What's Wrong With Obama

Obama's Lies

2010-01-22T06:39:00.002-05:00

I do not think that Obama's record, or the nature of his lies are as unique as the author states, but the breadth and depth of the lies is still staggering!

The Lies of Obama

Another Shot Across Our Bow...

2009-03-14T09:19:00.017-04:00

...how we will our Dear Leader respond?

Official: Cuba, Venezuela May Host Russian Strategic Bombers

From the Monroe Doctrine:

Our policy, in regard to Europe, which was adopted at an early stage of the wars which have so long agitated that quarter of the globe, nevertheless remains the same, which is, not to interfere in the internal concerns of any of its powers; to consider the government de facto as the legitimate government for us; to cultivate friendly relations with it, and to preserve those relations by a frank, firm, and manly policy; meeting, in all instances, the just claims of every power; submitting to injuries from none. But, in regard to these continents, circumstances are eminently and conspicuously different. It is impossible that the allied powers should extend their political system to any portion of either continent, without endangering our peace and happiness: nor can any one believe that our Southern Brethren, if left to themselves, would adopt it of their own accord. It is equally impossible, therefore, that we should behold such interposition, in any form, with indifference. If we look to the comparative strength and resources of Spain and those new governments, and their distance from each other, it must be obvious that she can never subdue them. It is still the true policy of the United States to leave the parties to themselves, in the hope that other powers will pursue the same course.

A major reason why the United States still exists is that we have been able keep the rest of the world out of our hemisphere. There is nothing like the protection that our two oceans have provided. But even more importantly, it has been our resolve to keep the Americas, both North and South, (mostly) free from foreign involvement that allowed the greatest country in history to grow and prosper.

If Obama doesn't respond to Russia quickly and decisively... well, I personally do not like talking about my death or my country's, but Russian bombers are built to kill. And the only thing worse than having Putin controlled bombers just off our coast is allowing Russia, and the rest of world, to think that we are not willing to defend ourselves.

How will Obama respond? I think I know. But to that nonresponse, I hope we still have time for the American people to re-evaluate their ideas, and stand up for their sovereignty, their lives, and their future. American was and still is the greatest country in the world. To the extent this is true, it is not because of religion – every country has religion – and it is definitely not because of altruism and statism, every dead and dying country has had that one. It is because of our core principles of individualism, justice, and freedom. Without these, we are no different, we have no unique value, and quite frankly we would have no justification for keeping the Russians out. We have a right to exist, because we respect, value, and defend the rights of the individuals who make up this country. Using the line that should have been in our Declaration, individuals were born equally free and independent. This is what is worth fighting for, this is why we should be telling the Russians to “get the hell out, or else”.

In countless ways, America is facing its end; how we stand up when faced with evil, win or lose, says everything there is to say about the soul of our country. There is no question our foundation was strong, and that we have right on our side, but the question that is now being made crystal clear is, do we have what it takes to save the United States of America?

“Stay the hell out, or else!” Is the only proper response. I also love idea blowing up a dozen or so airfields in Venzuela every time Chavez opens his mouth.

Obama's Version of "It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is"

2009-03-10T12:20:00.003-04:00

Rational Passion has a nice little ditty on Obama today: Confirmation From Obama Himself!

Global Capitalism: The Cure for World Oppression and Poverty

2009-03-01T10:52:00.003-05:00

Economic and political education for Americans

"What deeper principles make possible the freedom and wealth enjoyed under capitalism—and lacking in its political antipodes? How has capitalism already greatly enhanced the lives of millions of human beings in formerly impoverished Third World countries? What can the men of the free world do to further promote the spread of capitalism into the repressed nations of the globe? These are the questions Dr. Andrew Bernstein addresses in his talk."

Global Capitalism: The Cure for World Oppression and Poverty, by Andrew Bernstein (video)

Your Nest Egg on the Government Bailout

2009-02-27T10:33:00.002-05:00

Thank you to Diana Hsieh at Noodlefood for this gem:

Why We Still Can't Trust the Republicans

2009-02-15T23:12:00.003-05:00

Get this: a Republican senator appears more in favor of outright nationalization of our banking system than the majority Democrats!

Graham Wouldn't Reject Idea of Nationalizing Banks

Note that Senator Schumer (D-NY) hits the nail on head in saying that the government "is not good at making these decisions" about loans. It does make one wonder why he thinks the government is good at making many other decisions that should properly be done by private individuals, but we'll let that go.

Also, as leftist Representative Maxine Waters points out, major banks are already on the path to being completely nationalized, but even she's not stupid enough to call for something so politically risky.

This is yet another reminder that the Republicans' recent expulsion to the political wilderness was well-deserved.

Obama: The Geat Economist

2009-02-09T21:31:00.005-05:00

"Some of the criticisms really are with the basic idea that government should intervene at all in this moment of crisis. Now, you have some people, very sincere, who philosophically just think the government has no business interfering in the marketplace. And, in fact, there are several who've suggested that FDR was wrong to interfere back in the New Deal. They're fighting battles that I thought were resolved a pretty long time ago."

It's so nice when I get referenced in a presidental address!

"Most economists almost unanimously recognize that, even if philosophically you're -- you're wary of government intervening in the economy, when you have the kind of problem we have right now -- what started on Wall Street, goes to Main Street, suddenly businesses can't get credit, they start paring back their investment, they start laying off workers, workers start pulling back in terms of spending -- that, when you have that situation, that government is an important element of introducing some additional demand into the economy."

What can one say, most economist are wrong. From history's greatest economist, Jean Baptiste-Say:

"[O]f all the means, by which a government can stimulate production, there is none so powerful as the perfect security of person and property, especially from the aggressions of arbitrary power. This security is itself a source of public prosperity, that more than counteracts all the restrictions hitherto invented for checking its progress. Restrictions compress the elasticity of production; but want of security destroys it altogether. To convince ourselves of this fact, it is sufficient to compare the nations of western Europe with those subject to Ottoman power. Look at most parts of Africa, Arabia, Persia, and Asia Minor, once so thickly strown with flourishing cities, whereof, as Montesquieu remarks, no trace now remains but in the pages of Strabo. The inhabitants are pillaged alike by bandits and pachas; wealth and population have vanished; and the thinly scattered remnant are miserable objects of want and wretchedness. Survey Europe on the other hand; and, though she is still far short of the prosperity she might attain, most of her kingdoms are in a thriving condition, in spite of taxes and restrictions innumerable; for the simple reason, that persons and property are there pretty generally safe from violence and arbitrary exaction.

"There is one expedient by which a government may give its subjects a momentary accession of wealth, that I have hitherto omitted to mention. I mean the robbery from another nation of all its moveable property, and bringing home the spoil, or the imposition of enormous tributes upon its growing produce. This was the mode practised by the Romans in the latter periods of the republic, and under the earliest emperors. This is an expedient of the same nature, as the acquirement of wealth by individual acts of illegal violence or fraud. There is no actual production, but a mere appropriation of the products of others. I mention this method of acquiring wealth, once and for all, without meaning to recommend it as either safe or honourable. Had the Romans followed the contrary system with equal perseverance, had they studied to spread civilization among their savage neighbours, and to establish a friendly intercourse that might have engendered reciprocal wants, the Roman power would probably have existed to this day."

Thank God He is Still Not My Boss!

2009-02-09T16:13:00.002-05:00

“There will be a time for [Wall Street executives] to make profits and there will be a time for them to get bonuses. Now is not that time.” So said President Obama on January 29 to reporters (source: “The Kudlow Report,” CNBC)."

Obama has no business telling anyone, including bankers, how much their time is worth. Given that Obama has free room, board, and travel for the next four years maybe he should refuse/return the $400,000 he is being paid each year.

