And the security forces present did not see any need to interfere, which would seem to indicate that they did not see any threat either.

As for the argument about 'harassment', it was only two short years ago that the media and Democrats were claiming that 'dissent is the highest form of partiotism'. And throwing shoes at a sitting President was hailed in that same media as being 'heroic'. Very well. This citizen was dissenting. Why then the disapproval from the left side of the political divide? Isn't dissent patriotic anymore? Or is it that those who made that claim only want free speech for their side, not for their opponents? if so, I find that attitude both reprehensible and entirely unwelcome in this country.

Our elected (and appointed) representatives need to be reminded frequently that they serve at the pleasure of We The People. They are our servants not our rulers - a distinction that too many of both parties tend to forget. Therefore, when they do things like ObamaCare that are against the interests of those same People, they should expect to be called to account for their behavior. Which this citizen did. And which the rest of us should do as well. We should be be polite. We should be courteous. But we should be forceful in expressing our opinions. Remember - they serve us, not the other way around.

I do not think that Senators, Representatives, Presidents or judges for that matter should enjoy any superiority over the rest of us. All of the branches of government can and often do, get things wrong. The Supreme Court authored the horrible Roe decision in a blatant example of judicial over-reach and has stretched the Commerce Clause out of all recognition. In addition, it has invented new 'rights' for prisoners-or-war as well as those explicitly denied POW rights under the Geneva Conventions as laid out in the blatantly unfounded Boumediene decision), ignored Constitutional language (the 10th Amendment, the 4th Amendment and the 2nd Amendment) that is plain and unambiguous. Not to mention the blatant re-creation involved in the Kelo decision that allowed government to redistribute private property against the plain intent of the Founders.

Congress meanwhile has acquiesced as the courts have legislated wildly from the bench and has itself tried to make a mockery of the Constitution with laws dating back to the New Deal. ObamaCare is only the latest statist power grab. And the Executive has itself a sorry record of abusing its powers as well. So why should any of these so-called 'betters' be treated with any respect?

To my mind, they have not earned it and they should be required to answer to their fellow Americans often. Forcing someone to defend their mistakes is a far better way of forcing those mistakes to be rectified than pretending that somehow a mistake is 'settled case law'. In any event, I applaud this citizen. I only wish that more of us would do the same.

The Media Memes

I am sad to say that I have neglected this blog of late and so it feels good to be back in the saddle. I cannot guarantee how often I shall be able to post, but i shall commit to doing better this year than I did last year.

Why am I posting again? Well, I was depressed and concerned after the epic wipeout by the left in the 2008 elections, not to mention the media malfeasance that allowed a woefully unprepared and inexperienced politicians without a single achievement or any experience in much of anything to be elected President of the United States. In the past two years, we have clearly seen how much damage this unqualified President has done. And the voters rightfully paid back the tone-deaf and arrogant leftists who would not listen to their concerns. Can the Republicans do a better job? I am unconvinced, but i am willing to give them a chance. Certainly new Speaker John Boehner seems to understand that his party is governing on a very thin tolerance. We shall see.

However, that is not the main reason for this post. Recently there has been a vicious and well-planned campaign by the Left to blame conservative voices - particularly former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin - for the attempted murder of Arizona Representative Gabrielle Giffords. At this time I shall not engage in dealing that piece of verbal assassination - it has been well-debunked in many other places. However, I would like to remind anyone who stumbles across this blog that the media has a long and sordid history of trying to manipulate public opinion with false and misleading reporting. Walter Cronkite's infamous lie about the Tet Offensive comes to mind fairly quickly, as does Dan Rather and Mary Mapes' failed attempt to use forged documents to swing a Presidential election. Yes, I know I'm linking to a very sympathetic report from NPR, but the point is that even NPR was forced to admit that what Mapes and Rather did was utterly wrong.

More recently, a large group of leftist writers and bloggers put together a well-organized machine for coordinating memes called JournoList. Though JournoList is supposedly dead, I have no doubt that a successor (probably with a slightly smaller membership) still exists.

Just as a reminder, these are the people who tried (and are almost certainly still trying) to shape the news to ensure that their particular agenda gets the best possible coverage. They also engaged in some extremely hateful speech and used far more violent terminology than anything any figure on the political Right has done in the last forty years. In other words, they did exactly what they are accusing the Right of doing in the Loughner case - they incited hate with their rhetoric.

The 150 names on this list come from (The Vail Spot). I haven't confirmed them on my own, so this may not be entirely accurate. Suffice to say that any time you read anything from any one of these would-be propagandists or the media that employs them, I recommend both a hearty dose of skepticism AND a thorough fact-checking. They have proven themselves to be untrustworthy.

