REAL RACISM AND ITS LETHAL CONSEQUENCES

"The most merciful thing that a large family does to one of its infant members is to kill it."
--Margaret Sanger

With the arrival of the first post-racial candidate, Saint Obama, America seems to have embarked upon yet another "conversation" about race. Of course, the Sainted One wasn't talking about that until we found out what a racist loon his pastor and his grandmother, at least by Obama's reckoning, are.


Still, the call is out to bring Americans together and to try to bury this ugly spectre from our sordid past. Or, at least, that's what the Left is claiming. Truth be told, they would never voluntarily let go of racsim and the power it bestows.


It's remarkable how little attention is paid to the intimate connections between the Left and the Democrats and things like eugenics, segregation, Jim Crow, and slavery. Trent Lott says some nice things about a nonagenarian who once was a segregationist, and he finds himself pilloried. Meanwhile, no one says boo about Robert Byrd, a grand wizard from the Ku Klux Klan, who never renounced his allegiance to that sorry organization.


But this isn't about the pernicious double standards of the day. This about institutional racism and the attempt to breed away black Americans. This campaign was spearheaded by that champion of progressive ideals, the feminists' uber feminist, that stalwart pioneer of women's reproductive rights, Margaret Sanger.


Recent discoveries, thanks to an undercover investigation, have shown shown that, as recently as 2006, Planned Parenthood offices in several states, were eager to accept donations from actors who portrayed themselves as bigots. They said that they wanted their donations to go to only aborting black babies. The worst criticism of these remarks came from an administrator at Planned Parenthood, Lisa Hutton, who smirked and said, "Whatever!" Other officials were even less upset. You can see the video made about this investigation here.


In 2004, World Net Daily reported that several black male employees of Planned Parenthood Los Angeles had filed racial and gender discrimination suits against the organization. It seems that white women were harassing and firing the black men. An attorney for two of the claimants said it's "unfortunate to find out that PPLA, as a chief promoter of 'tolerance and diversity' is engaging in what appears to be a most primitive form of hate against its own employees."


Is it surprising? Well, if you really believe that Planned Parenthood is all about "tolerance and diversity", I find that not only surprising, but disturbing as well.

Planned Parenthood is America's largest provider of abortions. That they also provide for other women's health needs is beside the point. It is a statistical fact that most Planned Parenthood clinics are located in minority and urban neighborhoods.


It is probably not surprising that the Almanac of Policy Issues finds that "The abortion ratio for black women (503 per 1,000 live births) was 3.0 times the ratio for white women (167 per 1,000 live births)." That is a stunning figure, given that the Infoplease.com almanac puts the total percentage of the American black population at 12.7% as of 2002.


For an organization as involved with "tolerance and diversity", this is especially telling. Of course, if anyone was at all familiar with the history of Planned Parenthood, its parent (for lack of a better word) organization (The American Birth Control League) and its founder, Margaret Sanger, there would be no surprise at all.


Margaret Sanger was one of eleven children, born of a devout Roman Catholic mother and a socialist activist father. After an unhappy marriage, she began working on birth control issues, ultimately founding the American Birth Control League in New York City with Lothrop Stoddard and C.C. Little. While Little's career seems to be benign, the same cannot be said for Sanger and Stoddard, both of whom were outspoken proponents of eugenics, the process of improving the human race by weeding out the "lesser" breeds.


Sanger often spoke out against the unbridled reproduction of the poor, the mentally and physically deficient and the insane. Of course, she was also including blacks and Jews in that list of deficient gene donors. Of blacks she said: "...human weeds,' 'reckless breeders,' 'spawning... human beings who never should have been born." Of birth control, she said its purpose was "to create a race of thoroughbreds."


Sounds rather Klan-ish, doesn't it? Of course, throughout her career, Margaret Sanger was a speaker much in demand at chapters of the Ku Klux Klan, although she herself thought they were rather dullards. Still, they supported her plans to "purify" the race.


In 1939, Sanger founded the Negro Project, garnering support from many of the black churches of the day, despite the sub rosa element of eugenics and the elimination the blacks. Said Sanger about getting black doctors and clergymen on board with the Negro Project:

"I note that you doubt it worthwhile to employ a full-time Negro physician. It seems to me from my experience ... that, while the colored Negroes have great respect for white doctors, they can get closer to their own members and more or less lay their cards on the table, which means their ignorance, superstitions and doubts. They do not do this with white people and if we can train the Negro doctor at the clinic, he can go among them with enthusiasm and ... knowledge, which ... will have far-reaching results among the colored people

"The minister's work is also important and he should be trained, perhaps by the Federation as to our ideals and the goal that we hope to reach. We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population, and the minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever occurs to any of their more rebellious members."

Lovely sentiments, no? If you think dear Margaret was beyond the pale, you should get a load of Lothrop Stoddard. This guy's writings were avidly read (and tragically implemented) by Adolph Hitler. Eventually, they became the basis for the philosophy of Pan-Aryanism, which has since been embraced by the White Supremacist movement.


These are the philosophical underpinnings of Planned Parenthood: racism, ethnic purity, white supremacy, forced sterilizations, sneaking their murderous schemes under the noses of the very same black intellectuals that they used as their cover.


And their efforts continue to this day, as evidenced by the opening of this essay. It's hardly surprising that the eugenicists were closely allied with the socialists, the conservationists, indeed, every group that, today, would be called Left wing.

Consider issues beyond birth control and abortion. Al Gore and his Global Warmists would deny modernization to the Third World "to avoid the catastrophe" that industrialization would bring to the world, thereby oppressing blacks and other minorities to squalor, starvation, disease and death. Consider that America's drug laws were largely supported with such racist headlines as "Nine out of Ten Rapes Against White Women in the South are the Direct Result of the Coke Crazed Negro Mind". Consider that, the minimum wage was originally touted as a way "to keep the brown and the Chinese people out of our jobs". Look at affirmative action, which tells minorities that they can't possibly make it in this world without white Liberals to give them extra perks.


Yes, the list just goes on and on. But that's just point. When Liberals call Republicans in general, and Conservatives in particular, racist, they are engaging in the most base projection. They are looking at us, seeing themselves, and blaming it on us.


Yup! The Democratic Party and the Left! The Once, Present, and Future Home of Racism in America!


Copyright April 9th, 2008

CAN'T TAKE THE LEFT SERIOUSLY ON NATIONAL SECURITY

Well, we once again have General David Petraeus and Ambassador Ryan Crocker testifying to the Senate Armed Services Committee. Although the Democrats have toned down their rhetoric somewhat -- telling MoveOn.org not to run any "General Betray-us" ads and not stating outright that they think the good General is a liar -- they left little doubt on this, the first day of hearings, that the Left simply cannot be taken seriously on matters of national security.

