Shouldn't You Be Trying To Nationalize Something?

First off, sorry to all 11 of my readers (hi Mom) for the dearth of posts these past couple of weeks. I haven't quit and Chucky Schumer's Fairness Enforcement Squad has yet to discover my undisclosed bunker deep beneath the Blanchette Bridge. Politics have been a bit trying lately with the November election results. I wouldn't say recent events have depressed me, its more of a fatigue. One of my cardinal rules is not to let events outside of my control influence my quality of life, and there's no way I'd let Barry Obama and Barney "Lisp'n 'n Pimp'n" Frank affect my general happiness. So I've taken a bit of a sabbatical from politics the past few weeks. I've gone out of my way to avoid all news and have thus been a bit out of the loop. Since my blog normally depends on me reading/seeing something that interests/enrages me enough to write, I haven't really had anything to say lately (I'm shocked the internet has been able to continue to function in my absence). That said, politics have managed to invade my retreat from the world, and thusly I am forced to address it in my own insignificant way. What, you ask, has politics gotten its swinish, gormandizing hands upon to rouse me? College Football.

Stay with me here, this is, unfortunately, indeed a political post. Many of you may remember before the election, Barry called for a playoff in College Football on two separate occasions. Never mind that I doubt Barry sees the difference between a Nickle Defense and his Military Budget, there's a bigger issue here than Barry's street cred as far as sports goes. Does the President Elect seek to use the power of the Federal government to institute a playoff?

Let me be clear. I desperately want a College Football playoff. In my opinion it would be bigger than the NCAA Basketball Tournament or, dare I say, even the Super Bowl. The fact that BCS Conferences and University Presidents have blocked the playoff movement makes me so violently angry that I have to fight the urge to stab some cute woodland creature. The shear awesomeness of even an 8 team playoff is the stuff of my wet dreams. That said, how College Football chooses to crown its champion is NONE OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S DAMN BUSINESS.

"But pissed of Midwestern blogger guy," you may ask. "Doesn't Barry have the right to his opinion on a playoff, even if he's going to be Head of State?" Well of course he does. I certainly don't begrudge him his opinion on sports, I happen to wholeheartedly agree with him on this subject (And yes, agreeing with Barry O did take a year off my life just as surely as if you had hooked me up to the torture device from The Princess Bride (Shut up, I'll watch anything with Peter Faulk in it)). My problem is that I don't trust Barry to remain a civilian fan, especially when Congressmen from both sides of the aisle keep proposing that the Federal Government impose a playoff on College Football by law. Seriously.

Just yesterday, 3 Congressmen introduced a Bill to "prohibit the marketing, promotion and advertising of a postseason game as a 'national championship' football game, unless it is the result of a playoff system." This is a Republican. From Texas. Aren't they supposed to be conservative? I know Texas got screwed out of a birth in the National Championship, but do we really need the Federal f'ing Government to remedy this, thereby getting its dirty, dirty, fingers into College Football? The Representative, Joe Barton, explained his position thusly: "In some years, the sport's national championship winner was left unsettled, and at least one school was left out of the many millions of dollars in revenue that accompany the title. Despite repeated efforts to improve the system, the controversy rages on." So what? In 8th grade I didn't make the boys' basketball team despite nailing the frigging tryout. I didn't demand Federal intervention. Do Republicans even know what conservatism means anymore? Less government. Less! Less! Less! Even when we feel the central government may be able to adequately resolve a problem, we seek to restrain it if to do so it must move beyond its specifically enumerated powers. My beloved Missouri Tigers were screwed out of an Orange Bowl birth last season in favor of the Kansas Jayhawks (who are the embodiment of pure evil, I might add). Did I lobby for Lawrence, Kansas to be deservedly destroyed by a tactical nuclear missile? No. Why? Because I'm a freaking conservative. The Federal Government has no right to decide who plays in what game or how.

What could possibly justify Federal intervention? The Interstate Commerce Clause? I'm not quite sure that fits with the founders' original intent. I must have missed the section of the Federalist Papers where Madison elaborates on the Constitution with regards to Collegiate Sports. True, most members of the NCAA Football Bowl Subdivision are government institutions, but they are STATE institutions. The libertarian in me can barely tolerate State funded universities, let alone Federal hegemony over their athletics. Don't even get me started on Title IX. If I could at all alter the Constitution, the Interstate Commerce Clause would be the second to be changed, right after the General Welfare clause. "I Should Have Been More Specific" should be inscribed on Madison's tombstone, but I digress.

There's my rant. I will probably take it easy on blogging for a bit longer. I just can't handle my disgust every time I hear the phrase "Team of Rivals" used to describe Barry's cabinet, and since there appears to be an FCC mandate that "journalists" use this phrase whenever speaking about the future administration, I'll probably be avoiding the news a bit longer, if only to avoid nausea and coronary disease. I hope to get back into it after the holidays, refreshed and ready for the inauguration/deification.

Really?

Take a good, long, look at this ballot and tell me how it is possibly not a vote for Norm Coleman in the Minnesota State Senate race. There's no way. Its not possible for a human being to make this mark in the oval beside Norm Coleman's name without the intention of voting for him. No decent human being could argue otherwise. I know, we are talking about Al Franken here, but he must have some basic (albeit hidden) shred of humanity somewhere within him.

What possible scenarios could explain this ballot's existence in a supposedly good, decent, and well ordered universe if it is not a vote for Norm Coleman? Did the voter have a seizure as he entered the voting booth, pen in hand, yet somehow managed to accidentally submit his ballot to the machine as the poll monitors frantically tried to stop him from swallowing his tongue? Is he a slightly mentally handicapped, schizophrenic, paranoid, psychotic who believes Norm Coleman has been reading his mail, stealing his newspaper, and sodomizing his dog, who upon seeing Norm Coleman's name, shrieked something about the Carlyle Group and the most recent Indiana Jones film as he frantically scribbled x's next to Coleman's name in an effort to emphasize his distaste for the incumbent? Did the voter, being legally retarded, think he was voting for Coleman to be kicked off Survivor?

I suppose no one can really know what this man, woman, or dead ACORN registeree was thinking when they made a mark in the oval next to Norm Coleman's name, but I think the safest assumption would be that they were voting for Coleman. But that's only if we're coming from a position of "ethics" and "faith in Democracy". In a spirit of bipartisanship, I think we should look at it from the Franken campaign's point of view. Put yourself in their shoes. What may seem imbecilic at best to the rest of us makes perfect sense if you're trying to steal an election.

Always Think Ahead

Franz Reichelt presents an interpretive dance on the Obama economic plan:

Reagan's Response to David Brooks

Let Them Go Their Way

Governor Ronald Reagan (R-CA)

March 1, 1975

Since our last meeting we have been through a disastrous election. It is easy for us to be discouraged, as pundits hail that election as a repudiation of our philosophy and even as a mandate of some kind or other. But the significance of the election was not registered by those who voted, but by those who stayed home. If there was anything like a mandate it will be found among almost two-thirds of the citizens who refused to participate.

Bitter as it is to accept the results of the November election, we should have reason for some optimism. For many years now we have preached “the gospel,” in opposition to the philosophy of so-called liberalism which was, in truth, a call to collectivism.

Now, it is possible we have been persuasive to a greater degree than we had ever realized. Few, if any, Democratic party candidates in the last election ran as liberals. Listening to them I had the eerie feeling we were hearing reruns of Goldwater speeches. I even thought I heard a few of my own.