The JournoList:

1. Spencer Ackerman - Wired, FireDogLake, Washington Independent, Talking Points Memo, TheAmerican Prospect
2. Thomas Adcock - New York Law Journal
3. Ben Adler - Newsweek, POLITICO
4. Mike Allen - POLITICO
5. Eric Alterman - The Nation, Media Matters for America
6. Marc Ambinder - The Atlantic
7. Greg Anrig - The Century Foundation
8. Ryan Avent - Economist
9. Dean Baker - The American Prospect
10. Nick Baumann - Mother Jones
11. Josh Bearman - LA Weekly
12. Steven Benen - The Carpetbagger Report
13. Ari Berman - The Nation
14. Jared Bernstein - Economic Policy Institute
15. Michael Berube - Crooked Timer, Pennsylvania State University
16. Brian Beutler - The Media Consortium
17. Lindsay Beyerstein - Freelance journalist
18. Joel Bleifuss - In These Times
19. John Blevins - South Texas College of Law
20. Sam Boyd - The American Prospect
21. Ben Brandzel - MoveOn.org, John Edwards Campaign
22. Shannon Brownlee - Author, New America Foundation
23. Will Bunch - Philadelphia Daily News
24. Rich Byrne - Playwright
25. Jonathan Chait - The New Republic
26. Lakshmi Chaudry - In These Times
27. Isaac Chotiner - The New Republic
28. Ta-Nehisi Coates - The Atlantic
29. Michael Cohen - New America Foundation
30. Jonathan Cohn - The New Republic
31. Joe Conason - The New York Observer
32. Lark Corbeil - Public News Service
33. David Corn - Mother Jones
34. Daniel Davies - The Guardian
35. David Dayen - FireDogLake
36. Brad DeLong - The Economists’ Voice, University of California at Berkeley
37. Ryan Donmoyer - Bloomberg News
38. Adam Doster - In These Times
39. Kevin Drum - Washington Monthly
40. Matt Duss - Center for American Progress
41. Gerald Dworkin - UC Davis
42. Eve Fairbanks - The New Republic
43. Henry Farrell - George Washington University
44. Tim Fernholz - American Prospect
45. Dan Froomkin - Huffington Post, Washington Post
46. Jason Furman - Brookings Institution
47. James Galbraith - University of Texas at Austin
48. Kathleen Geier - Talking Points Memo
49. Todd Gitlin - Columbia University
50. Ilan Goldenberg - National Security Network
51. Arthur Goldhammer - Harvard University
52. Dana Goldstein - The Daily Beast
53. Andrew Golis - Talking Points Memo
54. Jaana Goodrich - Blogger
55. Merrill Goozner - Chicago Tribune
56. David Greenberg - Slate
57. Robert Greenwald - Brave New Films
58. Chris Hayes - The Nation
59. Don Hazen - Alternet
60. Jeet Heer - Canadian Journolist
61. Jeff Hauser - Political Action Committee, Dennis Shulman Campaign
62. Michael Hirsh - Newsweek
63. James Johnson - University of Rochester
64. John Judis - The New Republic, The American Prospect
65. Foster Kamer - The Village Voice
66. Michael Kazin - Georgetown University
67. Ed Kilgore - Democratic Strategist
68. Richard Kim - The Nation
69. Charlie Kireker - Air America Media
70. Mark Kleiman - UCLA The Reality Based Community
71. Ezra Klein - Washington Post, Newsweek, The American Prospect
72. Joe Klein - TIME
73. Robert Kuttner - American Prospect, Economic Policy Institute
74. Paul Krugman - The New York Times, Princeton University
75. Lisa Lerer - POLITICO
76. Daniel Levy - Century Foundation
77. Ralph Luker - Cliopatria
78. Annie Lowrey - Washington Independent
79. Robert Mackey - New York Times
80. Mike Madden - Salon
81. Maggie Mahar - The Century Foundation
82. Dylan Matthews - Harvard University
83. Alec McGillis - Washington Post
84. Scott McLemee - Inside Higher Ed
85. Sara Mead - New America Foundation
86. Ari Melber - The Nation
87. David Meyer - University of California at Irvine
88. Seth Michaels - MyDD.com
89. Luke Mitchell - Harper’s Magazine
90. Gautham Nagesh - The Hill, Daily Caller
91. Suzanne Nossel - Human Rights Watch
92. Michael O’Hare - University of California at Berkeley
93. Josh Orton - MyDD.com, Air America Media
94. Rodger Payne - University of Louisville
95. Rick Perlstein - Author, Campaign for America’s Future
96. Nico Pitney - Huffington Post
97. Harold Pollack - University of Chicago
98. Katha Pollitt - The Nation
99. Ari Rabin-Havt - Media Matters
100. Joy-Ann Reid - South Florida Times
101. David Roberts - Grist
102. Lamar Robertson - Partnership for Public Service
103. Sara Robinson - Campaign For America's Future
104. Alyssa Rosenberg - Washingtonian, The Atlantic, Government Executive
105. Alex Rossmiller - National Security Network
106. Michael Roston - Newsbroke
107. Laura Rozen - POLITICO, Mother Jones
108. Felix Salmon - Reuters
109. Greg Sargent - Washington Post
110. Thomas Schaller - Baltimore Sun
111. Noam Scheiber - The New Republic
112. Michael Scherer - TIME
113. Mark Schmitt - American Prospect, The New America Foundation
114. Rinku Sen - ColorLines Magazine
115. Julie Bergman Sender - Balcony Films
116. Adam Serwer - American Prospect
117. Walter Shapiro - PoliticsDaily.com
118. Kate Sheppard - Mother Jones
119. Matthew Shugart - UC San Diego
120. Nate Silver - FiveThirtyEight.com
121. Jesse Singal - The Boston Globe, Washington Monthly
122. Ann-Marie Slaughter - Princeton University
123. Ben Smith - POLITICO
124. Sarah Spitz - KCRW
125. Adele Stan - The Media Consortium
126. Paul Starr - The Atlantic
127. Kate Steadman - Kaiser Health News
128. Jonathan Stein - Mother Jones
129. Sam Stein - Huffington Post
130. Matt Steinglass - Deutsche Presse-Agentur
131. James Surowiecki - The New Yorker
132. Jesse Taylor - Pandagon.net
133. Steven Teles - Yale University
134. Mark Thoma - The Economists' View
135. Michael Tomasky - The Guardian
136. Jeffrey Toobin - CNN, The New Yorker
137. Rebecca Traister - Salon
138. Tracy Van Slyke - The Media Consortium
139. Paul Waldman - Author, American Prospect
140. Dave Weigel - Washington Post, MSNBC, The Washington Independent
141. Moira Whelan - National Security Network
142. Scott Winship - Pew Economic Mobility Project
143. J. Harry Wray - DePaul University
144. D. Brad Wright - University of NC at Chapel Hill
145. Kai Wright - The Root
146. Holly Yeager - Columbia Journalism Review
147. Rich Yeselson - Change to Win
148. Matthew Yglesias - Center for American Progress, The Atlantic Monthly
149. Jonathan Zasloff - UCLA
150. Julian Zelizer - Princeton University
151. Avi Zenilman - POLITICO