The New York Times piece on the matter provides the quotes from the various Democratic contenders for the presidential nomination. Clearly, neither of them is ready for prime time.

Hillary, the lovely and talented wife of the priapic Bill, cited what The Times calls "sluggish political progress and a questionable recent Iraqi military campaign in Basra" to make the dubious point that the surge, ably led by Gen. Petraeus, wasn't working. Said the would-be Madame President, “It might well be irresponsible to continue the policy that has not produced the results that have been promised time and time again."

Right! We aren't getting any results. Check your sources, Hillary. Violence all over Iraq has gone down. The Iraqi government has come up with oil revenue sharing plans. Sunnis, once given the cold shoulder in the Shiite majority government, are now taking their places in the government and the military with outstanding results. Oh, and that mission in Basra? Much has been made about the 1000 Iraqi deserters, but no mention of the 96% or more who stayed and fought bravely.

Just a little historical reminder: the Iraqis are trying to do what our Founding Fathers did when they formed our government. They are doing it under fire from outsiders (al Qaeda, Iran, and Syria) and they are doing it in a part of the world that hasn't seen anything like representative government in its entire history, until the founding of Israel in 1948. More importantly, they are doing it faster than our Founding Fathers. If this is failure, than we need far more of it in the world.

Speaking of Iran, none of the Democrats on the Armed Services Committee seemed at all interested in Gen. Petraeus' account of Iranian interference in Iraq, principally among the Shiite militias, but also through their puppet, Syria, which is arming and aiding al Qaeda and other Sunni fighters. It's not as if Iran doesn't have a dog in this fight. If the Democrats get their way, Iran will be left in control of Iraq, whether the Sunnis or the Shiites win out. Either way, they'll be dancing to Tehran's tune.

Which, of course, brings us to the Saintly One, Barak Obama, who spent his time in the limelight on the Committee to restate his view that the Iraq war was a “massive strategic blunder.” OK, so what do we do now, other than turn tail and run?

Elsewhere, Saint Obama has called for direct talks, a "diplomatic surge" he called it, with Iran, saying that "I do not believe we are going to be able to stabilize the situation without that." He also wants to put pressure on the Iraqis to step up to self governance by pulling American troops out. Said His Holiness: "I think that increased pressure in a measured way, in my mind, and this is where we disagree, includes a timetable for withdrawal. Nobody is asking for a precipitous withdrawal."

Did someone say, "Neville Chamberlain"? Saint Obama seems to think that if we just sit down with the mullah-tocracy of Iran and send our troops home from Iraq, all will be suddenly right in the world! Doesn't anyone read history anymore? We are talking about Islamo-fascists. Iran has made countless deals with the West. They've gotten concession after concession. And every one of those deals they have violated. So Saint Obama wants to talk some more? Let me know how that one works out!

While Saint Obama is making his pitch for a "diplomatic surge", it seems that Iran has been honoring past agreements about their nuclear program by announcing the completion of 6,000 new centrifuges to make even more fuel for a power program and, more likely, weapons use. This thanks to the outstanding (well, maybe not) efforts of the UN and the European Community, which has been trying to get Iran to stop.

Clearly, Saint Obama is not at all mature enough, nor knowledgeable enough, to take the helm of this great nation. Negotiating with Islamo-fascists is every bit as futile as negotiating with Adolph Hitler and the Third Reich. It's worse than futile. It lets our leaders slap themselves on the back for a job well done, while the real enemy laughs at our naivete and goes about the business of fascists everywhere: total global domination.

Which, by the way, is also the ultimate goal of Islam itself. On this matter, I don't think that the Republicans are much better than the Democrats. It annoys me to no end when President Bush says that the Islamic terrorists have hijacked a "great religion of peace". Even a casual perusal of the Qu'ran will show you how uninformed that is.

That being said, at least the Bush administration has taken this fight back to the enemy in their lands, rather than here in the United States. Whatever their weaknesses, the Republicans, especially the Conservatives, are far and beyond superior to the Democrats and the Left when it comes to national security.

Let's not forget that, until 9/11/2001, we were getting hit by Islamo-fascists at least once every other year. The Clinton years are especially illustrative. The absolute most that the Clintonistas did against al Qaeda was to fire a few cruise missiles. Even then, they tipped them off by warning Pakistan. Worse, they picked the day the priapic Bill Clinton was waiting to see if he had truly suborned Monica Lewinski's perjury before the grand jury. Other than those less than useless pinpricks, he did nothing!

On the other hand, the case can be made, based upon the afore mentioned statistics, that the Bush policies have actually made Americans safer. After all, how many attacks have we experienced since we invaded Afghanistan and Iraq?

Let me count... Oh! We haven't had any! Yet the Democrats still insist that President Bush has made us less safe than we were in the 1990's.

This is why the Left and the Democrats cannot be taken seriously on national security.

They really don't get it!

Copyright April 8th, 2008

BIG OIL VERSUS BIG GOVERNMENT

Much to do has been made over the profits of Big Oil -- a phrase that is spoken in a way to highlight the apparent Eeeevilll inherent in the engine of our prosperity and our Liberty.

You see, to Liberals, Big Oil (or Big Medical, Big Pharmaceutical, or Big Food) is, without a doubt, the truly besetting Evil of the Modern World. Ossama bin Ladin and Hugo Chavez may be pesky, but it is the world of Big Business (again spoken in ominous tones) that is truly the threat to Life, Liberty, Truth, and the American Way -- provided you define "American Way" as Liberalism run amok.

This week sees executives of the the largest oil producing corporations being interrogated by people in Congress. These Congressmen, given the current majority of the Democrats, have no real knowledge of business nor of the oil industry.

Ah! But they look at the current oil prices, the fact that, as Rep. Eward Markey (D. Ma) says "With gas prices at $3.29 per gallon, the poorest 20 percent of American households are spending nearly 10 percent of their income just on gasoline.'' He also belabors the record profits of Big Oil and the relative little they invest in "alternative energy sources": "Your companies and the Bush administration must support, not oppose, legislation that will unleash the renewable revolution we need to become energy independent and cut global-warming emissions.''

So what is the reality? Gas prices are very high. Oil profits are correspondingly high. Liberals are calling for a "windfall profits tax" to punish oil companies for being successful. It all sounds good, doesn't it?

Reality check: no business, whether a multinational oil company or a Mom-n-Pop corner grocery, pays taxes. I know, I know! They have to fill out all sorts of tax forms, they have to hire all sorts of tax accountants and attorneys to satisfy the bloodless, demented gods of the IRS bureaucracies, and they have to send in checks, amounting to billions of dollars to the government.