Bureaucracy was assailed and fiscal responsibility hailed. Even George McGovern donned sackcloth and ashes and did penance for the good people of South Dakota.

But let’s not be so naive as to think we are witnessing a mass conversion to the principles of conservatism. Once sworn into office, the victors reverted to type. In their view, apparently, the ends justified the means.

The “Young Turks” had campaigned against “evil politicians.” They turned against committee chairmen of their own party, displaying a taste and talent as cutthroat power politicians quite in contrast to their campaign rhetoric and idealism. Still, we must not forget that they molded their campaigning to fit what even they recognized was the mood of the majority.

And we must see to it that the people are reminded of this as they now pursue their ideological goals—and pursue them they will. . .

I don‘t know about you, but I am impatient with those Republicans who after the last election rushed into print saying, “We must broaden the base of our party”—when what they meant was to fuzz up and blur even more the differences between ourselves and our opponents.

The rest

Arbeit Macht Frei

I never thought I'd see the day when the 13th Amendment became less popular than the 2nd among liberals.

All you young voters who cast your ballot for Obama because he's a rad dude who plays basketball and seems like the type of guy who would reduce a possession charge to a small fine, perhaps you should put away the hacky sack next election and take what your Post Modern Feminist Studies professor says with a grain of salt.

Behold the visionary who will put Obama's brand of National Socialism into action: Rahm Emanuel (History has a tremendous sense of irony doesn't it?)



This pretty much speaks for itself. I don't think I have anything really to say.

Wait, yes I do.

I hate to keep beating a dead Prussian, but do any of you misanthropes who voted for Obama understand what's being so cavalierly described here? Forcing every American of military age into a Civilian Defense Corps doesn't set off any alarm bells in your head? This goes far beyond a draft of some fraction of eligible (male) Americans in a time of war. This is every American in times of peace. Who controls these training camps? Who will train these college age Americans? These are the same intellectual giants who believe their Cultural Studies Professor when he tells them that pre colonial stone age North America was vastly superior to modern Western Civilization. They're very stupid and suggestible. If they can't figure out that "The Flintstones" wasn't a documentary series, what BS is Obama going to feed them?

Further more, who will control this army? The President? What power will Congress have? What will this army be doing? Building windmills? Attacking non union shops? Cutting off aid shipments to Kansas because their farmers refused to collectivize? What is the purpose? If another Katrina hits New Orleans, I don't want to be forced by the Federal Government to go help distribute Federal Treasury money to people who A: Live in a coastal city that is below sea level, and B: Are too stupid to evacuate when a hurricane hits.

How would this help against terrorism? If we had had a vast Civilian Defense Corps on 9/11, what would that have done? We could have poured the entire United States Army into Manhattan and it wouldn't have done a lick of good after the planes hit. In fact it would have hindered relief efforts by clogging up the infrastructure. We already have more than enough government agencies to help (hinder?) in case of a natural disaster or terrorist attack. The only way a Civilian Defense Corps could help is by stopping the attack before it happens. So unless Obama wants to arm us and send us about looking for terrorists, he's just whistling Dixie.

Perhaps all Emanuel and Obama want to do is set this Corps to work building bridges, dams, roads, etc. Taxes will be raised, money will be wasted. Its like the TVA except you have no choice. This is the ultimate form of "community organizing". He has the youth of the whole country to do his bidding. Take a moment to think about this. The President of the United States will have an army at his command to do whatever he wants with, without Constitutional restrictions. Think the 3rd Amendment will apply? These aren't "soldiers", its a "Civilian Defense Corps". Even if Congress has some sort of oversight, do you trust them? Have we as Americans come to the point where we trust the Federal Government with this kind of unrestrained power over our persons?

It will truly be a dark day when draft dodgers who flee to Canada are rightly considered patriots. Oh well, I suppose I'll be able to get a deferment by volunteering for ACORN.

Your Crazy is a Special Kind of Crazy

Are there any liberals out there who are bothered by the Obama personality cult? Are there any who are intellectually honest and will admit that this type of thing is unhealthy in a Democracy no matter what ideology you subscribe to? I believe Reagan was the greatest President of my lifetime (I was a whole 4 years old when he left office) but I understand that he was a flawed human being just like the rest of us. He beat back liberalism (or at least put it on hold for a decade or two) but I've never thought of him as a messiah. He was a politician. A talented politician who subscribed to the same basic ideology that I do, but still a very human politician. While I would be thrilled if a politician could successfully take up the mantle of conservatism as he did, I would never be reduced to a fawning 16 year old female Beatles fan circa 1964.

There seems to be a religious devotion to Obama among many leftists that frightens me not as a conservative, but as an advocate of Democracy. How much power do we want to give him? If you believe he's infallible, I suppose you'd give him as much as you can, whether he wants it or not. I'm sure there must be Democrats who are unsettled by this, especially the secular left who have no place for religion in the public sphere. Or maybe they just believe they are giving the people their opiate. I don't think half the people who voted for Obama actually desire socialism in America, but if they are distracted by emotional attachment, they may not notice what's being done in the name of "change" until one day they wake up and realize that America is now a part of Scandinavia.

Personality cults have a nasty habit of segueing into tyranny. Give one person all political power and ask him to solve all your problems and you end up with a fairly comfortable life -- provided you suspend all independent thought. As long as you believe in him, I suppose you'll believe him when he tells you things are getting better despite your lying eyes. Unfortunately Democracy doesn't work like that, its based on reason, not faith. Conservatives find themselves in this current mess largely because we had faith that George Bush's second term would be markedly different than his first. That Rove and Bush would steer the nation firmly right, despite what our lying eyes saw during the first term. However, Bush was no personality cult. No one deified him. We merely misplaced our trust. We chose to believe that he would act conservatively because we really had no other choice. Who are you going to vote for Kerry? It made the decision more palatable to believe Rove was the genius people said he was and had a secret conservative plan.

Many Obama supporters aren't even that rational. They literally think he will abolish all their anxieties, outlaw their problems with the stroke of a pen. Life doesn't work like that. There is no utopia. There is no Christ-esque messiah save Christ Himself. Does it matter though? Contrary to what many on my side are saying, I don't believe most of Obama's supporters will abandon him when he fails to deliver. I think they've invested too much in him to allow him to fail in their minds. A Judas will be constructed by the masses with the media's help. Most likely a Republican or combination of Republicans. Obama cannot be allowed to fail because a failure of Obama is a failure of his supporters. The human mind doesn't so readily admit that it is that much of a dupe, that much of a fool. This isn't your fault its someone else's. "What do you mean Obama's a failure? Can't you see he's a spectacular success? Can't you see? Don't you have faith?" Its a sad characteristic of humanity that we can so easily bend reality to fit our expectations. A characteristic I fear we'll see more and more of in the future.

Hope can be a very good thing in the proper circumstances. It can see a person through tremendous adversity. But it can just as easily bind them to a failed policy, a failed idea, a failed leader, and when hope fails to bring the change we just knew it would bring, it turns to desperation. I don't claim to know exactly what the future will bring, but I don't think it will be pretty.