The source:
Free Republic Webcache

My Take:
Again, I have not done the legwork to confirm these are really all Journolisters. However, none of these names have so far challenged the accusation of being members. So I think that the odds are pretty good that they really were Journolisters. And if so, then they are folks that have forfeited any trust on the part of the general public. They are no more honest reporters than was the infamous Walter Duranty (Stalin's tool who worked so hard to cover up the man-made famine in 1930s-era Ukraine). Feel free to pass this on to remind people just how dishonest and hypocritical the media really is.

Oh, and one more thing. The next time these self-satisfied hypocritical hatemongers try to call for 'civility', or blame a politician for the acts of a madman, let's remind them of their own words in the privacy of their little community. Remind them too that every single political act of violence since 1960 - with the sole possible exception of Tim McVeigh - has been perpetrated by the Left.

Reagan vs Obama?

Kevin Williamson writes in today's National Review Online edition,

News flash: This is not 1982, and Obama is not Reagan.

The important difference is this: There was a good reason for the Volcker-Reagan recession: defeating inflation. American voters may not be terribly economically sophisticated, but they sure as heck did notice when inflation went from 13.5 percent to 3.2 percent — in two years.

This is a salient point - Ronald Reagan was trying to reduce the damage done by the previous Administration's ham=handed and inept economic policies. And it worked - as Williamson notes, inflation dropped drastically in only two years. Mission accomplished!

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be clear to our friends on the Left side of the political spectrum. One of the commenters writes,

Reagan was an incredible deficit spender, I don't think you can distinguish between Obama and Reagan on that factor.

Unless this is a joke, this comment displays a distressing lack of understanding both of history and of international relations. Yes, Reagan did do some large defiicit spending. But, as was the case with the economic policies, there was a reason. A good one. Reagan believed that the Cold War needed to end and he did not think (correctly, as it turned out) that the Soviet Union could keep pace with the US if the Cold War turned into a competition between economic methodology. By spending freely on the US military, he forced the Soviets into an arms race they simply could not win. And his full-throated defense of liberty and freedom gave heart to the millions of enslaved Eastern Europeans. Essentially, Ronald Reagan put his money where his mouth was and bet that the US could win an economic showdown with the Soviet Union. And he was right.

In 1980, when Reagan came into office, the world was resigned to the grim menace of Soviet tanks and proxy wars. Reagan ended that, at least as far as the Soviets were concerned. Proxy wars will go on forever, but the specter of Russian tanks crossing into Western Europe is gone. Ronald Reagan performed two vital actions during his eaight years in office - he won the Cold War (though the Soviet Union did not finally collapse until his successor was in office) and he crushed the inflation caused by Jimmy Carter and his de-regulation put the US on a solid economic course that has lasted by and large until the current Administration.