I highly recommend:

As Wall Street Bonuses Go, So Goes the Liberty of All of Us by Raymond C. Niles

In celebration of freedom, Obama calls for slavery

2009-01-22T14:28:00.003-05:00

In his inauguration speech, Obama praised the progress of American liberty making it possible that “a man whose father less than sixty years ago might not have been served at a local restaurant can now stand before you to take a most sacred oath.” Truly, the success of the Civil War and end to slavery, and the Civil Rights Movement, are achievements worthy of the highest praise for the freedom they brought to millions of Americans. And what does this “freedom” mean? It means the freedom to live and pursue ones happiness, to set goals and pursue them independent of the whims and dictates of others, whether they be the laws of an English tyrant or the commands of a slavemaster.

Yet Obama focused not on the great rewards of freedom but the “sacrifices borne by our ancestors”. He described freedom as “that great gift”, the result of the struggle of men and women who “sacrificed and worked till their hands were raw so that we might live a better life.” And, he told us, this is a gift we must “deliver safely to future generations.” The scene he described is heartbreaking: those who fight for freedom live only to bring happiness to others, their own lives wrought with suffering. Freedom is something not fought for and earned for ourselves, but pursued selflessly to benefit others; this, ignoring the fact that in every fight for justice those heroes fought for justice in their own lifetimes, not out of a duty to the unborn. They fought for their rights and the rights of their loved ones, not for the rights of unnamed masses. The fight for individual rights is and always has been a selfish one. And it is this selfish pursuit that distinguished our Founders and the soldiers in the war against England - their love of life and defense of their right to live it for themselves – from the parasitical English government and its armies marching to the tune of King and Country. Freedom is a fight for the individual against the collective. It was the Americans who fought for their lives, while the English fought to sacrifice theirs. Yet Obama claimed that America’s history is a legacy of sacrifice.

This package-deal of freedom and sacrifice lays the foundation for Obama’s call to service. In the name of freedom, we must serve. In the name of freedom, we must give up freedom. The Founders “sacrificed”, and in honor of them and as a sign of “patriotism”, so must we:

We honor them not only because they are guardians of our liberty, but because they embody the spirit of service; a willingness to find meaning in something greater than themselves. And yet, at this moment - a moment that will define a generation - it is precisely this spirit that must inhabit us all.

Of course we knew of Obama’s call for national service during his run for office, and we’ve all seen the YouTube clip of then Senator Obama telling “Joe the Plumber” that “when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.” What is new is the idea of service and “spreading wealth” aka socialism in the name of liberty. Obama tells us that this is what the Founders had in mind all along! That “liberty” was simply their code word for “sacrifice”, and that just as they laid down their lives for us, so we will be expected to lay down our own lives “in the spirit of service”.

What I find especially perverted about this charade is the throng of black supporters who champion Obama as the next Martin Luther King Jr., as the next civil rights leader. This man, who they claim is the symbol of liberation, who is the embodiment of hundreds of years of struggle to escape slavery and persecution, now tells us we must sacrifice this very freedom and become slaves to each other of our own free will. And his followers love him for it.

Obama's Historical Ignorance

2009-01-20T13:51:00.006-05:00

I will have more to say on President Obama's Inaugural Address later, but I couldn't get past this blatent factual error right at the beginning:

"Forty-four Americans have now taken the presidential oath."

That is incorrect. Forty-three Americans have now taken the presidential oath. Grover Cleveland had two non-consecutive terms and is counted as our 22nd and 24th presidents.

But then, do you really expect Obama and/or his speechwriters to be knowlegeable about this piece of trivia when they and countless Americans are ignorant of so many more important facts of our nation's history?

Latest American Auto Ad

2008-12-15T15:21:00.005-05:00

This latest ad from the Big Three really hits the nail on the head:

The Republicans Haven't Learned Yet

2008-12-08T19:44:00.009-05:00

A sign that things are likely to get worse before they get better for the Republicans:

Huckabee, Palin top list of 2012 GOP contenders, poll says

If the two most religious personalities of the 2008 campaign are now leading the polls for 2012, the Republicans are almost assured of minority party status for years to come. (Of course, this does not take into account the likely possibility that Democrats could make incredibly suicidal mistakes during that time as well.)

Ideas Matter

2008-11-11T21:50:00.006-05:00

Thomas Sowell has an interesting article on the National Review website:

Intellectuals: Ignorance has consequences

What I find most interesting about this article is the lack of a punchline. Mr. Sowell seems to want to be making a case that ideas do matter, that leftist are not the intellectuals they think they are, and that the right needs to be intellectual. But he does none of these things.

In fact, in an article that Mr. Sowell subtitled "Ignorance has Consequences", he actually ends the piece with the following lines:

It would be no feat to fill a big book with all the things on which intellectuals were grossly mistaken, just in the 20th century — far more so than ordinary people.

History fully vindicates the late William F. Buckley’s view that he would rather be ruled by people represented by the first 100 names in the Boston phone book than by the faculty of Harvard.

My hope with an Obama presidency is that the Right will be encouraged to become intellectual. Without positing positive ideas and defending capitalism on moral grounds, we cannot protect ourselves against Obama and the left. Sowell is not yet doing this, although, I think it is clear he is wanting to.

Another step in this direction comes from Jonah Golberg:

Individual liberty is meaningless (or, more fairly, near meaningless) without at least somewhat free markets. Property rights and free markets are inextricably connected. As Milton Friedman put it, "A major source of objection to a free economy is precisely that it ... gives people what they want instead of what a particular group thinks they ought to want. Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself. ...

... So, whether you're right or not, the case for defending the free market is not purely a matter of empiricism. It is a moral obligation for those eager to defend freedom.

Sowell and Golberg are two of best on the Right, but that is not saying much when most of the right is still hell bent on trying to use Jesus to defend America, freedom, and apple pie.

Capitalism is the only moral political system; the only system that is consistent in protecting the rights of individuals -- the rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. The punchline line should have been that a politics of rational self-interest is morally superior to a politics based on "we are our brother's keepers".

There are intellectuals, books, and ideas that we can use to support America and capitalism. The right needs to embrace these ideas and thinkers. The faculty of Harvard does not hold a monopoly on ideas, nor a trademark on intellectualism.

Barack Obama is pushing the right out of their comfort zone. I do not know what this will mean for our future, but unless the right starts recognizing actual defenders of capitalism and freedom -- John Locke, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Bastiat, Jean Baptiste Say, and most importantly Ayn Rand -- we are lost.

If you want to see an article that actually makes the case that ideas matter, I recommend Ayn Rand's "Philosophy: Who Needs It?

Why America Must Be Saved First

2008-11-10T06:34:00.005-05:00

What we do, the world does: China announces $586 billion stimulus plan

No matter how much most the world hates and envies America, we are still the standard, even today, of freedom, liberty, and capitalism. And what we have done the past few months is show the rest of world how to destory capitalism.

Mike Huckabee: I Smell A Contradiction

2008-11-09T15:41:00.003-05:00

First: Mike Huckabee: Is America A Theocracy?

Then: Mike Huckabee wants to replace the Constitution

No matter what this man parrots about small government and freedom, even a chance that Republicans could make this man their presendential candidate in 2008, 2012, or 2016 makes me very happy that the Obmessiah came along when he did.

Obama is the worst thing imaginable, save for Arkansas's very own Mike Huckabee.

Huckabee: Divine Providence Helps My Poll Numbers

Environmentalism: Let's Be More Like North Korea

2008-11-09T12:48:00.004-05:00

Environmentalism: What is it? An Interview with Peter Schwartz

Economics 101: Inflation

2008-11-09T10:43:00.009-05:00

LA Times: On store shelves, stealthy shrinking of containers keeps prices from rising

“Inflation” is defined as “undue expansion or increase of the currency of a country, esp. by the issuing of paper money not redeemable in specie” (Random House Dictionary). It is also interesting to note that the word “inflated” is defined as “distended with air or gas; swollen.”