But the fact remains: these businesses aren't paying the taxes at all. You, the consumer of the goods and services provided by these businesses, are paying those taxes.

How can that be? Consider what the price of a product includes: the cost of producing it, the cost of materials, the cost of transportation, the cost of labor, and the cost of the taxes levied upon the business that produced that product.

You can't get around it, folks! If you call for a "windfall profits tax", all you're going to get is even higher prices at the pump.

So, then, why don't we forbid Big Oil from passing along the costs of those higher taxes? This way, we'll cut those profits and we won't have to pay the tax!

Sure, we can do that. But can we force any business to remain open if they don't get as much profit as they'd hope for? What if we confiscate all of Big Oil's profits? Where would we get the oil and fuel for our cars, our homes, our economy?

Fine, you might say. Well what about alternative, renewable resources? Why aren't we demanding that Big Oil do something about that?

Let's see... Big Oil is in the business of selling oil. Let's get Big Oil to fund the research that, if successful (which is highly questionable. See It's the Energy, Stupid!) would remove the very reason Big Oil is in business for in the first place.

I'm sorry, but does that really make sense to anyone who isn't an all-out Marxist?

Like it or not, the energy we need to continue as an economic powerhouse is oil. Of course, we could look to some alternatives, but the ones that make the most sense (wind and nuclear, for instance) are fought tooth and nail by the Left. Nuclear power has been libeled by the Left for decades, to the point that we'll build nuclear plants in North Korea (thanks, Bill Clinton, Jimmy Carter and Madeleine Albright!) but no new plants have been built in America since the 1970's.

And don't get me started on Ted "Chappaquiddick" Kennedy and his opposition to wind farms off the coast of Nantucket, where they would make the most sense.

Also, we have the Liberals' steadfast opposition to searching for and acquiring our own oil reserves here in the United States. Unless, of course, we're talking about Occidental Oil, founded by infamous Stalinist and Friend of Al Gore, Armand Hammar. As long as Al Gore still gets his cut of new oil sources and profits that only Occidental can extract on American soil, he'll be free to make sure we all live in a 19th Century lifestyle to prevent Global Warming.

The fact is, we are sitting on untold oil reserves here in the United States. The only reason we need to import foreign oil is the Democratic Party and its ideological masters in the radical environmental movement. As a result, only Occidental can drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico. China, in partnership with Cuba and Venezuela, can drill off the coast of Florida, while we can't. And it's been more than three decades since a new refinery has been built in the United States.

And the Democrats, who created these problems in the first place, want to blame Big Oil?

There are two reasons why the price of gasoline and heating oil have risen so high. Neither of them have anything to do with the War in Iraq or Big Oil.

The first reason is simply supply and demand. In the last decade, we suddenly have two extremely populous nations -- India and China -- that are modernizing. They are coming out of their (relatively speaking) primitive stages and are becoming fully industrialized nations, with all the energy demands that inevitably ensue.

Meanwhile, here in the US, we are always demanding more energy, both for transportation and for our infrastructure. This is as it should be, for if we do not expand our energy sources and our consumption, we will descend into squalor.

Or, as Al Gore would prefer to phrase it, we will have achieved a sustainable economy.

In any economic system, increase demand must be met with increased prices. Couple that with the Left's refusal to back sensible alternatives -- wind and nuclear -- or to expand our own domestic supplies of oil, we naturally get hit at the pump.

But then, there's the other reason, the most pernicious reason, for our massively high gasoline prices. We hear daily harangues about Big Oil and their "obscene" profits. But almost no one mentions an organization that reaps far more profit, about twice as much as Big Oil. And this organization drills for no oil, buys and sells no oil, refines no oil. And it makes about twice as much on a gallon of gasoline as Big Oil.

This organization is none other than Big Government. According to The TaxProf Blog we find the following datum:

"[F]ederal and state taxes on gasoline production and imports have been climbing steadily since the late 1970s and now total roughly $58.4 billion. Due in part to substantial hikes in the federal gasoline excise tax in 1983, 1990, and 1993, annual tax revenues have continued to grow. Since 1977, governments
collected more than $1.34 trillion, after adjusting for inflation, in gasoline tax revenues—more than twice the amount of domestic profits earned by major U.S. oil companies during the same period."

Let’s try a little thought experiment. Let’s say you ran a lemon ice stand. But I, whether through legitimate taxation or strong arm tactics (but I repeat myself!) force you to give me twice as much of the money generated by sales than you get to keep in profit. Wouldn’t you be a bit upset? Wouldn’t you be forced to pass that added cost of my larceny onto your customers? Why is this any different than taxing Big Oil at confiscatory rates?

Only Liberal can find a way around these simple facts. And his “solutions” would only make matters far worse than they already are. The demand for oil and energy is at historic levels. Never before have so many people wanted so much energy, which translates into higher prices due to the demand.

But even worse, Big Government (please note the ominous tones as I write those words) – which produces absolutely no oil, which refines absolutely no oil products, which transports absolutely no oil, which sells absolutely no oil, which impedes and prevents the development of domestic oil supplies – extracts twice the “profit” from a gallon of gasoline as all of Big Oil combined!

Friends, regardless of what the Legacy Media and the Democratic Party tell you, Big Oil is not the enemy. They are truly our friends and they are being slandered by our leaders for the sake of political advantage and economic power.

The real enemy, the 500-pound gorilla in the living room, is Big Government!

Copyright April 1st, 2008

LOOKS LIKE HIS HALO IS SLIPPING!

When one is bestowed with mythical, near messianic, status, one had better make sure he's got all his ducks in a row. Such is the case for Barak Hussein Obama, the new Saint of our age.

Since his speech in the 2004 Democratic National Convention, he has garnered a reputation with his fine oratorical skills, his mouthing of pious platitudes, and his squeaky clean good looks. Just Google the words Obama messiah. You'll come up with 274,000 hits. We are told daily how he will unite our fractured nation, how he will transcend race and political party, how he will restore hope to our troubled masses.

Then, reality strikes. We start examining his proposals (just the same old neo-socialist Liberal agenda, hidden beneath the flowery rhetoric of "hope" and "change") and we start to learn about the folks around him, the folks who have shaped and molded his philosophies, and with whom he seems to agree.

Previously, in It's An Obama-nation! we examined such luminaries of Saint Obama's life as Frank Marshall Davis, Abongo "Roy" Obama, Bill Ayers, Bernadine Dohrn, and his pastor and spiritual advisor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. I think it's incumbent on us to look a little closer at these and other characters.