I don't see how you can compare Reagan and Obama either, but not for the reasons our commenter friend listed. I don't see how you can compare actions taken with a firm goal in mind - a goal that was achieved in both cases largely by the time Reagan left office - to Obama's destructive spending. If Obama's goal is to make the entire country dependent on government and to make the political class into feudal masters, then I guess he is succeeding. But to me there is a fundamental difference between spending to defeat an enemy and spending to make government more powerful. Reagan was all about smaller government. Obama? Not so much.

At the One-Year Mark

When Barack Obama was elected, I made some predictions as to what his Presidency might look like. These predictions were as follows:

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.

So. How accurate was I?

1. Hasn't happened yet, but several Democratic members of Congress have talked about doing it. I would not be surprised if they ram it through before the 2010 midterm elections.


2. Hasn't happened yet, although the Obama Justice Department thinks that Tea Partiers are a greater threat than armed Black Panthers.


3. This is a given, especially considering the health care boondoggle, the 'Stimulus' the nationalization of Government Motors and the attempted takeover of student loans. Expect to see your taxes skyrocket next year.


4. Second Amendment is still under attack, but Heller is so far holding firm. Don't expect to see the Left give up. Language actually in the Constitution (The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed) is MUCH less important than language based on 'emanations from a penumbra' (Justice Douglas' rationale for making up a new right to privacy found nowhere in the actual Constitution)


5. To his credit, Obama hasn't actually done this yet, although he DID just cave to the Russians as far as nuclear weapons. How many actually expect Russia to keep its word? Yes, Barack, you can put your hand down. Anyone else? No? Hmmm...


6. Likely. Iran is well on the way to nuclear weapons. While Obama sends them pitiful little Christmas messages. Sigh...


7. Well, so far Israel has managed to resist Obama's best efforts to destroy them. But how much longer can they hold out if Obama is supporting their enemies? Only time will tell...


8. Well, Obama doesn't get much credit here, but at least he hasn't utterly ruined the Bush plan of action in Iraq. So far, Iraq is still surpassing expectations. In the latest development, a secular, anti-Iranian leader beat out the Islamic PM. Good for them!


9. Obama hasn't quite dared to do this, but the signs are certainly there. Let's hope for a Republican Congress so that he can't give away our sovereignty just yet!


10. Here again, Obama's Justice Department hasn't taken the final steps, but the warning signs are here. They seem more concerned about Tea Partiers than actual terrorists and criminals like Bill Ayers and ACORN. Oh, wait. They support Democrats. Can't possibly be bad!


11. Done. Now we are stuck unless we can somehow get rid of it before 2013. We'll be almost as good as Canada! Oh, wait...


12. Congress and Obama have been talking about doing exactly this since 2009. Amnesty (and vast new votes of Democrats), here we come!


13. Campuses already do this. It is only a matter of time before these get support from the Democrats. The only speech they want to hear is the echo chamber they and teh media inhabit.


14. heh. You mean, like this (Obama) as opposed to this (Bush)?

Well, I am batting 4 for 14. In baseball that would be a wonderful percentage. Unfortunately, this isn't baseball. This is reality. And the reality is that most of these prophecies are either already complete (higher taxers, healthcare, media spin) in progress (immigration, speech restrictions on conservatives) or are being made more possible by Obama's policies (Iranian nukes, Israel's destruction, American decline). i only hope that the electorate does something about it in the next two elections. I don't like socialism, nor its kissing kin Communism! So, how's that Hope and Change working out for all your rubes who voted for the Marxists occupying our White House and Congress?

Media (Un)Ethics

The media loves to destroy careers and damage peoples' lives. if someone is unfortunate enough to be in the media spotlight due to their iridescent talents, that person can count on being treated like the subject of the Truman Show. Especially if something in that microscopically-studied life should happen to occur that promises lots of free publicity for the jackals of the Press.

Tiger Woods is one of these unfortunates. The man is a supremely skilled golfer. He is athletic, rich, attractive to the fair sex and seemingly lives the Perfect Life. But he is also an intensely private person off the golf course. He doesn't appear on frothy 'celebrity' shows. He doesn't appreciate fake topless shots of his wife. And he certainly doesn't enjoy the media intruding into what he does off the golf course. All of which stands should be uncontroversial. But the media can't let it go. In a world populated by self-serving trash like TMZ and Mario Armando Lavandeira Jr (who calls himself Perez Hilton), if the media cannot catch a celebrity in an embarrassing, headline-provoking scandal, they are perfectly prepared to create it out of whole cloth.

Such is the case here. The undisputed facts are these:

1. The National Enquirer magazine published a story claiming Mr. Woods had an affair with a woman.


2. Both Woods and the woman (Rachel Uchitel, 34) promptly denied the report.


3. Mr. Woods and his wife may have had an argument, possibly caused by the Enquirer's story. No physical force has been reported to have been involved.


4. Mr. Woods left the house at a very early hour and was involved in a minor automobile accident.


5. Mrs. Woods assisted in rescuing her husband, who suffered minor injuries.

As far as I am aware, no laws were broken by either Mr. or Mrs. Woods. However, the media, having created the situation that caused the problem, are now in full-throated roar demanding that Mr. Woods somehow owes them an explanation.