Are you complaining about shrinking containers on your local grocery stores shelves? Thank government intervention -- the Stimulus Package, the recent government bailouts and takeovers, increased federal spending, the Fed, and whoever else thinks that turning the printing presses on every other day has no consequences.

Yesterday, I signed a lease on a 2008 Honda Civic Sedan. Base price: $18,200. I purchased a comparable car 16 years ago for under $10,000. Yes, the new car has a lot of great improvements, however, the difference in price was not because I now have a CD player or airbags, but because of inflation.

As with computers, in a free market, our dollars will consistently buy more over time. Innovation and competition force prices down while driving profits up. In a unfree market, innovation and competition are stymied, while taxes are increased.

My real dollars from 2008 are worth less than they were in 1992. There is no one to blame but the government. Inflation is nothing more than a hidden tax.

All that said, I love my new car. Replacing my used 1998 Honda Civic, which I bought two years ago, with the new 2008 model was one of best upgrades I have ever made. It is still America, and values are still available for our enjoyment. But boy, it would have been nice to see what I could have bought if it wasn't for the past 16 years of growing government intervention, inflation, and taxes.

The Danger of Environmentalism

2008-11-09T10:35:00.005-05:00

"[O]bserve that in all the propaganda of the ecologists—amidst all their appeals to nature and pleas for "harmony with nature"—there is no discussion of man's needs and the requirements of his survival. Man is treated as if he were an unnatural phenomenon. Man cannot survive in the kind of state of nature that the ecologists envision—i.e., on the level of sea urchins or polar bears. . . .

In order to survive, man has to discover and produce everything he needs, which means that he has to alter his background and adapt it to his needs. Nature has not equipped him for adapting himself to his background in the manner of animals. From the most primitive cultures to the most advanced civilizations, man has had to manufacture things; his well-being depends on his success at production. The lowest human tribe cannot survive without that alleged source of pollution: fire. It is not merely symbolic that fire was the property of the gods which Prometheus brought to man. The ecologists are the new vultures swarming to extinguish that fire."

[Ayn Rand (1971), "The Anti-Industrial Revolution," Return of the Primitive, 277.]

The Danger of Environmentalism

FDR: Obama's Blueprint to Economic Depression

2008-11-09T08:59:00.004-05:00

The Good Intention
As a road to a better economy, an old idea gains ground

The Road to Hell (i.e., the fact)
The Cause and Consequence of the Great Depression

Going Out of Business Sale!!!

2008-11-08T10:25:00.002-05:00

G.M. Says U.S. Cash Is Its Best Hope

Sounds to me as if it is time to have a sale, let the employees go, and close the doors.

In America, when companies are no longer profitable, they go out of business!

Related Link:

So why can't GM be allowed to go into bankruptcy?

Obama Choice

2008-11-08T09:46:00.000-05:00

Amir Taheri's Bam's Iraq Choice is all well and good, but the real question to ask is not when Obama is going to leave Iraq, but instead, is he going to do something about Iran, Saudia Arbia and Syria.

Obama's WealthSpread

2008-11-08T07:39:00.000-05:00

After all my recent posting and research for this blog, I think it is time for a little humor:

Stimulus Package II

2008-11-08T06:53:00.000-05:00

Like a bad Hollywood movie, President-elect Barry is in the process of creating a sequel to this summer's stimulus package. With all the talk about a second package, I have heard no stats, figures, or reviews of the first. It is as if such facts would just get in the way.

While doing a bit of research, I came across the following article on the subject:

A Second Economic Stimulus Bill Will Fail—Just Like the First

The Ominous Parallels

2008-11-08T06:28:00.000-05:00

Some of the "ominous parallels" between pre-Hitler Germany and the United States that Leonard Peikoff identifies are:

Liberals who demand public control over the use and disposal of private property — social security, more taxes, more government control over the energy industry, medicine, broadcasting, etc.

Conservatives who demand government control over our intellectual and moral life — prayer in the schools, literary censorship, government intervention in the teaching of biology, the anti-abortion movement, etc.

Political parties devoid of principles or direction and moved at random by pressure groups, each demanding still more controls.

A "progressive," anti-intellectual educational system that, from kindergarten to graduate school, creates students who can't read or write — students brainwashed into the feeling that their minds are helpless and they must adapt to "society," that there is no absolute truth and that morality is whatever society says it is.

A student radical movement (from the 1960's through the violent anti-nukers and ecology fanatics of today) who are, Peikoff maintains, the "pre-Hitler youth movement resurrected." The radicals are nature worshippers who attack the middle class, science, technology, and business.

The rise of defiant old-world racial hatreds disguised as "ethnic-identity" movements and "affirmative action."

A pervasive atmosphere of decadence, moral bankruptcy, and nihilist art accompanied by the rise of escapist mystic cults of every kind — astrology, "alternative medicine," Orientalists, extrasensory perception, etc.

The Ominous Parallels, by Dr. Leonard Peikoff was published in 1983. It is as relevant and important now as it was then.

"Freedom is slavery"

2008-11-07T13:45:00.001-05:00

The "Office of the President-Elect" has announced that Obama

will call on citizens of all ages to serve America, by developing a plan to require 50 hours of community service in middle school and high school and 100 hours of community service in college every year. Obama will encourage retiring Americans to serve by improving programs available for individuals over age 55, while at the same time promoting youth programs such as Youth Build and Head Start.

They include a quote from the man himself at the top of the page:

When you choose to serve -- whether it's your nation, your community or simply your neighborhood -- you are connected to that fundamental American ideal that we want life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness not just for ourselves, but for all Americans. That's why it's called the American dream.

Rolling Backouts: From Ocean To Ocean

2008-11-07T12:59:00.001-05:00

The Problem
Taking California's rolling blackouts nationwide: Al Gore group urges Obama to create U.S. power grid.

The Solution
Property Rights and the Crisis of the Electric Grid, by
Raymond C. Niles

Darn, I'm Not a Racist!

2008-11-07T09:59:00.000-05:00

I was just getting used to the fact that I was a racist simply because I called Obama a socialist, or because I refused to vote for him.

But today I come to find out that I am not a racist. Oh well, there is always tomorrow.

No hidden white bias seen in presidential race

Michelle Malkin has an interesting post on the subject:

New national anthem: “My president is black”

If only the t-shirt read:

Front: I'm Not A Racist
Back: My President is Black

From Ahmadinejad To Obama

2008-11-07T09:36:00.000-05:00

Simply Disgusting:

Ahmadinejad congratulates, cautions and advises Obama

From Leonard Peikoff's 2001 article, End States the Sponsor Terrorism:

If one were under a Nazi aerial bombardment, it would be senseless to restrict oneself to combatting Nazi satellites while ignoring Germany and the ideological plague it was working to spread. What Germany was to Nazism in the 1940s, Iran is to terrorism today. Whatever else it does, therefore, the U.S. can put an end to the Jihad-mongers only by taking out Iran.

Eliminating Iran's terrorist sanctuaries and military capability is not enough. We must do the equivalent of de-Nazifying the country, by expelling every official and bringing down every branch of its government. This goal cannot be achieved painlessly, by weaponry alone. It requires invasion by ground troops, who will be at serious risk, and perhaps a period of occupation. But nothing less will "end the state" that most cries out to be ended.

In 2001 George W. Bush was face with the following choice

The choice today is mass death in the United States or mass death in the terrorist nations. Our Commander-In-Chief must decide whether it is his duty to save Americans or the governments who conspire to kill them.