You Don't Haggle Over The Price Of Fruit With Someone Who Is Setting Fire To Your House

A new chapter is currently being written in the cumbersome tome The Futility of Being Civil To Liberals by John McCain and Nelson Rockefeller, with contributions from Gerald Ford and Lincoln Chafee (ghost written by Neville Chamberlain). Thinking he could finally get a well deserved free trade treaty with Colombia through congress, George Bush in his meeting with Barry Obama offered to support the economic stimulus package that Nancy "Am I smiling? I can't tell" Pelosi has been clamoring for in exchange for the agreement's passage. I know President Bush's intentions are honorable, but he should know by now not to trust a Democrat. Although there were no aides present in what was supposed to be a private conversation between the current and future Presidents, Obama's aides have managed to promptly leak this information to the press.

Its time we stopped treating negotiations with liberals as if they are conducted in good faith. There is always an ulterior motive. These are not honorable people. Its time we stood up and fought them. Else we end up like Gerald Ford, begging Democrats for money while South Vietnam burns.

You'd Think That Amendment Would Be His Favorite. . .

John Derbyshire at National Review Online points out some scrubbing going on at Obama's policy website change.gov:

I dunno if it was me, but the Obama's Change website has undergone some fast changes of its own.

When I commented on Friday about the pretty-much-compulsory-looking "national service" plan proposed there, the site said this:

… 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 …

It currently says this:

… setting a goal that all middle school and high school students do 50 hours of community service a year and by developing a plan so that all college students who conduct 100 hours of community service receive a universal and fully refundable tax credit ensuring that the first $4,000 of their college education is completely free …

Perhaps someone in the Obama camp glanced at the 13th amendment:

"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime where of the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction. . ."

Liberty is Doubleplusungood

In case anyone of a conservative bent hasn't realized it yet, liberty is fading in America. Progressive liberals are winning and pressing their advantage. Don't pretend to be shocked when you wake up one morning and find that you're in a fascist Nanny State.

The Arizona Supreme Court is on the verge of banning certain terms from all Arizona State courts. What terms, you ask? Surely they must be crude, vulgar terms that have no place in a court of law, correct? Not quite. Here is the list of potentially outlawed words:

Aliens
Illegal aliens
Resident or non-resident aliens
Illegal immigrants
Illegal immigration
Illegals
Immigration epidemic
Immigration crisis
Immigrant invasion
Pro-illegal immigration activists
Open borders advocates
Anchor babies
Proponents for amnesty

Now we can discuss the horrible implications this policy would have for American security if it were adopted broadly, but I think we're facing something much more sinister, and idea that goes beyond the immigration debate. This isn't about winning a debate, this is about stopping a debate. Elements of the liberal movement are literally banning language that is opposed to their ideology. The Newspeak of Orwell's dystopia was largely created by culling the language of politically incorrect words and phrases. How is this any different? If one political group or ideology control the language, how do you argue against them? How do you debate an idea when you're forced to concede the language of your argument at the outset?

Americans and conservatives in particular need to come to a realization and fast: An increasing proportion of the American left are becoming openly fascistic. "Fascist" itself has been coopted by the left. No longer does fascist refer to a Statist who sees totalitarian limits on freedom of speech, the press, and association, among other civil liberties, as preferable in a well run progressive/socialist state. Now days, of course, "fascist" refers to any conservative who happens to have drawn the ire of liberalism. I'm pained to admit that most Americans don't realize that fascism is an offshoot of progressivism, and it doesn't always come with jack boots and patriotic songs. It does however, come with less freedom and more State control over as many aspects of a citizen's life as possible. Controls, for example, like words you may or may not use to refer to undocumented persons who have broken Federal law to enter this country and the issues related to them.

The right had better wake up and prepare for a fight. Otherwise one day when they do choose to stand and fight, they'll find that words have literally no meaning to the left or the American public we'll need to persuade.

Hatchet, Ax, and Saw

Our future as told through Canadian rock:

God Must Have A Sense Of Humor

i⋅ro⋅ny [ahy-ruh-nee, ahy-er-]
–noun, plural -nies.
1: Indianapolis - Lines were long and tempers flared Wednesday not to vote but to get paid for canvassing for Barack Obama. Several hundred people are still waiting to get their pay for last-minute campaigning. Police were called to the Obama campaign office on North Meridian Street downtown to control the crowd.

The line was long and the crowd was angry at times.

"I want my money today! It's my money. I want it right now!" yelled one former campaign worker. . .

Eventually people did start getting paid, but some said they were missing hours and told to fill in paperwork making their claim and that eventually they would get a check in the mail . . .

"It should have been $480. It's $230," said Imani Sankofa.

"They gave us $10 an hour. So we added it. I added up all the hours so it was supposed to be at least $120. All I get is $90," said Charles Martin.

"I worked nine hours a day for 4 days and got paid half of what I should have earned," said Randall Waldon.

Some people weren't satisfied with filling out a claim form for money they felt was still due to them. . .

No Collaboration

The opening shots of the war for the soul of the Republican Party have been fired. . . by the moderates. Not two days after the election, McCain aides are viciously attacking Sarah Palin in a move that seems to me very preconceived, as if this was their contingency plan all along if they lost. Regardless of the validity of their claims (I am skeptical) these attacks have nothing to do with Palin's shopping habits or her intelligence. These attacks are coming this quickly because she's a right wing conservative. The moderates are panicked. They need a scape goat other than McCain in order to keep their grip on the party going into Obama's administration. Palin is an up and coming conservative star ripe for the targeting. If the moderates can succeed in painting the election as a referendum on Palin, they can deflect blame for the plight of the Republican Party.

This is where 2012 starts for us. Conservatives have to win back this party. We cannot let the moderates create a narrative that destroys Sarah Palin and whitewashes their own complicity in our ignoble defeat. If the moderates succeed in reaffirming their grip on the GOP, the consequences would be devastating. Already Democrats are conspiring with Republican moderates to have McCain lead the "opposition" in the Senate. This is what I mean when I say McCain should be nowhere near party leadership in the Senate. This ugliness serves to remind me why I never liked John McCain and why it pained me so much to vote for him. He is no conservative and no friend to conservatives. He is self serving and will destroy party unity to serve his own ends (see the gang of 14). This new found congeniality between McCain and Democrats is telling:

"Before resting from the grueling presidential race, John McCain began discussing with senior aides what role he will play in the Senate now that he has promised to work with the man who defeated him for president."

Hmm. . . I wonder what he discussed with his senior aides?

"The attacks on Ms Palin are set to intensify, with McCain aides keen to dish the dirt on their boss's running mate. One aide estimated Ms Palin had spent "tens of thousands" more than the reported $US150,000. . . Another aide offered the "Wasilla hillbillies" comparison and said the truth would eventually come out."

This is the real, nasty, John McCain. The one who has hated conservatives at least since the 2000 campaign This is the John McCain that I didn't know if I could vote for. This is the John McCain we're now getting. Let me say it one more time: NO. WHERE. NEAR. PARTY. LEADERSHIP. McCain's quasi-liberalism is what got us into this mess in the first place.

Our opposition will be difficult enough without our party leadership openly colluding with liberal Democrats. Remember, "cooperating" with liberals never means that they make concessions. It means you adopt their liberal position or else you are a bitter partisan. Ann Coulter's definition of stare decisis is a perfect description of the liberal attitude toward negotiating with conservatives: "What's mine is mine and what's yours is negotiable." This is what a McCain/moderate leadership means for us. We don't persuade or oppose them, we concede and abdicate in the hopes of getting part of the credit for whatever Pelosi/Reid/Obama do. In short, "me too" liberalism.