Er, how to put this in language our logically- and ethically-challenged media will understand? NO. Tiger Woods owes the the press nothing at all. In addition, unless some evidence emerges that he broke the law in some manner, neither does he owe the police an explanation. Jason Whitlock, one of the very few members of the press who has both respect for others' privacy and common sense (he was virtually the only member of the national media to get the Duke Rape Hoax right), put it best in his column this morning, writing,

The media members/outlets asserting Tiger Woods owes the public and the Florida Highway Patrol an explanation for a fender-bender and his wife's jaws-of-9-iron rescue owe America an explanation for their self-serving jealousy and obvious stupidity.
...

The price of fame and wealth should not be the sacrifice of marital privacy. Tiger Woods plays golf for our enjoyment. He didn't marry Elin Nordegren for our entertainment.

Jason Whitlock gets it. Why don't the rest of America's supposedly 'professional' press corps? The media does not have a right to invade the privacy of people just because their professions bring them into the public eye.

America's media has a lot of problems, from their abject failure to actually display any professional objectivity (11 'fact-checkers' for Sarah Palin's book, zero for Barack Obama's or Joe Biden's)to their complete failure to accurately inform the American public about many important stories currently ongoing (ACORN's corruption, the University of East Anglia's emails, etc.). But while they don't seem to have enough time to actually deal with actual issues of real importance to most Americans, they do have enough time to descend on a professional athlete who has done nothing wrong and try to wreck his life. For shame!

Fort Hood Thoughts

I had not intended to blog about the events that took place at Fort Hood on November 5, 2009. This is mainly because I do not believe that I can add anything to the discussion. However, an article on the Forbes online edition today has changed my mind. But first, allow me to offer my sympathy and outrage to the families of those killed and wounded in this despicable attack. And let me suggest to our elected leaders that a more sincere expression of outrage and tangible actions to deter any future episodes of this nature are absolutely required. The current lukewarm reaction simply won't cut it.

The facts of the case are not in doubt. Major Nidal Malik Hassan opened fire at a processing center on the base, killing thirteen and wounding twenty-nine people befire he was taken into custody. Based on reports that have been coming in regularly, ther seems to be little doubt that Hassan's motives were due to his identification with fundamental Islamic terrorists and thier attempts at global jihad - attempts that include the attacks on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001.

Since the attacks, the Obama administration has bent over backwards to obscure any possible linkage of the shooter with the Islamic religion. And they have also shown a startling lack of compassion or sympathy with the victims, choosing to focus on Indian tribal matters as opposed to the US Armed Forces.

Today, Forbes editor Tunku Varadarajan writes a column about the lessons and possibilities opened by Hassan's actions. Regarding the shooter's motives, he writes chillingly,

"Going postal" is a piquant American phrase that describes the phenomenon of violent rage in which a worker--archetypically a postal worker--"snaps" and guns down his colleagues.

As the enormity of the actions of Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan sinks in, we must ask whether we are confronting a new phenomenon of violent rage, one we might dub--disconcertingly--"Going Muslim." This phrase would describe the turn of events where a seemingly integrated Muslim-American--a friendly donut vendor in New York, say, or an officer in the U.S. Army at Fort Hood--discards his apparent integration into American society and elects to vindicate his religion in an act of messianic violence against his fellow Americans. This would appear to be what happened in the case of Maj. Hasan.

This is a truly frightening thought. The United States, as Varadarajan points out, has a long history of assimilating new arrivals and in most cases, has successfully managed to integrate them quite well. This appears to be less successful in the case both of the illegal aliens from the south and the Muslim immigrants, regardless of their country of origin. As Varadarajan says,

America differentiates itself on integration from Western European countries, which are far more cringing and guilt-driven in their approach. But can the American swagger persist if many Americans come genuinely to view Muslims as Fifth Columnists? The integration compact depends on a broad trust that the immigrant's desire to be American can happily co-exist with his other forms of racial/cultural/religious identity. Once that trust doesn't exist, America faces a problem in need of urgent resolution.

This is undoubtedly true. If a majority of Americans come to see Muslims as incapable of assimilating, they could eventually lead to a violent confrontation. And that is something that no one in their right minds wishes to see. But if this phenomenon is not dealt with, that possibility could come to pass.

Finally, it is clear that the Army itself and the federal government ignored signs that Hassan was no friend of the United States. The question has been raised as to why he was still an officer in the United States Army. That question is salient. Why indeed? The Obama Administration has reportedly instructed the FBI to rule out any idea that this is related to Islam or Islamic terror. if this report is tru, then the Obama Administration is even more pathetic and less friendly to the country they are sworn to represent that was previously thought. The first and foremost duty of the President is to protect the United States. Hassan killed thirteen members of the US Armed Forces while they wer unarmed. This is murder, plain and simple. Why is the FBI not allowed to pursue all possible leads?