Bush made the wrong choice, but we survived. Obama will soon be faced with the same choice, I hope Obama makes the right decision before it's too late.

When Obama And The GOP Agree

2008-11-07T08:53:00.002-05:00

When Obama and the GOP agree, you can be assured they are both wrong.

From Marriage Endures on the National Review website, the NR editors write:

The Arizona win, reversing a defeat for a marriage amendment in that state in 2006, also restores to state marriage amendments an unblemished record of victory: They have won in 30 out of 30 states where they have been on the ballot.

What lesson can we take from Tuesday’s marriage victories? Here’s one obvious one: Americans still care a great deal about this issue. The California supreme court may have believed that the public would acquiesce when it foisted same-sex marriage on the state earlier this year. But the successful campaign to overturn its ruling was an astonishing effort, unprecedented for a social issue, that raised more than 100,000 volunteers and almost $40 million from over 60,000 donors.

How have the leaders of the movement for same-sex marriage responded to their California loss at the ballot box? The same way they usually do: by getting lawyers to make ever more outrageous arguments to impose their values on unwilling people.

Here is an excellent post over at Noodlefood on the subject: ARC and Obama on Gay Marriage

I have repeated this idea many times in recent posts, but man am I happy to be able to distinguish myself and my positions from Obama, the National Review, the Democrats and the Republicans all at the same time. I love it when Obama and the National Review agree, because the ideas that underlie both are what needs to be refuted for America to survive.

**

At least there is one issue that voters under 30 are completely wrong about:
The Gay Marriage Perplex

More Good From The Right, But Lots to Learn

2008-11-06T12:15:00.001-05:00

When not in power, individuals on right speak as if they actually have brains.

"Freedom works because it liberates the human spirit and removes barriers to achievement." -- Michael Knox Beran

Obama’s Paradox

Unfortunately, they are still the Right, and I think it is going to take quite a long time for them to learn all they need to be true defenders of Capitalism.

Take this quote for example, from the same article:

Particular emergencies require energetic government, and there are times when people need a helping hand. President-elect Obama’s challenge will be to find ways to give people that helping hand without raising up massive and all but ineradicable bureaucracies that degrade the human spirit by taking away from citizens decisions they must make for themselves, and by insulating them from the consequences of their actions.

...

In the long run, however, it is the initiative of free people that solves problems and improves the quality of life. Exaggerated rhetoric about the failure of free markets should not be permitted to obscure that basic truth.

To defend America and free markets, defenders of Capitalism must be more precise.

There has not been 'exaggerated rhetoric about the failure of free markets', there has been flat out lies. Free markets have not failed; America has not had completely free or even partially free markets for quite some time. In fact, it is the unfree markets (banking, housing, automotive, energy, and transportation) that are doing the worst. These are the industries that have required bailing out over the past eight years.

Again, Bearn wrote, "Freedom works because it liberates the human spirit and removes barriers to achievement". This is quite poetic and moving, but it loses all its punch when he follows it up with: "Particular emergencies require energetic government, and there are times when people need a helping hand."

Capitalism works, full stop.

Capitalism is moral, full stop.

America's capitalistic system created the freest, wealthiest, most powerful country in the world, full stop.

Millions of people, from hundreds of countries, of countless cultures, races, creeds and ethnicities choose to live together in the U.S. precisely because America protected and defended the individual, full stop.

These are facts that the Right needs to learn, needs to understand the causes for, and needs not compromise when defending the American System.

For those interested, I recommend the following video:

Capitalism Without Guilt: The Moral Case for Freedom

Why I'm not terribly worried

2008-11-05T22:02:00.001-05:00

I saw the headline for this article on CNN.com, and I just had to laugh out loud:

Obama should govern from middle, Pelosi says

This is a representative of one of the most liberal districts in the country advising one of the most liberal senators in the country. It goes to prove that both parties value holding onto power over principle. If you thought the Republicans were offering Democrat-lite for the past eight years, don't think we won't see some Republican-lite from the new party in power. They will do it just to avoid completely wrecking the economy and being ignominiously booted out in the next election cycle.

See, it won't all be a disaster. Some moments over the next four years might even be fun!

Conservative Candidates Who Stand for Something

2008-11-05T20:25:00.000-05:00

Besides the irony in the phrase, "conservative candidates who stand for something", posts like these are why I abstained while still hoping for an Obama victory yesterday:

It’s the Republicans, Stupid

The more explicit the Democrats are, the easier it is for the Republicans to see where their true allegiance lies.

“If the GOP wants to win 60 million votes in future national elections, it has to stand for something other than being Democrat Lite. The Republican Party needs clarity, purpose, and most importantly, an end to the hypocrisy of talking smaller government while porking up their districts. When given only a choice between real Democrats and fake Democrats, Americans will choose the former, which we found out in 2006.” -- Ed Morrissey

If eight years of Obama gives of some real Republicans, I am going to start looking forward to voting for Obama in 2012!

Barack Obama Had to Lie

2008-11-05T14:15:00.000-05:00

Myrhaf has an excellent post... a must read:

The Bright Side

My only disagreement/issue with what he wrote is this line:

"Remember, the Jimmy Carter presidency led to the second best president of the 20th century, Ronald Reagan."

Just to be clear, four years of Obama will not be enough. The Republican party is so bad, so corrupt, such a tangle of its own evil (The Religious Right to list the first and biggest evil of the GOP), that we will need at least eight years of Obama in order to push the Republicans back to right and purge them of their worst elements.

If Obama can be bad, but not bad enough to kill us, yet still win in 2012, Huckabee, Palin and the Religious Right will be a non-factor in 2016. But then again, it may take twelve years of this mess to clean out the Republican Party!

Whether it takes eight or twelve years, I for one say it is worth it. I cannot and will not vote for Palin or Huckabee in 2012 or 2016.

I do not want the second best presidency of the 20th century. America cannot afford that; what we need is much closer to the second best, if not best presidency since 1789. Regan was the first presidency of the Relgious Right, I am hoping George W. Bush was the last.

"What do we do now?"

2008-11-05T14:01:00.000-05:00

For anyone who has seen the Robert Redford movie "The Candidate", you'll be familar with the title of this post. In the movie, liberal senatorial candidate Bill McKay (Redford) increasingly spouts platitudes and empty rhetoric as his chances of defeating the incumbent senator improve. After he actually does win the election, the only thing he says to his campaign manager is the question quoted above. The End.

I've long viewed Obama as a real-life Bill McKay. He's a leftist, to be sure, but he's run a campaign high on lofty rhetoric and short of specifics. He's been running for president for almost two years, and even now I don't know what he really wants to accomplish in office. I'm not even sure Obama himself knows. The Obamessiah has promised his supporters and admirers everything short of healing the sick and turning water into wine and loaves into fishes. Watch as they slowly become disillusioned that their savior doesn't actually walk on water. A good post on that subject can be found here.

I would expect there to be some overreaching by the new Obama Administration, as there usually is the first year after an election. Thankfully, these attempts, such as HillaryCare under Bill Clinton, are usually beaten back down quickly. The only specific legislation I can predict in 2009 are changes to the tax code, as was the case in 1993 and 2001. Whether or not the changes specifically follow Obama's campaign promises remain to be seen. I'm still waiting for the middle-class tax cut that Bill Clinton promised in 1992.

All in all, there's not much to become excited about until we see some specific actions from the new president-elect. Stay tuned...

Obama and The Virtue of Selfishness

2008-11-02T08:44:00.000-05:00

The blogosphere has been abuzz the past few days given Obama's recent attack on the virtue of selfishness:

"The reason that we want to do this, change our tax code, is not because I have anything against the rich," Obama said in Sarasota, Fla., yesterday. "I love rich people! I want all of you to be rich. Go for it. That’s the American dream, that’s the American way, that’s terrific.