This of course is the opposite of what we need. We must be opposition in the fullest sense of the word. No "bipartisanship" or cooperation. Are we conservatives or not? The whites could have avoided many conflicts with the Bolsheviks if they had acted in a "spirit of bipartisanship", but they still would have all ended up living under communism. We must fight them, tooth and nail, and it starts now with the defense of Sarah Palin and unapologetic conservatism.

No Collaboration!

Missouri Backs the Other Guy Against the Communist

I have to say, nothing makes me more proud to be a Missourian right now than the fact that we didn't drink the kool aid. I could care less that we've lost our "bellwether" status. We've gained a "rational" status. My only issue is in the coming War Between the States, Missouri will be allied with Kansas. Damned redlegs!

Our Way Forward

So here we are. First I'd like to apologize to the rest of the world. You may not realize this or you may not want to admit it, but the American electorate just screwed you over, big time. Secondly, all you young "first time voters". As you get older, many of you will realize what you have done. Just know right now that I have no sympathy for you. If I can figure it out this young, so can you. Instead you selfishly voted in droves for the hip, trendy pick because as much as you think you are "sticking it to the man", all you are doing is falling into lockstep with the rest of the misguided misanthropes that make up these fascist organizations we call college campuses, who can't seem to understand that they're not being individualistic by voting the same way everyone else on campus is voting no matter how many piercings they have. Congratulations, you just screwed over the country you're set to inherit. Someday maybe you'll understand that adults don't whine about the costs of student loans and vote a socialist into power. Adults understand that you pay for what you get and act accordingly (they get a job).

That said, we can't play the blame game for very long. We will have to rebuild the Republican Party and the Conservative movement, but we can't afford to neglect our role as opposition. It appears that the Democrats will fall short of the 60 Senate seats needed for a filibuster proof majority. The 40+ GOP Senators had better find a spine and find it fast. I don't buy the Obama as a pragmatist who will govern from the center line we've been fed from people on our own side. Barry will see this as a mandate and an opportunity to reshape this country in the progressive image. There will be at least two years where he will be able to pass whatever he wants if the GOP can't maintain unity against him in the Senate. I know that there are Olympia Snowe types in the Senate who can't wait to cooperate with the Democrat majority, and John McCain's concession speech didn't exactly fill me with hope last night. McCain needs to be nowhere near party leadership in the Senate. The moderates have had their chance this past election, and contrary to popular opinion, more times than not during the Bush administration. Its time for conservatives to rally around someone. We are facing the abyss. Will it be Mitch McConnell? I have my doubts, but we need a strong, steady voice in the Senate. Hopefully we'll be able to utilize moderate Democrat Senators from time to time. Otherwise our last line of defense is the courts.

It appears that the first legislative tasks come January will be the Employee Free Choice Act and the Fairness Doctrine. I don't think that either of these should hold up if brought to the current Supreme Court. However, how long will the court remain constituted as it currently is? Of the current basic conservative majority on the court, Chief Justice Roberts will be 54 in January, Justice Scalia will be 75 in March, Justice Kennedy will be 75 in July, Justice Thomas will be 61 in June, and Justice Alito will be 59 in April. No matter what you think of the Bush administration, part of his legacy will be the presence of Roberts and Alito on the court for the next 10-20 years. The question though, is Scalia and Kennedy. I don't care about the liberal members, if Obama replaces any of them it won't alter the balance of the Court. While Kennedy isn't a reliable conservative vote, he is infinitely better than anyone Obama would appoint. Remember, Obama would choose his justices based on their empathy for certain segments of society and has expressed regret that the courts haven't redistributed American wealth regardless of action by Congress. Scalia and Kennedy must remain on the bench for at least four more years. Even two years would put us in a much better situation as long as the GOP can make midterm gains in the Senate, but experience makes me wary of trusting the courage and resolve of Republican Senators, therefore I pray Scalia and Kennedy can hold out for a Republican administration. This is the most important fight over the next 2-4 years. The only way we may be able to stop Obama is over the Constitutionality of his Legislative agenda. I'm afraid though that there is little that we can do other than pray for the health and energy of the current majority.

What we can do is demand conservatism from the Republican Party. The moderates have had their shot and its been an unmitigated disaster. Its time to get back to our roots. Its time to demand conservative candidates and principles. Fiscal conservatism must be brought back, no more bailouts. Its time to rediscover the Libertarian wing of our party. Don't abandon capitalism. We can't become a "me too" liberal party. Don't run from social issues. California is on the verge of banning gay marriage. Barack Obama wants to reinstitute Federal funding for abortion. The GOP must make a stand in the House and Senate. These are winning issues for us. We must reestablish ourselves as the conservative alternative. The American public hasn't really had one in a while.

It is what it is. Obama has won. We have to deal with it. We have to weather the coming storm as best we can. Do not feel sorry for yourself. We took an awful candidate and tried our best to drag him across the finish line. It didn't work. Live and learn. We'll carry on. Obama didn't forever alter the balance of power in America. We are still a center-right country. Did you notice how many bans on gay marriage passed last night? If we just stand fast to our conservative principles, America will hand us the reigns again. We survived 4 terms of FDR. We survived the Great Society. We survived Jimmy Carter for goodness sakes. America and conservatism will survive Obama, but the Republican Party had better rediscover its convictions, and fast.

Always Back the Other Guy Against A Communist

This is it. Hopefully my fellow citizens don't force me to question my faith in Democracy today, but seriously, if we elect Obama, the electorate is too dumb to be free. There's nothing as tragic as a people willingly shackling themselves. If only Parliament knew that all they had to do was bribe the colonies with other people's money and we'd dance our way willingly into subjugation. We'd even call it "salvation". McCain may be an awful candidate, but he fits my general rule of thumb: Always back the other guy against a communist.

My Closing Argument

Barack Obama likes to frame this election as a turning point. A moment to "make history" in his words. He prognosticates that this is a crucial choice we're making that will determine the future of America. He's right. Tomorrow Americans will cast their vote to decide what kind of America they will live in. Will we be a free capitalist society that understands that with freedom comes risk, that we have a right to pursue happiness, but government should not attempt to guarantee it? Or will we accept the reassuring embrace of the State? Will we sacrifice freedom and leave our well being in the hands of a supposedly benevolent central government? Its a simple choice. Capitalism or socialism. Freedom or totalitarianism. Liberty or tyranny.

John McCain is not a perfect candidate. Many of his views ring with a populism that is little different than Obama's. I admittedly swore to myself long ago that I would never vote for the man. My sheer rage at the Republican Party in nominating him is difficult to express in words. I was determined to punish the GOP by withholding my vote this cycle. I believed John McCain would shatter the conservative base within the party and set the conservative movement back years. This is still true, though the Palin nomination has assuaged some of my fears. But while McCain may destroy the GOP as a conservative party, Obama will destroy America as a relatively conservative country. I feel I don't have the luxury this year of a vote on principle. Barack Obama is too dangerous. He is an admitted socialist and the damage he could do with a Democrat House and 60 friendly Senators is incalculable. A mere cursory examination of his past words and affiliations reveals Obama to be a radical leftist. He sees America as a guilty society who's "salvation" can only be achieved through collectivization and redistribution of wealth. His domestic policy is premised on the idea that the American system of capitalism is inherently unfair and must be remedied with an increasingly powerful and intrusive central government freed from the shackles of Constitutional limitations. His foreign policy is premised around the notion that America is the cause of the worlds problems, that we are too powerful and must submit to the wishes of the UN and the international community whose intentions are not compatible with America's best interests.