Finally, Varadarajan points out the the Army itself failed to take action on the many warning signs Hassan exhibited before he opened fire. Among these were the following:

• Dressed in traditional Islamic garb


• attended a mosque closely linked to the 9/11 terrorists


• wrote comments highly critical of the UNited States and supportive of the Islamic terrorists

Why was Hassan never investigated for these actions? Taken together, they present a fairly consistent pattern of anti-American, pro-Islamic terror actions. But apparently no action was ever taken. Was this because Hassan was Muslim and no one dared to complain, fearing the lawsuits of the grievance-mongers like CAIR? Was there some policy that stated Muslims were to be given extra leeway in their actions? Answers need to be provided. As Varadarajan concludes,

Let the first lesson of the Hasan atrocity be this: The U.S. Army has to be a PC-free zone. Our democracy and our way of life depend on it.

I could not agree more.

The Bush and Reagan Speeches to Schoolchildren

There has been a lot of angst about President Obama's upcoming speech to school children. Spokesman Robert Gibbs made the point that both President Ronald Reagan and President George H.W. Bush also made addresses to schoolchildren. Just for reference, here is a link to the text of President George H.W. Bush's 1991 speech to schoolchildren.
The Bush speech can be found at The Bush Library online resources hosted by Texas A&M University.

For a transcript of Reagan's 1988 address, I have unearthed a link from the University of Texas: Reagan Address to School Children, November 14, 1988


Once Obama's transcript is posted it will be interesting to compare them. Both Reagan and Bush's were innnocuous, though Reagan did make the case for low taxes, and less governmetn spending. However, neither Reagan nor Bush tried to push the children in any particular direction as the Soviets, the Chinese and the imperial Japnese models certainly do. We shall see if Obama can rise to that level of statemanship - to date he is both more partisan and less willing to reach across the aisle to the opposition than either Ronald Reagan or either of the Bushes ever were.

Hat tip to Allahpundit over at Hot Air.

Beck, Letterman and Censorship

It appears that Fox News host Glenn Beck has gotten himself into some trouble of late. According to the New York Daily News, he referred to President Barack Obama as racist:

The combustable Beck ignited a firestorm when, during a Tuesday morning appearance on FNC's freewheeling "Fox and Friends," he said the President's reaction to the Henry Louis Gates Jr. arrest situation in Cambridge, Mass., suggested a "deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture."

To his credit, "Fox & Friends" co-host Brian Kilmeade — who recently had to apologize for comments he made about racial issues — immediately responded, saying that most of the faces people see of the Obama administration are white, such as spokesman Robert Gibbs or chief of staff Rahm Emanuel.

"I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem," Beck responded. "This guy is, I believe, a racist."

Around the Internet, this comment seems to have outraged a number of people, to the point where there is a Facebook poll asking if Beck should be fired. Funny how the same people calling for beck to be fired for suggesting that Obama is racist were silent when late-night host Dave Letterman suggested that baseball player Alex Rodriguez had sex with former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin's 14-year old daughter. As reported by the Hollywood Grind,

On Tuesday’s show, David Letterman joked in his opening monologue that the Alaska Governor Sarah Palin visited Yankee Stadium, sitting in "far, far right field" with Rudy Giuliani. "They had a wonderful time," he continued. "The toughest part of her visit was keeping Eliot Spitzer away from her daughter." Letterman also said that Alex Rodriquez knocked up Palin’s daughter at the game, except the daughter at the game was not 18 year-old Bristol Palin, it was Palin’s 14 year-old daughter.

Neither Beck's nor Letterman's comments are useful additions to political discourse in this country, and both are despicable. However, I disagreed with the campaign to ask CBS to fire Letterman and I also disagree with the campaign to have Fox fire Beck. What both these campaigns are trying to accomplish is pure censorship, albeit in the name of decency. I ask those calling for him to be fired - do you agree with censorship? Because that is what you are proposing. By all means show your disapproval and refute his statements. But to try to get him fired for speech with which you disagree is censorship, which is anathema to me. Censorship makes totalitarian governments like Cuba and Communist China possible.

As far as Beck and Letterman and all the other commentators making extreme statements - and yes, this definitely includes the many on the Left who used Nazi terminology to refer to former President Bush for the last eight years - should they face some sort of discipline? Maybe, but that is up to their employers. As far as we consumers, we can choose not to watch their shows. But we should never risk employing the whip of censorship. The power of censorship, once granted to a government authority, can never be revoked and can easily be employed against any subject. Censorship is the weapon most desired by totalitarian governments, and we should be exceedingly wary in its use here. Censorship in a war zone to protect troops? Absolutely. Censorship for two brainless commentators? Both needless and dangerous. The First Amendment was written for a reason and that reason has everything to do with political speech.