The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month – then guess what? Everybody starts spending that money, they decide maybe I can afford a new car, maybe I can afford a computer for my child. They can buy the products and services that businesses are selling and everybody is better off. All boats rise. That’s what happened in the 1990s, that’s what we need to restore. And that’s what I’m gonna do as president of the United States of America.

John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic," Obama continued. "You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

To repeat, I am abstaining from the election on Tuesday. My personal opinion is that both candidates this year are so vile that the argument for choosing the lesser of two evils simply does not apply. But that said, there is a part of me which is rooting for an Obama victory (although, another part is screaming, 'stop it, are you stupid?' at the top of its metaphoric lungs.)

The potential good that can come from an Obama victory is that Obama is a naked statist, a somewhat clothed Marxist, and an intellectual -- whereas both Bushes, Clinton, Reagan, and Carter had at least a few ideas, most of the reasoning for their decisions came from experience and emotion. Clinton and George W. looked to past experience, other people, and their gut for answers. However, Obama's first response is to look to ideas. He may make decisions based on his experience, other people, and his gut, but when he goes to defend those ideas to himself and others he knows on some level that ideas matter and he must give an ideological defense of his decisions. He simply cannot point to history, religion, or his feelings. He must explain.

Intellectualism is a great trait, especially in good people. Obama is not a good person, but Obama's interest in fundamental ideas may just be the thing that saves America. Obama, unlike Bush or McCain, will state his principles. He will undoubtedly be on the wrong side of every issue, but the important thing is he will not be in the middle and the issues will be stated: altruism vs selfishness, the group vs the individual, emotion vs reason. Obama is not always clear, but he is so persistent with his message, that as with his recent virtue-of-selfishness comment, clarity does come out.

Our current set of pundits -- Limbaugh, Hannity, Goldberg, Sullivan, and Beck -- are awash in their own contradictions and the current administration's. Each of them to one degree or another has the right ideas and the right sense of life. However, given their own errors, they have been unable during the past eight years to properly distinguish Bush's good traits from his bad; Bush's heroics from his compromises; Bush's good principles from his evil ones. They could not support Bush's good values while condemning his errors, because Bush is not an intellectual and they are not first-hand, first-rate intellectuals. This lack of ability to distinguish the truth from the garbage made Obama vs McCain possible.

When Bush tries to support capitalism by invoking Jesus, Jonah Goldberg must know on some level this is wrong. But Goldberg is unable or unwilling to tell the world what capitalism does rest on and why that foundation is morally good. When Rush Limbaugh tries to defend capitalism, he makes it all the way down to the fundamentals of life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness, but then he gets himself tangled up with "the principles of conservatism" [sic] and the desire for his party to win and is unable to find the principles that would undo his tangle. Thereby losing the opportunity to teach his audience anything that would actually save them from statism -- whether it come in the form of Obama or in the form of McCain and Palin.

Obama, on the other hand, does and will make the issues clear -- if only accidentally. The issues since the 1850s, if not since the founding of the country, have been of the form individualism vs collectivism. Does the individual have moral worth and value on his own, or does an individual only have moral worth once he is part of a group? But rarely have these issues been made explicit, especially of late.

In America, from some of our very first colonists, the individual was the standard of morality. America became the freest, the richest, and the most powerful country in the world because it enshrined the standard of individualism within its Constitution, in its Bill of Rights, and in its very soul. In collectivism, i.e., FDR, LBJ, Jimmy Carter and now Obama, the standard of morality is the group.

The change that Obama will bring over the next decade is that he and his administration will make moral and political ideas explicit. My hope is that this change will be met by independent, rational Americans, who when faced with naked evil will still be willing to fight for their lives and their country. My hope is that these Americans will be willing to crack open some books, and learn how to properly defend themselves against Obama, Marx, Kant, and Plato. By stating that he is fighting against the virtue of selfishness, Obama has given us the opportunity to discuss a very important and fundamental principle, and to introduce those interested in ideas to a very important book. Now, if only our countrymen will be willing to read it:

The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand

LA Times Corruption

2008-10-28T10:00:00.000-04:00

Thanks to Little Green Footballs for this gem.

Rashid Khalidi, Palestinian professor of Arab Studies at Columbia University, is sometimes dubbed a "PLO spokesman". In Daniel Pipes' review of Khalidi's book, Under Siege: P.L.O. Decisionmaking During the 1982 War, he wrote,

Mr. Khalidi suffuses his book with biased terminology. He describes the PLO as "gallant," "scrupulous" and "meticulous." The behavior of Israel, on the other hand, is "deceptive," "ugly" and "ruthless." The PLO always defends itself; Israel always attacks, waging "massive assaults" in a "relentless," "unprovoked," "fierce" or "incessant" manner. Certain phrases are repeated so often that they become incantations. The author refers four times, with the same wording, to Israel's "harsh conditions" for the PLO evacuation of Beirut. Americans get off with being called "presumptuous" and "ludicrous."

Well, according to the LA Times Obama spoke at a farewell party for Khalidi in 2003, and they have a tape of it. From their article “Allies of Palestinians see a friend in Barack Obama”:

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases… It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world." [bold added]

Khalidi responded that, "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances."

The article is full of praise for Obama, extolling his even-handedness and support from Palestinians and Jews alike. But the LA Times refuses to release the tape.

Yesterday LGF posted a response from Readers’ Representative Jamie Gold,

Thanks for your note back. It sounds as if you don’t find “mere reporting” to be enough, but The Times is not suppressing anything.

Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light.

Thanks again for taking the time to write.

Suppress: to withhold from disclosure or publication (truth, evidence, a book, names, etc.)

Yeah. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Redistribution by any other name…

2008-10-27T11:58:00.000-04:00

I almost feel bad for Obama campaigners. Here they are just trying to help their candidate win the election, and the worst threats to that come not from their opponent but from Obama’s own mouth. Victory depends on shielding people from the reality of what this man believes, but that’s a full-time job when that man just won’t shut up!

Back in 2001, Obama is on tape criticizing the Civil Rights movement for not going one step further and redistributing wealth.

The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth and sort of basic issues of political and economic justice in this society, and to that extent as radical as people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn't that radical,

...

It didn't break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as it has been interpreted.

And the Warren court interpreted it generally in the same way -- that the Constitution is a document of negative liberties, says what the states can't do to you, says what the federal government can't do to you, but it doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf, and that hasn't shifted.

And I think one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement was that the civil rights movement became so court-focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and organizing activities on the ground that are able to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change, and in some ways we still suffer from that,

So here we have Obama on tape complaining that the Constitution is a document of “negative liberties”, when it should also say what government “must do on your behalf”. Now first of all, this is a terrible package deal. Both negative and positive liberties say what a government must do. Negative liberty refers to a freedom from something, rather than to something. For example, the US Justice system was designed to protect us from force and fraud. But is this a definition of what that system “can’t do to you”? Not at all. After all, if you do engage in force and fraud, what the system can do is lock you up! And it does this on behalf of others, so that they remain free.

But by making it seem that a document of negative liberties is missing something, missing a definition of what government can do, Obama slips in the idea of positive liberties. He does this so subtly, one would think that negative and positive liberties were simply opposite sides of the same coin. Positive liberties, however, refer to liberties to things, for instance commodities. Well, where do these commodities come from? They come from other people! We get food from the grocer, medical care from our doctor, and other goods and services from countless producers working in our economy. A positive right to these things would mean that we are entitled to them. Forget payment, we should just get these things for free! To protect that right means the use of government powers to ensure that people get what they’re entitled to, to take from those who produce and give to those in need. Sounds familiar, doesn’t it? In one deft move, Obama smuggles in socialism. The Civil Rights movement, he says, failed to overthrow our Constitution and create a socialist system.