Bill Ayers serves on the board of the Woods Fund, as did Saint Obama. This charitable foundation, as you'd probably imagine, tends to donate to Left of Center causes. During Saint Obama's tenure with the foundation, funding was granted to an organization called the Arab American Action Network, or AAAN.

Fox Business.com, sourcing the story to Aaron Kline, reports thusly:

The board of a nonprofit organization on which Sen. Barack Obama served as
a paid director alongside a confessed domestic terrorist granted funding to a
controversial Arab group that mourns the establishment of Israel as a
"catastrophe" and supports intense immigration reform, including providing
drivers licenses and education to illegal aliens, according to Aaron Klein,
Middle East correspondent for WND.com.

The co-founder of the Arab group in question, Columbia University professor Rashid Khalidi, also has held a fundraiser for Obama. Khalidi is a harsh critic of Israel, has made statements supportive of Palestinian terror and reportedly has worked on behalf of the Palestine Liberation Organization while it was involved in anti-Western
terrorism and was labeled by the State Department as a terror group.

OK, then! Not only did Saint Obama serve on a board with a confessed terrorist bomber, he arranged for funding for Prof. Rashid Khalidi, who supports and has worked with terrorists. And he even accepted donations raised by this unapologetic anti-semitic Islamist!

No matter how you cut it, this is more than guilt by association, as many on the Left have been trying to claim. It is apparent, from the exchanges of funding, that both Prof. Khalidi and Saint Obama are at least reading from the same chapter, if not the same page.

And they have a history that goes back some years besides. Khalidi, before being bestowed the Edward Said Chair of Arab Studies at Columbia University, taught at the University of Chicago, where he met Saint Obama. We are not talking here about casual acquaintances.

It took long enough, but at long last, the Legacy Media has caught up to the story of Saint Obama's spiritual leader, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Only now, four years after Saint Obama became a household name, do we learn that the Rev. Wright said this, the Sunday following 9/11:

"We bombed Hiroshima, we bombed Nagasaki and we nuked far more than the
thousands in New York and the Pentagon, and we never batted an eye. We have
supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and the black South Africans,
and now we are indignant. Because the stuff we have done overseas has now been
brought back into our own front yard. America's chickens are coming home to
roost."

Now I know many on the Left actually believe this bilge, but I sincerely doubt that most Americans do. To say such nonsense about America, the single most important force for good in the world, is, to my mind, unconscionable. Worse, he has damned America in God's name, as can be seen in this video clip.

Finally, Saint Obama has decided to disavow the racist, anti-semitic, and anti-American preachings of Rev. Wright:

"Let me say at the outset that I vehemently disagree and strongly condemn the
statements that have been the subject of this controversy. I categorically
denounce any statement that disparages our great country or serves to divide us
from our allies. I also believe that words that degrade individuals have no place in our public dialogue, whether it's on the campaign stump or in the pulpit. In sum, I reject outright the statements by Rev. Wright that are at issue.

"Let me repeat what I've said earlier. All of the statements that have been the subject of controversy are ones that I vehemently condemn. They in no way reflect my attitudes and directly contradict my profound love for this country."

Well that's just wonderful! But Saint Obama had been a member of the Rev. Wright's congregation for twenty years. Yet he makes the ludicrous claim that he had only become aware of his despicable preachings last year:

"I made it clear at the time that I strongly condemned his comments," Obama
said. "But because Rev. Wright was on the verge of retirement, and because
of my strong links to the Trinity faith community, where I married my wife
and where my daughters were baptized, I did not think it appropriate to
leave the church."

Well, that's wonderful! But what did Saint Obama really have to say about his pastor? Something to the effect that he was like a beloved, albeit eccentric, uncle who was prone, now and then, to spouting out things that were a bit outrageous.

Outrageous? A bit? Geez! I'd hate to see the Rev. Wright on a really bad day!

Thanks to the New Media (talk radio and the Internet) these things have been
brought to the fore of our national awareness. Otherwise, we'd only find out
years later, when the damage is already done.

Hopefully, the Legacy Media will get its collective butt in gear and start asking some real questions of the presidential candidates. The electorate deserves to know just who is in each candidate's Rolodex.

Hopefully, too, enough Americans will pay attention to those Men Behind the Curtain.

Copyright March 14th, 2008

SALVADOR DALI, PLEASE CALL YOUR OFFICE!

There's an old joke: How many surrealists does it take to change a light bulb? A fish.




Whenever you think that politics has gotten as weird as it can possibly be, things just get weirder. The Democratic Party and its sycophants are a perfect case in point.



For starters, consider how Democrats and Leftists in general immediately head for the grassy knoll whenever things don't go the way they wanted:

• Al Gore's loss in 2000: Well, even though it was Gore's attorneys who started all the litigation and even though the Supreme Court came to the right decision (albeit with the wrong Constitutional citations) The GOP just had to have stolen the election. After all, it's impossible for a Democrat to lose!


• The folks who think that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job, or otherwise somehow staged by the government are almost all Liberal. They are also the kooks who think there was someone on a certain grassy knoll 45 years ago.


• They think that the elections of 2004 were stolen from them as well, citing irregularities in Ohio. Of course, we are not to consider how dead people become Democrats immediately upon assuming room temperature, especially in Chicago
  

That's right, folks! There's a conspiracy out there for everything. Everything, that is, except the occasional Democratic electoral victory. Doesn't it seem odd that the Democrats, who had majorities at the federal and local levels for decades before 1994, never got around to setting up the nefarious networks the Republicans managed in only six years? Please! Don't try telling me it's because the Democrats are better people, 'cos dat dog don't hunt!

Now we have a new conspiracy out there. It seems that, despite his rather disgusting appetites, former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer was targeted for political assassination by the Bush Administration. That, at least, seems to be the implicit, if not explicit, gist of Scott Horton's piece in Harper's Magazine:

So here are the rather amazing facts that surface in the Spitzer case:
(1) The prosecutors handling the case came from the Public Integrity Section.
(2) The prosecution is opened under the White-Slave Traffic Act of 1910. You read
that correctly. The statute itself is highly disreputable, and most of the high-profile cases brought under it were politically motivated and grossly abusive. Here are a few... [I'll leave out the history lesson.]
(3) The resources dedicated to the case in terms of prosecutors and
investigators are extraordinary.
(4) How the investigation got started. The Justice Department has yet to give a full account of why they were looking into Spitzer’s payments, and indeed the suggestion in the ABC account is that it didn’t have anything to do with a prostitution ring. The suggestion that this was driven by an IRS inquiry and involved a bank might heighten, rather than allay, concerns of a politically motivated prosecution.