Its a shame that my case for John McCain is all about Barack Obama, but this election sadly is all about Barack Obama. McCain's involvement is only peripheral, at least for me. As Thomas Sowell put it, the only man who can get me to vote for John McCain is Barack Obama. It is unfortunate that the Republican Party has served up such an inept challenger to the closest thing to a marxist ever hoisted upon a presidential ticket. America should have a choice between two contrasting world views, if only we had nominated a clear, conservative voice. Barack Obama should be facing a 49 state landslide. Instead America faces a second "New Deal" from a man who has openly lamented the failure of the courts to impose socialism upon us. Just as I voted against John Kerry in 2004, I find myself voting not for John McCain, but against Barack Obama. 4 years of bloated Federal budgets and apparent wholesale abandonment of conservative principles have severely jaded me, but I know that I'm voting for the lesser of two evils. I know a McCain administration will enrage me on a regular basis, but an Obama administration will probably lead me to question my faith in humanity. I'd much rather regret McCain nominating another O'Conner than Obama nominating another Ginsberg.

So America will have to decide. Liberty or Statism. A Constitutional Republic or an almost theocratic socialism that hearkens back to the days of the Social Gospel with all the fascistic tendancies that come with it. While our current situation is immeasurably better than the Great Depression, Obama seeks to take us back to it, or at least back to the Depression mindset. So we will make a choice forced upon us on Tuesday: Freedom or insulation. The uncertainty of adult life, or the safety of childhood. The freedom to fail, or freedom from responsibility. Individuality or collectivization.

Everything within the State, nothing outside the State, as an Italian chap once put it. This is what we face Tuesday. So if you're a McCain supporter, go vote tomorrow. Don't be surprised when the media tries to discourage you and paints the early returns as precursors to a landslide. They're uneasy. Its not supposed to be this close. If you're an Obama supporter, I'd ask that just because you're afraid to be an adult, don't force the rest of us to be children. However, in the spirit of non partisanship, I wish you a pleasant day as you vote yourself a share of the National Treasury. Unless, that is, you work for ACORN, in which case I wish you a safe trip as you attempt to vote in every County in Ohio.

You Want To Make History? Let's Talk About History

Considering Constitutional scholar and Law Professor Barack Obama's regret over the restrictions placed on the government by the Constitution (a legal document) and its failure (or as I like to put it, "runaway success") to guarantee a right to your neighbor's property, I thought that maybe we should consider what the founders thought on the subject:

“When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”
-Benjamin Franklin

I suppose that means the Republic has been on the down slope since the ratification of the 16th Amendment (which may not be legal). I guess Barry's going to make America great again by destroying the Republic and calling Ben Franklin an old fool.

“To take from one, because it is thought his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers, have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, the guarantee to everyone the free exercise of his industry and the fruits acquired by it.”
-Thomas Jefferson, letter to Joseph Milligan, April 6, 1816

So the author of the Declaration of Independence saw redistribution of wealth as a violation of every man's right to the fruits of his own labor. Oh well, what did he know about freedom and tyranny?

“A wise and frugal government … shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
-Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

So President Jefferson would see Barry Obama as unwise, unfrugal, and an advocate of "bad government". Remember though, Barry was President of the Harvard Law Review. He surely knows more about good government than Thomas Jefferson.

“Congress has not unlimited powers to provide for the general welfare, but only those specifically enumerated.”
-Thomas Jefferson

Not according to the Warren Court which wasn't that radical according to Barry.

“The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence. If ‘Thou shalt not covet’ and ‘Thou shalt not steal’ were not commandments of Heaven, they must be made inviolable precepts in every society before it can be civilized or made free.”
-John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America, 1787

Harsh words for Barry from another Founding Father. Does Barry seek anarchy and tyranny? All he wants to do is render the legal document that defines the government of our union null, void, and meaningless. Its not like he launched his political career in the house of an avowed anarchist or anything like that.

“I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.”
-James Madison, 4 Annals of congress 179 (1794)

Does that put "spreading the wealth" out of the question? What did Madison know anyway. He's only the Father of our Constitution.

“…[T]he government of the United States is a definite government, confined to specified objects. It is not like the state governments, whose powers are more general. Charity is no part of the legislative duty of the government.”
-James Madison

So whenever someone talks about America's duty to help out the less fortunate in America (those richer than only 90% of the rest of the world) it flies in the face of what James Madison believed the Federal government's purpose was when the Constitution was ratified? Surely they teach this at Harvar- . . . never mind.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it.”
-Benjamin Franklin

So the best way to help a poor person is not to enable them in their poverty but to motivate them to pull themselves out of it? Well, if that were true, then how did poverty completely end after the Great Society programs?

“The Constitution only gives people the right to pursue happiness. You have to catch it yourself.”
-Benjamin Franklin

So happiness is not supposed to be benevolently bestowed upon us by the State? Huh, who knew?

I hate to say it Barry, but I think your "change" is the type of thing Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, and the Constitution specifically intended to stop. But what do they know? They were only the most famous of the greatest collection of men assembled at one place and time in History. You were President of the Harvard Law Review!

Read more quotes at Conservative Colloquium and The Reference Frame.

So That's What He Means

Finally, we know what Obama means by "change". Obama's own words from a Chicago Public radio interview in 2001:

"But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think 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. . . (The Constitution) Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted. . . one of the. . .tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change."

Glad we cleared that up eight days before the election. Thank goodness there's still time for the media to apologize to everyone they labeled as "right wing lunatics" for conjecturing that Senator Obama may be a marxist. I'm sure all the big news organizations will lead with this revelation tonight.

Also, should (God forbid) Barry win the election, can we have him hooked up to a lie detector on inauguration day when he swears to "preserve, protect, and defend" the Constitution of the United States?

I Have a Bit of a Problem With the Way the News Is Covered

Via a new favorite Patterico:

"When I first met Barack Obama, he was giving a standard, innocuous little talk in the livingroom of those two legends-in-their-own-minds, Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. They were launching him--introducing him to the Hyde Park community as the best thing since sliced bread. His "bright eyes and easy smile" struck me as contrived and calculated--maybe because I was supporting another candidate. Since then, I've never heard him say anything new or earthshaking, or support anything that would require the courage of his convictions. I only voted for him in this last race--because his opponent was a pinhead. And I've been mostly alone in my views. But maybe that's changing."

This post has since been removed, I wonder why?

I hold the media solely responsible for the ascendancy of Barack Obama. I've always had a mild disdain and aloof contempt for the likes of CBS, NBC, the New York Times, etc., but it has never developed into vitriol. I viewed these DNC mouthpieces from the perspective of an enlightened one. How could they hurt me? I bear the knowledge of the truth, what this country was, what it is, what it should be. I was firm in my principles and therefore confident that none of the trite rubbish they publish could affect me. I never imagined they could raise up a marxist like Barack Obama purely by their own machinations, while at the same time hiding his true identity. My naivete is gone, and along with it my detached amusement. All I feel now is complete, utter, hatred. I hate their smug condescension to the average American. I hate their pretense of objectivity. I hate their bold faced complacency in the collectivization of America. I hate their brazen distortion and suppression of facts. I hate their misrepresentation of opinion as fact. I wholeheartedly despise their gilded facade of professionalism. I take an unhealthy joy in every drop in ratings or circulation they endure. I just, unrepentantly, hate them.