Presidential Popularity

The US Press Democratic Party Propaganda Corps likes to tell us that President Obama's popularity is immense, and indeed, according to Gallup, Obama still enjoys a personal support level of over sixty percent. However, when it comes to his policies, that support disappears in a hurry. According to an (admittedly unscientific) poll posted at MSNBC (yes, the network that is unabashedly in the tank for Obama, and whose commentators did not even attempt to hide their partisanship- do you recall Chris Matthews' "leg shiver" comment?), over seventy percent of the voters have given Obama's policies as expressed so far either a 'D' or and 'F' grade. Only 27 percent would give Obama a passing grade.

See the below chart for more:


This snapshot was taken at 0930 this morning. To me this clearly indicate that the is widespread apprehension and distaste for the Obama policies- regardless of how most people view The One himself.

And it is telling that in the first seven weeks of the Obama Administration, we have seen the stock market plunge further than it did in eight years on George w. Bush's watch. This despite a recession and a terrorist attack on the heart of American's Financial District that killed over three thousand people. Yet in those eight years, according to the New York Stock Exchange, the Dow's lowest point was 7673.99 on March 6, 2002 (following the recession and the terrorist attacks). After that low point, the Dow did not sink under 10000 for the remainder of the Bush Administration, and reached a high of over 14000 (four thousand points higher than it ever was under Clinton, by the way). Yet in the seven weeks since President Obama's team has taken control in Washington (and not coincidentally announced programs that would damage the US economy), the Dow is currently at 6326.94. Since it became clear in October that Obama would win the election, the Dow has been dropping steadily. Since Obama became President, the decline has increased. Since Inauguration Day, the Dow has dropped by almost two thousand points.

If Barack Obama and his far-left allies in Congress think that they can impose European-style socialism on this country without a fight, they may have mistaken their constituents. I hold my fellow voting Americans in the lowest possible light, seeing as how they have ignored the fact that the last two years- two years of increasingly partisan politics, increasing deficits and shrill rhetoric- the democrats have controlled Congress. They have ignored that the Democrats are largely responsible for the financial debacle we face. But when the Democrats make the naked power grab for their wallets that is going on in Washington, maybe they may arise from their self-imposed ignorance and fight back. Our money is ours- not those bloated corruptocrats in Washington DC. It is time to make that point. We cannot count on the courts. We cannot count on government. We can only count on ourselves, and it is time for the people of this country to tell Washington (and all other governments who engage in this type of behavior (are you listening Sacramento?)- "Enough!"

I would like to see Congress forced to pay out of their own pockets when they spend more than they take in. I would like to see the government workers forced to actually work a real workday. I would like to see government employees in office on all these holidays that they don't allow us, but only to themselves. And I would like to see them held accountable in the Press for their bad decisions. Of course none of this will happen.

I predicted when Obama won the election that this country had chosen to abrogate personal responsibility. For Obama is a Chicago machine politician and his party is the party of dependence. Not that the Republicans are much better. I would wish for a true third party- made up of those like me who are disgusted with the hypocrisy and corruption in government. But that is a pipe-dream. All we can do if fight as hard as we can, so that our children and grand-children might remember America with some kind of pride when the Democrats- helped by their shills in the media- have finished destroying her.

Hat tip for the poll to Glenn Reynolds.

Free Speech Trends

Remember how the Democratic Party has referred to President Bush over the past eight years? Remember all the 'Bushitler' references, the 'Kill Bush' signs seen at many if not most left-leaning rallies and the many, many suggestions by the political Left (including a Nobel 'Peace' Laureate) to kill the President? Does anyone recall the news media actually reporting in a negative manner on any of these insults and downright threats?

But how things have changed once the Obamessiah is in office. Now that Obama has reached the Promised Land (and intends to drag the country with him into the depths of mass socialization), a mere First amendment protest can be grounds for police or Secret Service harassment, as a now-approving Press looks on complacently. I warned of this shortly after the election, when I noted Obama's long-standing aversion to any sort of criticism.

Now, the results of this aversion are beginning to show. According to a report in the NewsOK site, an Oklahoma City man was hassled by both the local Oklahoma City police and the Secret Service for carrying a sigh saying 'Abort Obama'. According to the NewsOK site,

The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning.

Now I have no problem understanding the actions of the Oklahoma City police, especially as it seems the Secret Service was putting them under some pressure, although i think they went a little overboard. However, the story continues that the man was then visited by the Secret Service. This strikes me as harassment. Where were the secret Service when most of the literati and the political Left were issuing threats against President Bush? I certainly do not recall any stories about the Secret Service investigating these people. And since these people were preaching how 'brave' they were in standing up to power, one would think the media would be filled with those stories. There were certainly enough instances of Bush-hatred spilling out in signs, speech and other formats. Yet I cannot recall a single story of the Secret Service investigating.

But now, a sign that does have some potential ambiguity is cause for a citizen's First Amendment rights to be severely crimped? And even the Oklahoma news media cannot find any room to complain? The story appears to be written in a largely neutral voice, so apparently the Oklahoman newspaper is fine with government enforcing speech restrictions that were certainly not in effect during the last Administration. If the man had sported a sign proposing a violent death or even some bodily harm to the President, i would completely understand the actions of the authorities. But this is a case where it appears over-zealousness to stamp out criticism was the cause.