Well then! It's obvious! I'm sorry, I just can't take these conspiracy theorists seriously. What Scott Harper is trying to do is defend the indefensible by casting doubt on the motives of the investigators. What he is leaving out is that pesky little fact that Elliot Spitzer has been patronizing the oldest profession for a decade, spending to the tune of $80,000, and concealing his activities from the New York voters, all the while crusading against, among other nefarious no-good-niks, prostitution rings.

What ever the motivations of the investigators, the fact remains that Elliot Spitzer was caught red handed by the very same laws he used to prosecute Wall Street executives and high class pimps.

By that same logic, wouldn't it be fair to ask Client Number Nine what his motivations were when he prosecuted those Wall Street firms? Or when he threatened them with prosecution? Wouldn't it be fair to ask if he had any financial incentive? Oh, I don't mean personally! I mean, the revenue generated by the state government would be quite a feather in the cap for the up and coming politician, wouldn't it?

Meanwhile, back in the fever swamps, we have Geraldine Ferraro making news again. This morning, she tendered her resignation to the Hillary campaign, saying, "The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you." Of course, she is denying that she had anything as gauche or racist as we little people might think. She was actually paying Saint Barak Obama a compliment!

I'll let you decide what this comment is supposed to mean:

"I think what America feels about a woman becoming president takes a very
secondary place to Obama's campaign - to a kind of campaign that it would be
hard for anyone to run against. For one thing, you have the press, which has been uniquely hard on her. It's been a very sexist media. Some just don't like her. The others have gotten caught up in the Obama campaign.

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman (of any color) he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept."

Now, from my understanding of basic English, she was clearly saying that only Hillary can be a white woman who can be nominated, and that Obama is only getting attention because he was a black man. After all, the only possible reason anyone could dislike Hillary is because she is a woman. This is demeaning to all voters, since it assumes their inate misogyny and racism.

On Good Morning America, Ms. Ferraro made an impassioned defense of her comments, telling Diane Sawyer to "Hold it for a minute..." repeatedly as she rudely overran the interview. You can see a video of the encounter here.

And what was Ms. Ferraro trying to say? ABC News reports: "Ferraro said she was saying that "the black community came out with ... pride in [Obama's] candidacy. You would think he would say 'thank you' for doing that. Instead, I'm charged with being a racist."

There is no truth to the rumor that Saint Obama replied, "Uh... Thanks!... uh, I think."

This, of course, is just par for the course with Liberals and Democrats. They aren't guilty of anything they might do. It is those Evil Republicans, who can't help but trip over the Left's intranigence, that are to blame for even noticing their peccadilloes. Remember Hillary's "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy"? That's another one for the books!

At any rate, that's enough slogging through the Liberal Fever Swamps. I think I'll take a long, hot shower, disinfect my keyboard, and start a course of antibiotics.

I sure hope I don't catch whatever the Kook Fringe has!

Copyright March 12th, 2008

THERE WILL BE BLOOD!

So what is the political landscape after Tuesday's voting in states all across the nation? Actually, pretty much the same as last week.

First off, John McCain is now the official and legitimate nominee for the Republican Party. Having won enough delegates to clinch said nomination, he also received the endorsement of President George "Dubya" Bush. I now await Senator McCain's rebuke for having used the president's middle initial, as he has done to Billy Cunningham. For the remainder of the Spring and Summer, McCain has to knit his support into a cohesive force, although how he hopes to do that while attacking his base, I have no idea.

But there is a ray of sunshine here, and it comes from the Democratic Party.

Hillary Clinton has made something of a comeback. We know this because the Legacy Media keeps telling us. My friend, Vox Day on his blog Vox Popoli, points out that this is the exact same narrative that they force fed the audience in the 1992 election cycle, albeit about Bill, not Hillary. Regardless of who the Legacy Media is talking about, the story line is getting a bit tired.

But this can be good news for McCain, since the Democrats are in for a long and bloody campaign. While he is shoring up his base (allegedly, that is) the Democrats will be tearing new orifices in each other.

In other words, Hillary will live to fight on, attacking and discrediting Saint Obama, something to which both the McCain campaign and the RNC say they will not stoop. They need Hillary in the race because the Republican leadership just doesn't have the stomach to go after the sacrosanct Saint Obama.

The political landscape remains unchanged, since Saint Obama ended Tuesday with the same delegate lead over Hillary as he began. All that Hillary succeeded in doing was to keep in the race a few more weeks.

But, as I already said, this is a good thing. The Clintonistas are masters of the scorched earth style of politics. They've already said they were going to throw the kitchen sink at the Annointed One. For example, does anyone really doubt that it was Hillary's people who disseminated that photo of Saint Obama looking like Gunga Din?

While that bad photo won't make or break Obama, at least not in my book, it is all part of a piece with the Clintonistas. Recall how they smeared Ken Starr, the Travel Office employees, the abused women, etc. The Clintonistas will stop at nothing -- NOTHING! -- in the pursuit of power. How much do you want to bet that the Clintonistas were doing some rather snarky push polls in southern Ohio, emphasizing Obama's melanin surfeit?

On more substantive matters, it was to the Clintonistas that an unnamed Canadian official leaked a memo, describing Saint Obama's anti-NAFTA rhetoric as just campaign pap. Despite claims to the contrary, the memo does exist and Canada is investigating possible criminal charges in the matter.

Hillary's weekend appearances on national TV, most notably Saturday Night Live, probably helped her showing on Tuesday, as it spurred the Legacy Media to look a little more sharply at Saint Obama. On Monday, Obama was left sputtering as he was peppered with questions of his long time pal, Antoin "Tony" Rezco. (Ooops! I want to apologize to Sen. McCain for referring to Mr. Rezco's middle name. I'll try not to do it again!) Rezco, you might recall, has begun his trial for illegal campaign solicitations and kickbacks, to little Legacy Media attention. An example of Obama's aversion to questioning regarding Rezco can be seen here.

But what, do you think, was the biggest reason for Hillary's surprise uptick in the primaries? The Los Angeles Times got a hint of the reason Sunday. Exit polls show that one in ten voters in Texas for the Democratic primary were Republican. This is merely just desserts, since McCain won his primaries with mainly Democrat and Independent voters in open primaries. Hey, if the Democrats can pick our candidate, why can't we pick theirs?

The bottom line is that McCain can now coast into the convention in August. The Democrats, meanwhile, are in for a bruising and bloody war. Make no mistake about it. Hillary will stop at nothing to secure her nomination. If, in the process, she destroys the Democratic Party, then so be it!

As I have frequently remarked, I love when Political Correctness runs into itself. We are now faced with the spectacle of two radical Leftists, each playing on his/her own Politically Correct identity group. Whoever actually gets the nomination will alienate some, if not most, of the natural constituency, the identity group, of the other.