Wow! Now that’s quite a problem for the campaign though, isn’t it? All these accusations of Obama being a socialist, and it’s getting so difficult to escape the burden of the evidence. This time Bill Burton of the Obama campaign rushed to the rescue, claiming that what Obama is saying in the tape is people relied too heavily on the courts, and that change should come “from the bottom up”, “bringing people together at the community level and getting everyone involved in our democratic process.”

Nice try. Democratic process? Doesn’t a “democratic process” only come into the picture when you’re talking about political change? It doesn’t involve the democratic process when one person gives a dollar to another. I only need the government if I want to force him to do it. So when Obama says that the civil rights movement lost track of organizing activities “to bring about the coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change” and that “we still suffer from that”, isn’t he saying that we failed to get government to redistribute wealth? And that this is a bad thing?

Hmm, yes, it’s getting awfully difficult indeed.

Biden Interview

2008-10-26T12:22:00.001-04:00

Rational Passion put me on to a recent Biden Interview.

Although, I cheered Barbara West on and loved watching Biden's reactions to her questions, I had no plans to post the video. I was just too busy today to consider blogging... that is until I read the following on the Fox News Election website:

Barack Obama's campaign killed all interviews with a Florida TV station after Sen. Joe Biden, the Democratic vice presidential nominee, faced tough and critical questions from a reporter at the Orlando station, the Orlando Sentinel reported .

During a satellite video Thursday, WFTV's Barbara West quoted Karl Marx and asked Biden how Obama's comment to "Joe the Plumber," about spreading the wealth wasn't being Marxist.

"Are you joking?," Biden asked.

West replied, "No."

Click here to watch the interview.

Later in the interview West questioned Biden about his comments that if Obama wins the election next month, he would be tested early on as president and wanted to know if Biden was implying America was no longer the world's leading power.

"I don't know who's writing your questions," Biden asked her.

The Obama camp then killed a WFTV interview with Biden's wife Jill, according to an Orlando Sentinel blog.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign, according to the Sentinel.

Fox link

Orlando Sentinel link

I am posting this under solutions, because if more reporters like Barbara West would just ask the right questions, politicians could not get away with half of the stuff they are and are wanting to pull.

The fact that Obama and Biden continue to respond to good questions and correct accusations with misdirection, claims of racism, and evasion, shows how morally and intellectually bankrupt they are. As always, the game is ours to win. Not in 2008, but sooner than I have ever thought.

My Sentiments Exactly

2008-10-25T18:39:00.001-04:00

This put a smile on my face today:

From Rational Jenn: My Sentiments Exactly

Left Liberal Insanity

2008-10-22T20:12:00.000-04:00

Drudge, Goldberg, Rational Passion, and Witch Doctor Repellent have all linked to or commented on this story.

For the third time in two weeks, I have to tip my hat to With Doctor Repellent for the best one liner: Is "columnist" a code word for retarded?

In my previous post, Obama Supporters, I commented on the stupidity of Obama Supporters specifically, and the American People in general.

In this post, my shock, disgust, and utter incomprehensibility is directed squarely at Obama's intellectual and pundit support.

When I first followed the link from Rational Passion to the article on the Midwest Voices website, I had to read the short four paragraph post, "Shame on McCain and Palin for using an old code word for black", three times before I could accept that the post was not a parody.

Since it is so short, and I have provided the link above, I am simply going to quote it all:

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Shame on McCain and Palin.

The only response I think one should make to this is:

Just because some people rightly or wrongly called some other people socialists, and that when they did so this first group of people may or may not have been racists, doesn't mean that when I call Barrack Obama a socialist that I am being racist. The second does not follow first, and in fact neither proposition has any business being put together in a sentence much less the same article.

Fact: Barrack Obama is a socialist/fascist
Fact: In the past (and the present), some people were racist
Fact: In the past (and the present), some white people called some black people socialists.
Fact: In the past, some black people were socialists (God forbid, even some people listed in the quoted post above)
Fact: I am not a racist, I am not being racist by stating a fact.
Fact: Even when racists call Obama a socialist, they may be racisit, but Obama is still a socialist.

I really don't care what color Obama is. And to prove it I will say not only is Obama a socialist/fascist, but so is Biden, so are both McCain and Palin, so is Hillary Clinton and so is Nancy Pelosi. Now if merely pointing at reality and calling a spade a spade makes me a racist. Then Barrack is a socialist and I am proud to call myself a racist!

* See above facts. Barack is a Socialist. I am not a racist.
* I agree, I am using my terms a little loosely by using Socialist and Fascist almost interchangeably. The point is that Obama and McCain posses elements of each. If you want details, simply listen to them. They both support redistributing wealth. They both support nationalization and regulation of business. They both think the government can place restrictions on what we do and don't do to our bodies. They both support compulsory education. Neither understands on any level what it means to have a separation of church and state. Do I need to continue? Both are bad. Very bad!

Obama Supporters

2008-10-22T07:51:00.000-04:00

From a link on the Drudge Report: Obama pays uneasy visit to a N. Carolina barbecue joint

When Sen. Barack Obama entered a barbecue joint here to greet dozens of people eating lunch after church services on Sunday, Diane Fanning, 54, who works at a Sam's Club, began yelling, "Socialist, socialist, socialist — get out of here!"

It was unclear whether Obama heard her in the noisy restaurant, but others clearly did. One man standing next to Fanning, Lenox Bramble, 76, flashed an angry look at her. "Be civil, be courteous," he admonished her.

Another woman, Cecilia Hayslip, 61, yelled back at Fanning, "At least he's not a war-monger!"

In no universe is this a valid argument. Obama is a socialist/fascist (depending on what side of the bed wakes up on in the morning). This is a fact. The proper response if you are an Obama supporter is either to defend socialism (ha!) or to reexamine your world view and not support either candidate.

But there is no argument for, or purpose in, responding to the assertion that Obama is a socialist by claiming Obama's opponent is warmonger. The second statement is in no way a defense or refutation of the first. Before America can be fully saved from a complete collapse, Americans must learn how to think.

Sacrifice: the elephant in the room

2008-10-21T13:06:00.000-04:00

Not long ago, McCain criticized Obama because of some things he said to answer a voter's question. Then a strange thing happened. The papers pounced…on the voter with the question. The reason? Since the beginning of this election there has been an elephant in the room, an issue everyone was aware of but didn't want to talk about, and this voter had the nerve to call people’s attention to it.

Actually, it wasn’t even Samuel “Joe the Plumber” Wurzelbacher who made the elephant headlines, it was Barack Obama himself. But you can’t very well attack your own candidate if you want him to win, can you? Wurzelbacher wanted to know something quite reasonable – he wanted to know if Obama was going to raises his taxes. Obama’s response?

It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance at success, too. And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

Important rule, if you’re running for President. If you have ideas that are antithetical to the founding principles of the country you’re looking to lead, don’t ever, ever name them. America was founded on “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”, where “liberty” does not mean “liberty to someone else’s money”. Whose wealth do you think you’re “spreading around”, Mr. Obama? Maybe he was betting on McCain’s own altruistic rhetoric and “maverick” self-image (Capitalism? I’m a maverick, I don’t need no stinking Capitalism), or maybe he didn’t think people were really listening. Or maybe he hadn’t slept, was a little cranky and getting tired of having to hide his real ideas from everyone. Whatever the case may be, the McCain campaign took the bait and Obama supporters everywhere had to come up with some way to contain the situation.