Liberals have liong been the party of censorship. Think back on the campaign trail and recall that not Gore, not kerry and not Obama was comfortable giving full access to reporters, and in fact the reporters mildly complained about it- even as they propagandized for their chosen candidates. Hillary Clinton was the same way- I recall a report from a reporter on her campaign about how she kept the media at arm's length. And the Democrats are the party who tries to suppress speech they disagree with via 'speech codes', the grossly misnamed 'Fariness Doctrine' and other Orwellian techniques. The Democrats, ladies and gentlemen, not the Republicans. None of these are creations of Reprublicans- they are creations of the Left.

And in government, did the Republicans shut the Democrats out of policy? When they proposed the so-called 'nuclear option' in the Senate, howls of protest arose from the media and every Democrat. But now, when the Democrats have gone even further to ensure that Republicans cannot participate in government, there is only silence from the media. Do these so-called 'professional journalists' not understand that censorship is a weapon that, once allowed, will sooner or later surely be used against them as well? I guess partisanship is more important that actually doing their job.

Obama himself is no stranger to the idea of political censorship. When a reporter on the campaign trail dared to ask hard-hitting questions, his station was banned from any further interviews. And Obama also banned the Washington Times, the Dallas Morning News and the New York Post (three newspapers that endorsed John McCain for President) from his campaign plane. It is no coincidence that these three newspapers are among the very few conservative news voices in the country. They were likely to be more critical of Obama, and he does not react well to criticism.

So I believe that we will be seeing more of this type of thing as Obama gathers the reins of power ever more tightly. As reported by the intrepid Ed Morrissey over at Hot Air, he has already removed the independence of the internal Inspector Generals with a hidden provision in his monster pork bill. This essentially removes any chance of an independent investigation into the 'Most Ethical Congress In History'.

Ultimately, i think that Obama will fail to completely eradicate the First Amendment, but he will probably do such severe damage that for conservatives and other members of the loyal opposition, we will be watching our backs very carefully for the next eight years- or however long the Obamedia can run interference for him and his cronies in 'The Most Ethical Congress In history'.

I predicted that America had sold itself out in this past election. i do not back away from that prediction- I think that by the end of Oabam's term in office, we will have essentially given the right to free speech only to those favored of the liberals, and we will have created a permanent class dependent entirely on government. that is what brought Rome down and that is what may bring us down as well. I predicted after the election that the United States had at most a hundred years of life remaining. I may have been slightly pessimistic, but I doubt that our great-grandchildren will see the bastion of liberty that we once knew- I think it more likely that they will live in a state more resembling Stalin's Russia.

A New Year

Disclaimer: In the aftermath of the election disaster that showed so clearly how many Americans will put their own personal selfishness over the needs of our country as a whole, and with the Obama campaign's well-known tendency to silence critics, I thought that this blog had outlived its usefulness. However, as I survey the scene, I see that perhaps my commentary may have some value, so i shall re-open this blog.

Well, it is now 2009. The Great Obama is occupying the White House and the eeeevil George W. Bush is no longer President of the United States. But have things changed for the better? Let us see...

1. Congress-critters still unable to follow the rules they want to impose on the rest of us? Check.


2. President pushing for massive expansion of powers? Check.


3. Media prostrating themselves at the feet of government? Check. (Yes, that would be CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, AP, UPI, AFP, {insert newspaper name here], and most local 'news' stations.


4. Complete failure by the federal authorities to deal with a disaster in Kentucky? Check. (Funny how a far lesser failure was front-page news for weeks in New Orleans, where most of the failures were a direct result of the local and state failures, but this time, where it is unquestionably a federal failure, the Press is silent. Could it be they don't care about rural white folks?)

And several things have gotten worse. The economy, which the mainstream media has been lying about for the past eight years, is actually in much worse shape now than it ever was during the Bush Administration. This is partly due to forces beyond Obama's control (the spending orgy engaged in by both the Bush Administration and the last several Congresses), but also partly (and as we shall see largely) due to forces that can be laid squarely at the feet of the Democratic Party.

The financial mess, as has been stated earlier, was caused mainly by Democratic power grabs. See John Pilla's excellent essay on the causes of the financial crisis at Public Opinion Online. And many of the power-brokers in the Congress have taken more than their share of goodies from the people who caused the mess in the first place. John Murtha, Chris Dodd and Charlie Rangel are all guilty, as are most other members of the current party leadership on both sides of the aisle.

In short, this Administration seems to combine arrogance with incompetence. This is only to be expected, as President Obama has no executive experience and has never had to actually live up to any promises in the past (he is a creature of the Chicago political machine, after all). For the sake of our country, I hope that Obama grows up fast and begins to exhibit some leadership skills. Otherwise, I fear greatly for our country.

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.

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.

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 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.