Obama is from the streets of Chicago. He is a Daly machine politician. For them, politics is hardball and they don't give up easily. Hillary, on the other hand, views power as her sole reason for life itself. No pesky rules, customs, niceties, or etiquette for her, not when her power is at stake! Liberal women are upset that Oprah has endorsed Obama. Black activists are worried that Hillary will try to steal the nomination from a black man. The enmity is palpable and the knives are being sharpened as we speak.

The only hope for McCain in November is if the scenarios I described in Let's Get Dirty! come to pass. That is when the real fun begins!

Yes, my friends! There will be blood!

Copyright March 5th, 2008

MAYBE HE SHOULD ASK FOR CLEMENS-Y?

Have we in America lost our collective mind? Why is Congress, tellingly controlled by the Democrats, wasting our time and money (I know! That's what they do!) investigating steroid use in Major League Baseball? More to the point, why are we Americans standing for this happy nonsense?

Of course, baseball is America's Sport. Baseball players are supposed to be clean cut, true blue avatars of what a good American citizen is supposed to be. But let's get a reality check here. Using steroids isn't what I would call a pressing, urgent matter for our elected officials to investigate.

On the one hand, it seems to be a gross misuse of their power to drag baseball players, their trainers and their officials -- all of them private citizens, not government employees -- and grill them endlessly, hoping for that one gotcha moment.

But then, at least they aren't planning the next round of tax hikes, over regulation, and other insults to our Liberties. There may be silver lining to all this, but I still don't like sacrificing one element of the private sector to deflect attention from my own.

Now, former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell has his "big fish". He has enlisted the FBI to investigate possible perjury and obstruction of justice charges against Roger Clemens, one of the most famous players in baseball. All of this stems from Mitchell's twenty month investigation into steroid use among professional ball players.

This is the most pressing problem facing America today? Forgive me, but I don't see how this should be a federal matter, let alone a matter for government at any level.

The FBI case arose from hearings several weeks ago, in which Clemens, Andy Pettitte, and trainer Brian McNamee all testified. Congressmen, mostly Democrats, chided all the witnesses, saying that they didn't know what to believe.

Now we have an ongoing investigation into matters that add up to less than a molehill.

Look, I don't advocate the use of steroids or human growth hormones (HGH) but what's the big deal? Baseball, as big an industry as it is, is not a make or break thing for the American economy. It's not a matter of national security. Baseball is merely part of the circuses that keep Americans happily distracted from things like the presidential race, terrorism, the return of the Cold War, and the fact that Saint Obama isn't really the Second Coming.

Tell me, someone, what is the difference between using steroids and HGH and better training and exercise to improve performance? Why should Congress even think about looking into these matters? I've just paged through my copy of the Constitution, and it doesn't have anything to say about baseball and Congressional oversight.

Of course, the Constitution does have the Tenth Amendment, which reads: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but to me, in layman's terms, this says: "If it ain't in the Constitution, Congress can't do it!"

Anyone who has known me or has read my posts here at Montag's World or elsewhere on the Internet know that I'm a strong advocate for repealing any and all of America's drug laws. The Tenth Amendment is one principal reason, as is the lesson of Prohibition. You might recall that Prohibition did nothing to curtail alcohol consumption, but it did empower organized crime and vast, abusive governmental bureaucracies which survived the repeal of Prohibition, and which trample on our Liberties today.

The use of steroids and HGH in professional sports, in my mind, falls into the same sort of category. Whatever protocol of detection and enforcement the bureaucrats come up with, there will always be someone who finds a way around it. The effort to avoid these work arounds will inevitably reduce your Liberty. There really is nothing but our own will to hold the line between a just government and tyranny.

Some folks will, undoubtedly, claim that I am too concerned with millionaire sports figures, who earn seven and eight figure salaries for "playing a game", and not concerned enough for the "little guy". Well, I am concerned with every one's Liberties, regardless of wealth, color, creed, social status, gender or career path.

It is a truism that, when one person's Liberties are violated, all our Liberties are violated. Steroids and HGH aren't matters important enough for Congress to get involved in. Nor is Congress permitted by the Constitution to oversee the chemical purity of America's Pastime.

Little by little, even baseball has fallen under the boot of Liberal authoritarianism!

Copyright Feb. 28th, 2008

LET'S GET DIRTY!

You just know it was going to happen. Lots of people have been predicting it. Now it has come to pass.

Facing a punishing defeat for the Democratic nomination, the Clintonistas are getting down and dirty. Barak Obama is in for a nasty couple of months.

Bill and Hillary are inveterate political street fighters. They'll fight fair and clean, just so long as they are winning. And even then, the opportunity for a cheap shot can be just too tempting. It's not just to win, they want to destroy anyone with the temerity to oppose them.

Barak Obama, it seems, has become just the sort of insolent upstart that Hillary's hobnailed boots were made for.

Should there be any doubt, let's not forget the 900 or so raw FBI files that were found in the Clintonistas' possession in the White House. These were the sort of files that didn't make it into official FBI reports, since they included every accusation and rumor about their targets. Only careful vetting and sifting of such information could complete the official reports. However, these were the sort of files that can be used to blackmail, punish, or destroy anyone who fell into the Clintonistas' disfavor. For the record, Google comes up with 1,400,000 hits when you search for "Hillary Clinton; FBI Files"

Is that too speculative for you? Well what about the scorched earth policy aimed at Bill's famous "Bimbo Eruptions"? First of all, the affairs and the philandering are a part of public record. Second, it was Bill's own Arkansas chief of staff, Betsy Wright, who coined the term. Among the 135,000 Google hits for the words "bimbo eruption", was the Wikipedia entry that documents her role in minimizing the damage from all those women coming forward to tell of their affairs with Bill. The books by Carl Bernstien ( A Woman in Charge) and Jeff Gerth and Don van Natta ( Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Rodham Clinton) clearly document the lengths that she would go to pillory anyone who would sully either Clinton's character by telling the truth.

Here's some names, a sort of Blast From the Past: Gennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Kathleen Willey, Paula Jones, Marilyn Jo Jenkins, to name just a few. All of them have been ravaged by the Clinton attack machine for daring to disclose Bill's peccadilloes.

Then there was the White House Travel Office, and the way they weren't just fired, they were libeled and slandered, brought up on false charges, bankrupted, audited by the IRS, and, in general, had their day ruined. And why? Just so a Clinton cousin and a couple of Hillary's Hollywood friends could take over the position.