John Seewer of the Associated Press argues in this article that although “Joe” objected that Obama’s proposal would hurt his goal to own a plumbing business, he is in no position right now to do this until he pays off his taxes and gets a license. In other words, "he's one to talk, isn't he?" The title of the article? “Is ‘Joe the Plumber’ a plumber? That’s debatable”.

Yes, I’m sure whether or not Joe’s got a license yet is the debate we need to have this election. Maybe we should call back the two candidates and ask them to address this important issue?

Of course the attack is not mere misdirection, but is an admission of the author’s own ideas. The argument amounts to saying, "Ha! He says the government is getting in the way of his dream to own a plumbing business, but he doesn't even have permission to be a plumber yet!" The character attack depends on a socialist premise, the idea that man's rights are conditional, not absolute. He only has the rights allowed by others. His happiness, then, is not his to pursue but the government’s to grant. Any self-proclaimed rights are nothing if the paperwork hasn’t been approved by the state. Pay your taxes and fill out the right forms, and then maybe we can talk about that plan to buy a business. Until then, you really have no place talking about the so-called American Dream.

But the media is secondary. Let's hear it from the man himself:

That basic notion that I am my brother's keeper, that I am my sister's keeper, that we can't rise up if some of us are still down. And it's that principle that got me into politics in the first place, and that's the reason that I'm running for the Presidency.

From the final debate:

So, look, nobody likes taxes. I would prefer that none of us had to pay taxes, including myself. But ultimately, we've got to pay for the core investments that make this economy strong and somebody's got to do it.

And of course, to our plumber “Joe”:

And I think that when we spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.

Note the theme here: sacrifice. Sacrifice, according to Obama, is what makes existence possible. It’s what drives the economy! We have no right to exist without sacrifice, because that would be like cheating other people! “We can’t rise up” he says, until everyone else does. Your personal aspirations are secondary, if not meaningless. What we should be aiming toward is not our own happiness, but the happiness of those either unable or unwilling to take the steps to achieve it. That is “social justice”. You pay because you can. Others ride because they can’t (or won’t). From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. And Obama has admitted that he is running for President because of this principle, that he will use that force of government to compel us to live by his ideas.

But this is not the principle of the American Dream. Did we fight Germany, Japan and the Soviet Union to be free of the arbitrary dictates of other countries, only to submit to those of our own President?

Don’t ask yourself what kind of man “Joe the Plumber” is to plead for his right to pursue his happiness; ask yourself what kind of man would presume to deny it.

The Stupid Party

2008-10-21T07:13:00.000-04:00

Palin on Federal Gay Marriage Ban, Angry Crowds, and Religion

Palin said she wants to speak out for “traditional marriage” and said that marriage between a man and a woman is “the foundation of our society.”

“I am, in my own, state, I have voted along with the vast majority of Alaskans who had the opportunity to vote to amend our Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. I wish on a federal level that that’s where we would go because I don’t support gay marriage.”

Once again, Palin proves she is a card carrying member of The Stupid Party. I am a fan of marriage, and I do not spend much time thing about gay rights. However, I am a strong supporter of individual rights -- mine and others. And I am still somewhat shocked that in 2008 an American Politician could be stupid enough to say that "traditional marriage is the foundation of our society". The foundation of our society is our Constitution, or system of government, our respect for the individual.

I, as a single male, am just as much a part of the "tradition" of America, as gay individuals, and as married couples. The fact that most men and women in American choose at some point in their lives to get married says nothing about the America's traditions. Most people in every country choose to get married. American's traditions are based on productivity, respect for individual rights, and the political philosophy of the rule of law.

Again, this is yet another reason I will not be voting for McCain/Palin. I require the party I support to be a party that actually knows what America is and has the brains to defend it. Barring that option, I would rather die by my enemies hands than the hands of my so-called friends.

**

Capitan America wrote an incredible post, one I am proud to have on the site. If he lived closer I would like to be able to assist him on his wobbly walk to the polls. I understand and respect his position, but I will still be abstaining. One could say that I am simply not as strong as he.

Voting Against Obama

2008-10-20T23:15:00.000-04:00

Some will indeed choose to follow in Sen. Obama's footsteps by voting "present" instead of "yea" or "nay." Abstention from voting when the choices are Dumb and Dumber (or Evil and More Evil) is perfectly reasonable.

I, a guest blogger, have another perspective.

Fascism is the most immediate danger to America. It has long been festering in South America. It is slinking its way across Europe. It has made peace with - and embraced - Marxism. (And why not? The two schools of thought are very similar.) It is the governing methodology of Islamic states and their leaders. (They're not called "Islamofascists" for nothing.)

The spread of Fascism has reached epidemic proportions and little can be done to cure it in our lifetimes. This much is a given fact.

Now a choice between Socialism (McCain/Palin) or Fascism (Obama/Biden) is neither palatable nor desirable, but I believe it to be a necessary one. Consider this:

Many thousands of patriotic Americans died to stop the flood of Fascism (Nazism) in World War II. Others died fighting Communism. The Obama/Biden ticket represents both schools of thought. I, for one, will vote against Obama out of respect for those who died valiantly, protecting America and the American way of life.
Either presidential candidate will expand the brown cloud of collectivism that is gradually covering America. But which one will expand it faster? Neither ticket promises anything even remotely resembling a reversal of this trend. However, I think the Obama/Biden ticket has a high probability of flinging America into full-fledged Fascism like a speeding bullet train. Choosing between a slow death and a faster death is simply disgusting, but if we are to avoid a Fascist state in the immediate future there is little choice but to vote against the Obama/Biden ticket.

In my own blog (The Axis of Weasels) I wrote that there is no discernible difference between the two candidates, and that remains an accurate observation. Either candidate means "We're Screwed '08"™. This is indisputable, but it doesn't mean that no vote is the only reasonable choice; it simply means that one's vote (or non-vote) should be made carefully and with good reason.

I will walk to the voting booth holding an airsickness bag in one hand. I will vote against the Obama/Biden ticket knowing that the odds of slowing down the Fascist freight train are poor but that I must stand in the way. I will acknowledge there is little difference between the two candidates. However - I personally cannot refuse to honor those patriotic Americans who died to save America from the evil of Fascism. This may be my last opportunity to honor them. I do not want them to have died in vain. This year, my vote will serve to pay my respects, both to our World War II heroes and to what America once was and could be again.

I will vote against Obama. He (carefully) projects a messianic picture of "the one" who will save America. His followers treat him as the holy prophet of their (carefully) unstated religion. The mainstream media, aided by Obama's quasi-religious followers, execute rabid attacks against anyone who dares to speak out against the Obamessiah. (Just ask Joe the Plumber.) The idea of a President Obama stirs within me a fear that I will live to see America's first Fuhrer.

I just have to vote against that.

Obama's political campaign has an unprecedented amount of money to play with. Surely many palms have been greased. The mainstream media swoons over every meaningless word that issues from his holy orifice. Voter fraud is at an all-time high. Perhaps the fix is in for the Obama/Biden ticket. Even so, walking unsteadily from the voting booth, I will be able to say that I refused to sanction either the fix or The One™. Choosing between the lesser of two weasels is never a good idea, but sometimes you just have to drink a bottle of Pepto-Bismol and get to it.

To the voting booth I go: left foot .... right foot ... left foot ... airsickness bag ... right foot ...

We're Screwed '08

2008-10-20T21:56:00.000-04:00

Myraf has made an airtight case for abstention in the 2008 presidential election:

The Myrhaf Endorsement: Abstain

In voting for the lesser of two evils, there is only so much evil a voter should be asked to swallow. I will feel better about myself not voting for either Obama or McCain. Whichever one is elected, things will get worse. There are arguments for and against both men; they come out to a wash. Who knows which candidate would end up marginally worse than the other?