I don't hate Barack Obama. I dislike him, and I despise his conscience misrepresentation of himself, but I don't hate the man. (FYI, I do and always have hated John McCain) I lay this all at the feet of the main stream media. Its one thing to be admittedly leftist. I don't begrudge anyone their opinion, but when you portray yourself as the objective arbiter of facts as you shoehorn a borderline trotskyite into the office of the Presidency while burying his true nature behind fluff pieces and pictures of him playing basketball, you aid and abet in the destruction of America as it was founded. That I cannot forgive. If Barack Obama is elected by an electorate with the understanding that he is a moderate, I shall become a swirling ball of seething hatred and vile repugnance. I pray it doesn't affect my objectivity, but I don't think I can supress this creeping revulsion that is wrapping itself around my soul. I fear that I won't be able to step away from the brink when socialism comes to America in an empty suit. Instead I'll willingly take the plunge into a deep, blood red, sea of frothing abhorrence. I'll be here blogging if you'd like to come along for the ride.

Shame on Lewis Diuguid

Barack Obama is a socialist, plain and simple. He believes in a planned economy, an extremely progressive tax code, and he wants to allow the central government to intrude in almost every facet of our lives. (except if a doctor wants to kill a newborn, government's not allowed to intervene there) Obama has said this himself with his words and political platform. Socialism is socialism.

Unless that is, you're on the left and "socialist" is one of those nasty labels (like "liberal" last election) that reveals a leftist identity that you've been trying to hide from the public. So the world must be removed from public discussion. It must be twisted to mean something very foreign from its actual definition. How can we do that? Lewis Diuguid of the Kansas City Star knows how. Not satisfied with his last name merely being a palindrome, he has decided to make it synonymous with the slow death of intellectual freedom:

"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."

I know how you feel, I had a stroke the first time I read this as well. So now we on the bigoted, race baiting, right aren't allowed to call advocates of wealth redistribution "socialists" if they happen to be half black. Diuguid goes on:

"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. . ."

Anyone familiar with my blog will know that I believe Barack Obama will be the the most socialist President we've had since the Great Society. In other words, he'll be on par with LBJ and FDR -- two white guys. Unfortunately, socialism doesn't discriminate. Its been advocated by every race on planet Earth and as an ideology, its responsible for the deaths of Europeans, Africans, Asians, South Americans, Arabs, and just about any other race you can think of.

Now, if you want a term that actually has come to be associated with black people, you have one in "civil rights". The NAACP is not the oldest civil rights organization in the United States. As a commenter points out, the National Rifle Association outdates it. The NAACP was founded in 1905. The NRA was founded in 1871.

As for the NAACP, it was cofounded by Mary White Ovington, a member of the Socialist Party. I criticize the NAACP not because it is a black organization, but because it promotes socialism like other leftist organizations such as the ACLU, and NOW. If a black person or organization is socialist, its not racist to call them such.

"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."

Now its time to take a journey to cliche land. This tactic is Orwellian in its suppression of free discussion. In newspeak, the term "free" couldn't describe political freedom because the concept no longer existed. You could freely use the word because half its meaning had been torn away. The previous sentence would be impossible. Unfortunately the concept of socialism does still exist, but the word will lose its meaning if people like Diugiud have their way. The easiest way to stifle discussion is to literally take away words. "Liberal" no longer means liberal, "socialism" no longer means socialism, "marxism" no longer means marxism. If one is no longer allowed to use terms to describe someone's ideology, one is extremely handicapped when trying to defeat that person in the marketplace of ideas.

Shame on Lewis Diuguid. Barack Obama is a socialist.

All We Really Need to Know

France chooses Obama over McCain 64%-4%. So Obama has the support of a stagnant, socialist State with a 35 hour work week, rampant unemployment, an openly rebellious and violent muslim population, and who hasn't won a military conflict by itself since the turn of the century. I wonder why they like Barry so much?

Think There Won't Be Another Great Depression? Just Wait for the Next New Deal

The consequences of an Obama Presidency are vast and terrible. And, as Michael Medved explains, for all intents and purposes, irreversible.

Why Labels Are Important

Barack Obama appears to be poised to win the office of the Presidency with a socialist platform. How did this happen? The United States of America smashed socialism decades ago, at home and abroad. Why then, are we now embracing it? I think the answer is that we're not embracing it. We're embracing a candidate, Barack Obama. I don't believe that most Americans are aware of Barry's radicalism. America is a center-right country. Barry knows this and has adjusted his rhetoric accordingly. He says he'll give 95% of Americans a tax cut. Sounds pretty conservative doesn't it? Except that 95% of Americans don't pay taxes. Giving a "tax credit" to those who don't pay taxes is socialism, welfare, redistribution of wealth, whatever you prefer to call it, except until recently, no one (at least no one connected to the McCain campaign) has called it that. Only during the final month of the campaign does McCain take off the gloves and attempt to warn the American people:

"Barack Obama's tax plan would convert the IRS into a giant welfare agency, redistributing massive amounts of wealth at the direction of politicians in Washington," McCain said in a radio address.

Way to go, but where was this in June? Obama isn't anything fresh or new. He's running on over a centruy of failed policy that is responsible for untold misery and stagnation. He embodies a radical leftism many in America thought we'd defeated and left for dead in the seventies. This should have been a simple exercise for the McCain campaign, the Obama camp is seemingly run by William Jennings Bryan and the reanimated corpse of Friedrich Nietzsche. These ideas and ideologies were long ago discredited. However, McCain has waited until almost the last minute to point this out. If he loses, he can only blame himself.

Was He Waiting for Schieffer to do It?

If Barry Obama is elected on November 4th, he will be the most radical, left wing President in American history. This will happen without the opposition candidate pointing this out to the American electorate. Think all those "undecided independents" would be leaning toward Obama after last night's debate if McCain had detailed how he was a socialist? Johnny is so used to attacking Republicans and conservatives, that he looks lost when dealing with someone truly deserving of his ire: a left wing socialist.

Last night's debate was McCain's perfect opportunity to paint Obama with a socialist brush. It wouldn't have been hard. The debate was centered on economics, McCain had every chance. He properly mentioned Obama's association with Ayers and ACORN, but he didn't tie it all together. Why did Ayers support Obama at the start of his political career? Because Obama is a radical socialist, in line with the views of the SDS and the Weathermen. Why did Obama work for ACORN? Because they actively promote socialism in America. These were softballs lobed to McCain that he didn't swing at. McCain did bring up Joe the Plumber and Obama's "spread the wealth" comment, but once again he didn't tie it together. He never used the "s" word. He never explained why Obama's comment was damaging, what it said about his ideological beliefs. I could be wrong, but I never heard him use the word "redistribution" when talking about Obama, he should have. He should have quoted Marx, that's essentially what Obama was doing: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." This is what "spread the wealth around" means. There is a dangerously high probability that we're going to elect a radical socialist to the office of the Presidency and no one in the McCain campaign or the Republican Party is warning the American people. Why the hell do we vote for them?

Arguing Against Gravity

I was reading a book last night (Dreadnought: Britain, Germany, and the Coming of the Great War, a fascinating book for any history buffs out there.) and I came upon a chapter on the 1906 British election between the Unionist Party (A hodgepodge of Liberal and mostly Conservative MPs united by opposition to Irish home rule advocated by famous Liberal leader William Gladstone) and the remnants of the Liberal party. Not to get into too large of a history lesson, but the Unionist member of the Cabinet who was originally responsible for the split from Gladstone was Joseph Chamberlain. (Father of future idiot Neville Chamberlain.) What I found fascinating was a tidbit about a Liberal MP excitedly showing his wife a newspaper article detailing Chamberlain's new found desire for a tariff which flew in the face of traditional British belief in free trade. The Liberal MP excitedly exclaimed that arguing against the free market was like arguing against gravity and the Laws of Physics. (For any confused American readers, the term "liberal" in late 19th and turn of the century Europe didn't carry the same meaning as it does in our country today. It was more akin to "libertarian" or "classical liberal".)