Ken Starr received extra special attention. Until he was brought into the sights of the Clintonistas, his reputation was impeccable. Lanny Davis and the boys, however, leaked all the grand jury testimony and blamed Starr for the leaks.

I could go on and on about the '90's, but this column today is about the 2008 campaign. Let's not doubt that the Clintons' attack machine is being wound up and aimed right at Barak Obama.

Whatever my differences with Obama politically, I have to admit he is running a pretty classy campaign. Although his rhetoric is vacuous, he at least tries to appeal to our better human natures. Specifically, he has not made the elections about race. Which, considering the Democrats' wont, is something of a breath of fresh air.

So what is the Clintonista response? The Iowa county chair Hillary volunteer sent out an e-mail, detailing the various connections between Obama and Islam, saying the following:

“Since it is politically expedient to be a CHRISTIAN when seeking major
public office in the United States , Barack Hussein Obama has joined the
United Church of Christ in an attempt to downplay his Muslim background.”

Of course, Media Matters, that Hillary front group, tries to make the case that it was right wing talk radio that was responsible for forwarding "the accusation made by a website controlled by Rev. Sun Myung Moon...", but we've seen this tactic before, haven't we?

Then we have Bill Shaheen, a big time Democrat from New Hampshire and a Hillary supporter. In an interview, he said this:

"The Republicans are not going to give up without a fight ... and one of the things they're certainly going to jump on is his drug use. It'll be, 'When was the last time? Did you ever give drugs to anyone? Did you sell them to anyone?' There are so many openings for Republican dirty tricks. It's hard to overcome."

The beauty of this bit of misdirection is that you get the story (Barak Obama is a junkie and a dealer) out there while leaving the blame on your ultimate opponents, the Republican Party. Never mind that the Republicans didn't really care about Bill's "I tried marijuana, but I didn't inhale." In the mind of a Democrat (which is where Shaheen's comments were aimed) the Republican will stoop to nothing to achieve their goals. When the uproar began, rightfully so, Bill Shaheen, like the good Clintonista he is, fell on his sword and resigned from her campaign. But you know either he or his wife, also an up and coming Democratic politician, will get some consideration for their troubles.

I've already catalogued "Fast Eddie" Rendell's indictment of "racist America" in my column And Now, Back To The Front Runner. Now we have the spectre of alleged homophobia looming out of the back pages.

World Net Daily reports that one Larry Sinclair has come forward with the claim that, in 1999, when Obama was a state legislator in Illinois, he had shared cocaine and oral sex with Obama. Failing to get any notice, he posted his claims on YouTube and is offering to take a polygraph test to back up his story. Regardless of whether he is telling the truth or not, does anyone want to bet that the Clintonistas didn't have at least something to do with this story getting out?

Then there was the kerfuffle of Obama's alleged plagiarism. Despite Hillary's claim that it was the media that made the connections between an Obama speech and one by Deval Patrick, the Associated Press shows the lie, telling of Clintonista Howard Wolfson's conference call to reporters hammering home the plagiarism angle.

Learning the lessons from Al Gore and his attempt to steal the 2000 elections, the Clintonistas are gearing up to battle the DNC for the nominations, even if Hillary loses the primaries. It's not enought that the fix is in at the DNC's Credentials Committee where, as UPI reports, all three of the chairs are held by close Clintonista pals. The Credentials Committee is the group that decides which delegates are seated at the Democratic Convention. Having some pull with the chairs of that committee gives a huge advatage to Hillary, regardless of the vote in the primaries.

Then again, there are also the delegates from Florida and Michigan. These delegates, as per DNC rules, were not to be seated, nor were the Democratic candidates supposed to campaign there, since those states had moved their primaries too far up. Anyone want to bet against me that Hillary doesn't try a lawsuit to get those delegates seated, since she didn't bother to adhere to the rules and won the primaries in Florida and Michigan? Better read the International Herald Tribune first. Al Sharpton is already threatening a march on Washington DC (That's like so '60's!) if Hillary tries that.

You know, I kind of feel sorry for Barak Obama. He's going to be dragged over the coals by Hillary. If he wins the primaries, there will be legal blood spilled before the convention is over and done. Hillary just might tear the Democratic Party apart.

John McCain, however, still has to make the case that he's a better choice for president. I haven't seen any sign of evidence to this effect yet.

But that's another column for another day! In the meanwhile: Here's mud in your eye!

Copyright Feb. 20th, 2008

COLD WAR? I BLAME GLOBAL WARMING!

No, this isn't about the climate change nonsense. Although, I must point out that NewsMax reports that the Arctic has regained almost all the ice lost over the past year and the Antarctica has a third more ice than in the past. Then again, the Drudge Report notes heavy snow in Greece and Jerusalem, so maybe we can work out the Global Warmism angle after all.

It is, however, becoming apparent that the announcement of The End of The Cold War was a bit premature. The signs are ominous as they are almost omnipresent.

• Kosovo has just declared its independence, prompting Russia to try and block said independence in the UN, with an emergency closed-door meeting of the Security Council.


• Russia's premier, Vladimir Putin has been quietly ratcheting up his belicose rhetoric while simultaneously clamping down on the rights of the Russian people.


• China has been playing chicken with American fleets, at one time surfacing a submarine in the middle of a US carrier fleet. Russia has recently taken to buzzing our operations with their aircraft.


• China has been launching large numbers of missions into space, including the planned destruction, last year, of one of their own satellites. Clearly, they are planning for a potential war in space.


• The American announcement that we will shoot down one of our own satellites has been met with concern from both China and Russia, who, after China's demonstration of this capability, now want the US to ban all research into militarizing space.


• Russia has been aiding and abetting Iran's nuclear development, as well as selling large amounts of conventional weaponry to both Iran and Syria. Meanwhile, both Russia and China are blocking all attempts to isolate Iran for their intransigence.

These are just a few data points, but the trend is clear: both China and Russia are gearing up to blunt American influence in the world. China and Russia, despite the efforts of Richard Nixon, are teaming up again. Both are looking to increase their sphere's of influence. And both have taken stances in opposition to the United States.

Many of my Friends on the Left would say that this is a good thing. Many of them actually believe either a) that we deserved to be attacked on 9/11 or b) the attacks were an inside job by a president who never really won the election.

But those of us in the Real World know that the world is a dangerous place. There really are folks who would do us harm, just because our system of governance, our national interests, and our cultures are different from theirs. We, in the Real World, also understand that if America doesn't stand up for herself and for our allies, there really isn't anyone else who will.

Of course, our Friends on the Left will say that we can't be the policeman of the world, that we have no right, that it will only fan the flames of hatred for America.