I recommend the full article; Myrhaf officially has my vote for pundit of the year!

Abstention is the only option this year. Things are going to bad no matter who wins this year, and probably more of the same in 2012. But with enough work, enough effort, and enough luck we can make a difference in 2016. Who the candidate will be I do not know, and it does not matter. But my goal and my hope is that in eight years the right ideas will be in enough minds that we will again have reason to be optimistic.

Until then, enjoy the fight!

Democracy

2008-10-19T17:47:00.000-04:00

Cranky Hermit has a nice article on the Obama Tax Plan: I am Joe the Plumber

snippet:

It is a very cynical politics that believes that each of us should vote for the politician or party that promises to shower us with the biggest bag of goodies that has been confiscated from other people.

From Thomas Jefferson:

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.

To save ourselves from the the looters, we must remember America was founded as a country of laws, not of men. Our founding principles, our Constitution, was meant protect us and our "goodies", i.e., our property. We, as a country, gave up those principles for democracy and for the idea that the rich must share their wealth with people who could not and did not earn their own.

To save America, it is our Constitution, it is our founding principles, and it is our love of the self-made man that we must regain. That's the change I believe in.

YouTube compilation: What "Change" Means

2008-10-19T10:12:00.000-04:00

Behind poor Presidential qualifications, long-time associations with racists like Reverend Jeremy Wright, terrorist Bill Ayers, and the "community organizers" at ACORN under suspicion by the FBI of voter registration fraud, don't let it be lost in the shuffle that the best reasons for voting against an Obama presidency are his values, what he stands for and what he has publicly said he stands for. He is a Marxist, and Socialism is the change he would bring to America.

Obama has been notorious for vague, emotional language with appeal to words like "hope" and "change". So it is natural to ask, what is he asking us to hope for? What kind of change is he planning to bring? This video compiles clips from speeches by Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, which answer these questions once and for all:

Obama reveals what "Change" Means

Excerpts:

From Barack:

That basic notion that I am my brother's keeper, that I am my sister's keeper, that we can't rise up if some of us are still down. And it's that principle that got me into politics in the first place, and that's the reason that I'm running for the Presidency.

...

But there's always got to be a social responsibility, there has to be a sense of mutual responsibility and there's gotta be political will in the White House to make that happen. That's what I'm committed to doing, that's the reason I'm running for President.

...

...not made systematic investments, and the only way we're going to make it is by making sure that those of us who are fortunate enough to have money actually make a contribution for all the programs we've been talking about tonight.

And his wife, Michelle:

It's not just words when you say we are one anothers brother's and sister's keepers, it begins and ends there.

...

The truth is most Americans don't want much. Folks don't want the whole pie. Most Americans feel blessed to thrive a little bit but that's out of reach for them. The truth is, in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system then someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.

The video features other gems, overlaying them with eerily reminiscent quotes by Marx, Khrushchev, Hitler, and Lenin. Now to be clear, by comparing his words to those of these men I am not claiming that his election would result in the murder of millions of people and I doubt if that was the intention of the creator of the video. What I am saying, however, is that if you value your freedom, then don't remain deaf to transparent calls to "service" and "social justice" or believe that Socialism "couldn't happen in America". It is happening and will happen if we don't stop it.

Bar Stool Economics

2008-10-19T10:09:00.000-04:00

Somehow I had not seen this one before. In case you haven't either, I recommend:

Bar Stool Economics

Politically Incorrect Guide to Politics

2008-10-18T19:09:00.000-04:00

My favorite John Stossel special since 'Greed'. Not the fundamentals, not complete... but my goodness if our politicians which just heed the advice, "Get out of the way!".

Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6

Don't stand for socialist shift in policy

2008-10-18T15:02:00.001-04:00

If America, capitalism, and the right ideas are going to win, this is how it is going to be done:

Don't stand for socialist shift in policy

Inidividual Americans standing up, pointing to reality, and making the issues known via blogs, letter to the editor, op-eds, articles in magazines, letters to their politicians, teaching their students, standing up at PTA meetings, and talking to sympathetic friends and family and members.

We desperately need politicans like Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Thomas Paine, but those politicans cannot exists, and cannot win until enough Americans know that we need them and are literally begging for them. Right now Americans are either begging for Obama or settling for McCain and Palin. Neither of these choices are good for America, and in fact both are variations of the same theme and will make things worse, not better.

But if enough of us make our voices heard, and are eloquent and persistent enough, we can win. Not today, not tomorrow, but in 2012, 2016, and 2020, we will have a chance to put America on the right path. In our own life times we have an opportunity to see the world improve.

Thank you Iris Crockett for your example!

**

As if Iris Crockett's post did not bring enough a smile to my face today, Dr. Helen's post was perfect:

Is It Time to ‘Go John Galt’?

One Liner

2008-10-18T11:48:00.000-04:00

Another Great One-Liner from Witch Doctor Repellent:

Hugo Chavez is right for once

Chavez calls George W. Bush "comrade."

Matthew 25 Network

2008-10-18T11:40:00.000-04:00

I want to be happy about this, because my biggest political hope is that the religious right and the New-New Left (Obama's Left) will recognize their common goals, values, intellectual foundation, and join forces. There by leaving the right free to support unfettered, unregualated, uncompromising capitalism.

That's the hope, that's the dream. But damn, why does it have to be so scary!

Matthew 25 Network

Still I say, bring on The Great Rapprochement!

Law Promotes Discrimination

2008-10-18T11:24:00.000-04:00

Gus Van Horn has a nice post on how discrimination laws are more insidious, more evil, and should be fought much more than discrimination itself:

Law Promotes Discrimination

Who Is Barack Obama?

2008-10-18T07:00:00.000-04:00

Myraf has a post on Obama I recommend,

Who Is Barack Obama?

The still unanswered question about Obama is: what does he want? Does he secretly intend to destroy capitalism from within? Or does he want power to further the welfare state like your garden variety Democrat? How radical is he?

...

Another troubling trend has been the collapse of the conservatives. As altruists they are intellectually helpless against any expansion of state power framed as helping the needy among us. Every year fewer conservatives bother to oppose big government. The more voters depend on government handouts, the harder it is for politicians to advocate any cut in spending.

The trends on the left and the right indicate that we are entering a new period in America. This new period will see the spread of state power and the death of our freedoms, one by one.

Whether or not Obama consciously wants to destroy freedom in America -- and I think that as a "blank screen" he has become more a mixed economy Democrat than any communist -- the welfare state is doing it anyway, crisis by crisis.

Criticizing Obama Does Not Imply Racism

2008-10-12T09:51:00.000-04:00

Witch Doctor Repellent has a insightful, ironic, deep and compelling two line post today: Fidel Castro's distraction

Fidel Castro: Racism in the U.S. keeps many away from Obama.

Reality: Communism in Cuba keeps many away from food.

This post plays nicely along side one from Patterico's Pontifications: Any Argument Against Barack Obama Is By Definition Racist

After eight years of Bush, almost two full years of campaigning for the next president, the past 3-4 months of government intervention and bailouts, I cannot tell you how much I want the Republican Party out, and how much I cannot wait to be able to tear into President Barrack Hussein Obama.

For eight years, I have been apathetic because to say anything negative about Bush and the Republicans was packaged with not defending America, our interests, and Capitalism. America, Capitalism and my private selfish life, are worth defending. And when President Hussein wins, I will be able to clearly and uncompromisingly make my position.

And when making that position, when calling President Hussein a socialist, I will not be a racist. I will be an American.

Ammendum 10/18/2008
Here is another related article on the subject: Who's Playing the Race Card? by Charles Krauthammer