I must say, it made me a bit nostalgic for an age I've only read about, especially after watching pundits and world leaders proclaim the death of capitalism over the past few weeks. There was once a time, before citizens began voting themselves a share of the national treasury, that elected leaders and the public at large had rational beliefs about economics and complete faith in capitalism. Of course World War I and the ascendancy of Keynesian economics changed that in Britain, and I'm certain that we'll never get to that ideal during my lifetime. (See the Keynesian government bailout approved by both parties and signed by our "conservative" President.) Still, if people and governments were rational once, they can be rational again. After all, arguing against the free market is like arguing against the Laws of Physics.

Obama's Marxist Cousin to Impose Sharia Law in Kenya?

Why are we 3 weeks from election day and no one is talking about this?

About 50 parishioners were locked into the Assemblies of God church before it was set ablaze. They were mostly women and children. Those who tried to flee were hacked to death by machete-wielding members of a mob numbering 2,000.

The 2008 New Year Day atrocity in the Kenyan village Eldoret, about 185 miles northwest of Nairobi, had all the markings of the Rwanda genocide of a decade earlier.

By mid-February 2008, more than 1,500 Kenyans were killed. Many were slain by machete-armed attackers. More than 500,000 were displaced by the religious strife. Villages lay in ruin. Many of the atrocities were perpetrated by Muslims against Christians

The violence was led by supporters of Raila Odinga, the opposition leader who lost the Dec. 27, 2007, presidential election by more than 230,000 votes. Odinga supporters began the genocide hours after the final election results were announced Dec. 30. Mr. Odinga was a member of Parliament representing an area in western Kenya, heavily populated by the Luo tribe, and the birthplace of Barack Obama's father.

Mr. Odinga had the backing of Kenya's Muslim community heading into the election. For months he denied any ties to Muslim leaders, but fell silent when Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, appeared on Kenya television displaying a memorandum of understanding signed on Aug. 29, 2007, by Mr. Odinga and the Muslim leader. Mr. Odinga then denied his denials.

The details of the MOU were shocking. In return for Muslim backing, Mr. Odinga promised to impose a number of measures favored by Muslims if he were elected president. Among these were recognition of "Islam as the only true religion," Islamic leaders would have an "oversight role to monitor activities of ALL other religions [emphasis in original]," installation of Shariah courts in every jurisdiction, a ban on Christian preaching, replacement of the police commissioner who "allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists," adoption of a women's dress code, and bans on alcohol and pork. . .

Initially, Mr. Odinga was not the favored opposition candidate to stand in the 2007 election against President Mwai Kibaki, who was seeking his second term. However, he received a tremendous boost when Sen. Barack Obama arrived in Kenya in August 2006 to campaign on his behalf. Mr. Obama denies that supporting Mr. Odinga was the intention of his trip, but his actions and local media reports tell otherwise.

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama were nearly inseparable throughout Mr. Obama's six-day stay. The two traveled together throughout Kenya and Mr. Obama spoke on behalf of Mr. Odinga at numerous rallies. In contrast, Mr. Obama had only criticism for Kibaki. He lashed out against the Kenyan government shortly after meeting with the president on Aug. 25. "The [Kenyan] people have to suffer over corruption perpetrated by government officials," Mr. Obama announced.

"Kenyans are now yearning for change," he declared. The intent of Mr. Obama's remarks and actions was transparent to Kenyans - he was firmly behind Mr. Odinga. . .

Mr. Odinga and Mr. Obama's father were both from the Luo community, the second-largest tribe in Kenya, but their ties run much deeper. Mr. Odinga told a stunned BBC Radio interviewer the reason why he and Mr. Obama were staying in near daily telephone contact was because they were cousins. In a Jan. 8, 2008, interview, Mr. Odinga said Mr. Obama had called him twice the day before while campaigning in the New Hampshire primary before adding, "Barack Obama's father is my maternal uncle."

Com·mu·nism, noun - Spreading the wealth around.

Does anyone still not understand that Obama is a socialist? On Monday he told a tax burdened plumber that:

"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 for success too. . . My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody . . . I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

In case anybody didn't catch that, Barry is advocating redistribution of wealth. This is a fork in the road for America. Are we going to at least try and keep some semblance of a free market, or are we going to embark down the dark path of socialism and State power? Does anyone really envy Europe or Canada? There's a reason that America is the first power in the world, and its not socialism.

Now Barry, we all know that you do want to punish the rich for their success. That's the big draw of progessivism. You're courting the angry, jealous, and spiteful demographic who are envious of their neighbors, bitter at personal failures, and are indignant the success of others. Taxing the rich doesn't improve the lives of the lower and middle classes, at least not economically. Psychologically, some take pleasure in seeing the rich attacked and their assets seized. This is who Obama is targeting. Socialism never builds "everyone who is behind" up. It drags the successful down.

Unfortunatly, Obama isn't just playing at the baser emotions of some embittered Americans (not the "guns and God" kind), he's a true beleiver. He has been a radical leftist perhaps all his adult life. He wants wealth redistribution on a scale he dare not admit to America. He wants to rebuild America on a new foundation that the founders would find obsene. Let's make no bones about it, redistribution of wealth is State sponsered theft, period. The government has no right to take the property of one American by force and give it to another American who in no way earned it. I can think of no better definition of tyranny. This is why I'm going to drink myself into a stuper and vote for Senator McCain. I can't stand the man, but at least he's not a marxist.

Update: Kudos to the McCain campaign for calling a spade a spade:

"If Barack Obama's goal as President is to 'spread the wealth around,' perhaps his unconditional meetings with Hugo Chavez, Raul Castro, and Kim Jong-Il aren't so crazy -- if nothing else they can advise an Obama administration on economic policy," McCain spokesman Michael Goldfarb said in a written statement to FOXNews.com. "In contrast, John McCain's goal as president will be to let the American people prosper unburdened by government and ever higher taxes."

The Green Movement isn't Pro Growth?

Reuters yesterday:

"A slowdown in the world economy may give the planet a breather from the excessively high carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions responsible for climate change, a Nobel Prize winning scientist said on Tuesday.

Slower economic growth worldwide could help slow growth of carbon dioxide emissions and trigger more careful use of energy resources, though the global economic turmoil may also divert focus from efforts to counter climate change, said Crutzen, winner of the 1995 Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his work on the depletion of the ozone layer.

'It's a cruel thing to say ... but if we are looking at a slowdown in the economy, there will be less fossil fuels burning, so for the climate it could be an advantage,' Crutzen told Reuters in an interview."

Wait, so slowing economic growth is linked to a decrease in CO2 levels? These issues are related? Do environmentalists know this? Do they know that the easiest way to lower CO2 in the atmosphere is to slow, stop, or even reverse economic growth? Thank goodness they don't have questionable motives. Imagine if someone's goal was to slow economic growth because they were say. . . a marxist who hated capitalism. They could use global warming as a decoy issue in order to destroy a pro growth, capitalist economy. Thank goodness there are none of those nefarious characters around.

One Day, We'll Wake Up, And We'll Be In Canada

Much can happen between now and November, but after watching the debate last night, I think the election has become Obama's to lose. Palin did her job slowing the Obama/Biden, but McCain needed to win last night in his favorite "town hall" format to make up ground. He didn't. He said some good things and Obama misrepresented his leftism as usual, but the biggest thing I came away with wasn't a good line or a blatent lie, it was that Obama looked young and McCain looked old. I'm a political junkie, if that's what I came away with, I can only imagine what the average American with a 30 second political attention span thinks.

Is conservatism pretty much dead now in American politics? There was time after time last night when McCain just accepted the liberal premise of the questions and suggested big government solutions. I believe if we had a genuine conservative running who could articulate our positions and challenge the assumptions of the questioners and public at large, we'd be winning this election. Instead we have McCain letting Barry get away with calling health care a "right". If we're going to let liberals make up new rights that defy the actual concept of the "natural right" that America is based upon, what's the point of conservatives continuing to call the Republican Party home? What if McCain wins? How much better than Obama will that actually be? Sure it will put off America's participation in the slow decline of the West for another decade, but after that? Its inevitable without a strong conservative party. We'd be there right now if not for the Reagan 80's. If McCain can't challenge Obama on an issue as fundamental as the nature of rights, can we trust him to challenge Pelosi and Reid? Can we trust the Republicans in Congress? They just helped pass a decidedly nonconservative government bailout.

We need a seachange, no matter who wins this election. I feel that we've ceded back much of the ground we gained after Reagan's victory, and its our own fault. The conservative cause needs new, articulate, true believing, advocates. Neocons are valuable allies, but we've let them seize the Party, and the concept of economic libertarianism has suffered as a result. We can have thousands of bloggers and radio hosts advocating real conservatism, but until we get politicians actively promoting it to the public at large, we will continue to lose ground, even when we win.

Why I'll Vote For McCain (Drunk)

French President (supposed conservative, for France I guess) Nicolas Sarkozy:

"We want a new world to come out of this. . . We want to set up the basis for a capitalism of entrepreneurs, not speculators.''

By "capitalism" he means "heavy regulation of the private sector by an intrusive central government with little knowledge of economics or understanding of the 'invisible hand'", guided by "questionable --socialistic-- political motives"

McCain might (please God) balk at this new order the Europeans desire. Obama will embrace it, as well as the rest of their statist ideologies.

Damned Right I'm an Angry, White, Male!

Obama critic and author of "The Obama Nation" Jerome Corsi has been detained by authorities in Kenya:

"Corsi had promised a news conference today that would 'expose details of deep secret ties between U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama and a section of Kenya government leaders, their connection to certain sectoral groups in Kenya and subsequent plot to be executed in Kenya should Senator Obama win the American presidency.'"

Hmm, combine this with the millions of dollars Obama is allegedly receiving from abroad, and you begin to wonder who is backing his meteoric rise to power. Personally it frightens me a bit that a man who would be the most liberal President since LBJ appears to have such foreign support. D0 we really know anything about this guy? He's a relative unknown with socialist, if not marxist leanings, who has unknown, possibly foreign, backers behind the scenes. Do the American People know this? Is anyone trying to tell them? Do we know the kind of "change" Obama represents? Good Lord! The Democrats nominate a collectivist with more backing abroad than in the States, and all the Republicans throw against him is John McCain?

If Obama is elected, the resulting 4-8 years of socialism wrought on America will be a black mark not only upon the Democrats, but upon the spineless Republicans who were too unprincipled and cowardly to oppose McCain and then speak out against Obama. Why should we vote for you? Even in the minority role, you won't speak out. The reason I'm even considering voting for your nominee is because the other side is rolling out a Maoist. Big changes (1976-80-esque) need to take place in the Republican Party. Even if we somehow redefeat socialism in America, this will be far too close. Remember when wackjob leftists lost in 40+ State landslides? Do today's idiot GOP leaders know how hard the Buckleys, and Hayeks, and Goldwaters, and Reagans struggled on the fringes of American politics to pull this country back from the collectivist abyss? Now we just give all those gains back? We let them create a financial crisis, we let them blame us for it, we let them declare it a new "Great Depression", and we not only let them decide we need "New Deal" type government intervention, we collude with them to do it?!

Its not until now that I understand what it was like for men like Hayek and Buckley, what its like to be a lone voice in the wilderness, "standing athwart history yelling 'Stop!'"

Can "Soft" Fascism Become "Hard"?

Great Britain is rapidly becoming a case study in what Jonah Goldberg calls "soft" or "nice" fascism. A new study at the University of Surry on the impact of food on climate has recommended the rationing of meat and milk:

"People will have to be rationed to four modest portions of meat and one litre of milk a week if the world is to avoid run-away climate change. . . total food consumption should be reduced, especially 'low nutritional value' treats such as alcohol, sweets and chocolates.

It urges people to return to habits their mothers or grandmothers would have been familiar with: buying locally in-season products, cooking in bulk and in pots with lids or pressure cookers, avoiding waste and walking to the shops. . ."

Now, why is this fascist? If you're familiar with this blog, you know that I routinely accuse the environmental movement of marxist intent, and this certainly fits the bill: Returning to the habits of of our grandparents, throwing off the "wasteful" conveniences capitalism has wrought, actually reducing our standard of living for the benefit of the whole. These are all marxist tenants, but fascist?

Fascism and marxism are interconnected, sister ideologies. They both seek State control of the economy, as well as all other aspects of its citizens lives. They are both leftist. I cannot emphasize this enough. Now this study is particularly fascist because of the moral equivalent to war this study seems to be giving the "fight" against "run-away climate change". This is a favorite fascist tactic used by Mussolini and Hitler. Create a crisis to control the people. We must ration ourselves. We must sacrifice. We must trust the State. Some freedoms are now counterproductive to the greater good:

"Tara Garnett, the report's author, warned that campaigns encouraging people to change their habits voluntarily were doomed to fail"

So the State must intervene. The citizens should no longer be allowed to "voluntarily" choose what they wish to eat, where they wish to travel, what they drive, etc.

"(the report says) 'Study upon study has shown that awareness-raising campaigns alone are unlikely to work, particularly when it comes to more difficult changes.'"

We can no longer trust the people to know what is good for themselves. Big Brother --or in this case, Loving Mother-- must intervene.

Now, all western democracies have a certain degree of "soft" or "nice" fascism. But I believe Britain is much further along. The British are already the most watched society in the world. Add in the naziesque attack on cigarettes and personal responsibility, and you have a disturbing trend in British society. The State is taking more and more control over the citizen's life. I wonder whether or not Britain will make the turn from "soft" to "hard" or what you may call a more "classical" fascism. There is a rapidly growing, unassimalated, islamic population in Great Britain who are at odds with British culture, tradition, and government. Something's going to give. If this continues, I believe there's a chance of a civil war. If the muslims prevail, you could have a militant islamic state. What if the Anglo-Saxons prevail though? The framework is already there for a traditional fascist state. Throw in open, violent conflict with a completely different cultural and racial segment of society, and I fear you may end up with fascism everyone can recognize.

This is all speculation, and Britannia may well pull herself back before she goes over the edge --there's already a backlash against the environmentalist burden imposed the British-- but the founders in America who committed treason rather then be denied the inherent rights of the "Englishman" would be appalled over what it means to be one today. There must be consequences. I just wonder what they'll be.