That, put plainly and simply, is utter nonsense. The surest way to open America up to attack and retreat is to adopt the defeatist attitudes of the Left. Do you need Real World examples? Well then, here are two, both within the lifetimes of many of us:

• With the wholesale retreat from Viet Nam and the collapse of the Republican Party following Watergate, the US adopted the retreat and appease policies of Jimmy Carter. Simultaneously, we had the radicalization of Iran and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. Only the latter was corrected (by Ronald Reagan) and we are still paying the price of Carter's fecklessness in Iran today.


• Bill Clinton's pitiful performance vis a vis Osama bin Ladin and al Qaeda. First, he sent the message, by retreating from Somalia, that we will cut and run when things get tough. Then, despite repeated al Qaeda attacks, he refused to actually treat bin Ladin's actions as the acts of war that they were. Indeed, he refused several opportunities to take bin Ladin into custody and, somehow, he was always unavailable to give the go-ahead to our operatives to assassinate him.

I'd give more examples by -- THANK GOD! -- the Left hasn't had so many opportunities to undermine our nation. Of course, should the election in November go the way I suspect it will, we'll see a repeat of these glorious days of Liberalism run amok.

And just how do we know that these things will come to pass? Consider Michelle Obama who said yesterday, “Hope is making a comeback and, let me tell you, for the first time in my adult life [ italics are mine], I am proud of my country." Does this mean that she and, by extension, Barak have been ashamed of America until now? And how can we expect a president who isn't proud of America and all we've done for the world, to defend us, since we, ostensibly, don't deserve to be defended?

Yes, Friends! The world is indeed a very dangerous place. And there is only one nation that folks can turn to for Liberty, wealth, and defense with no strings attached. That nation is the United States. No, we never asked to become the "policeman of the world". But we did have that responsibility thrust upon us. We dare not turn our backs on that responsibility.

I do not, honestly, know enough about military and diplomatic matters to formulate a cogent opinion as to solutions to the conundrum we face. But I do know that we retreat at our own peril.
Almost 2000 years ago, the Roman Empire turned its back on much of the world, allowing much of civilization at the time to collapse, all in an attempt to keep the last sparks of Empire alive. Well, the barbarians came anyway, and first Rome then Byzantium were destroyed.

The barbarians will come for us as well, should we turn our backs to the world. Do we dare repeat the insanity that was Rome?

In the 1980's there were three people who stood tall against Communism: Ronald Reagan, Pope John-Paul II, and Margaret Thatcher. Mrs. Thatcher once famously said to Reagan, "Don't go wobbly on us, Ronnie!"

Timely advise for us to remember in the 21st Century.

Copyright Feb. 19th, 2008

THROUGH RACE COLORED GLASSES 2/18/08

A gentleman posted a series of comments on to my column of last week -- "And Now, Back to the Frontrunner". True to form, anonymous didn't waste any time claiming that the GOP and Conservatives (by extension, I would assume, he would also include me) are the home of racism today.


He started out by taking issue with the Democratic Party's historical relationship with various racist policies in America's past, to wit: slavery, Jim Crowe, the Klan, segregation, etc. His comments seemed to have exposed a bit of racism on his part however: "...see, when they [the Democrats, I think] moved away from that [racist policies, maybe?], all the honkies went GOPiggy."


In later posts, he referred to Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice as "Toms". So, apparently, his racist views aren't just aimed at whites, but also to blacks who don't stay on the Democratic plantation regarding "proper" Liberal ideology.


I thought that today, I would expand upon my claim that it is really the Democratic Party, with its irrational addiction to identity politics, which is the racist party, as opposed to the color blind Conservatives, who look at people as individuals, regardless of the color of their skin.


How can the Democrats be racist? I mean, more that 90% of the black vote goes to the Democrats every time. What is it about them that would make me think the Party is racist?


First, a bit of history:

• The Klan was started by the Democratic Party to undo or minimize the efforts of Reconstruction.


• Jim Crowe laws were promulgated by Democrats.


• Lyndon Baines Johnson, during the 1950's, spent most of his congressional career obstructing the Civil Rights Act, a bill that was supported, by the way, by Dwight Eisenhower.


• It was Eisenhower who sent the troops into the South to enforce desegragation.


• John F. Kennedy had his brother, Bobby who was then the head of the Justice Department, spy on Martin Luther King in an effort to discredit this Civil Rights pioneer.


• Democrats resisted the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Al Gore's Dad led that obstruction. Had it not been for Republican support, it would never have passed.


• More recently, we have Sen. Robert Byrd, who has never renounced his membership and leadership in the Klan. Strom Thurmond, on the other hand, not only quit the Klan very publicly, he switched parties to distance himself from them.

Other, superior minds than my own, have catalogued the specific policies which, while ostensibly claimed to be helpful to minorities, actually did them more harm than good. I suggest the writings of Thomas Sowell, Shelby Steele, and Charles Murray for a more indepth look at Liberal calumny diguised as "compassion".

And to the specious claims that it is the Conservative end of the political spectrum that is the new home of racism in America? Let's look at a few examples:

• Opposition to affirmative action? That's merely discrimination against other folks, rather than traditional discrimination. (More on this later)


• Failure to embrace identity politics? I thought that was what Martin Luther King was talking about: "...judged not by the color of their skin but by the content of their character..." What's racist about that?
  
• Tax cuts? Despite the claims of Rep. Charlie Rangel (D.NY) -- "It's not 'spic' or 'nigger' anymore. They say, 'Let's cut taxes.'" -- tax cuts have absolutely no racial or ethnic component. In fact, tax cuts are good for minorities in that they spur the economy and create more jobs, while allowing wage earners to actually keep more of their money.
  
• And what is so racist about appointing the first and second black Secretaries of State, not to mention the first black female National Security Advisor? Not even Bill Clinton, dubbed by Toni Morrison as "America's first black President" can make that claim.

No, anonymous doesn't recognize any of these things as being color blind. Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice are nothing but Uncle Toms, in anonymous' exalted opinion. You see, they have strayed from the Liberal Plantation of Thought Control to actually embrace individual effort and an escape from identity politics.

Now, for more on affirmative action. This is nothing short of tit-for-tat, "You-hit-me-I-hit-you" childishness. Worse, it doesn't even strike at the actual perpetrators of the crimes committed against American blacks in our past. It is merely striking out at anyone who who looks like the real criminals, most of whom are, thankfully, dead.

Consider it this way: Let's say that my great-great grandfather robbed banks. This information was widely known and documented but, for whatever reason, he was never prosecuted or imprisoned for his misdeeds. Now, 100 or more years later, we are finally going to do something to set this terrible injustice right. So, we are going to put you in jail, since my ancestor is beyond the ken of our justice system.

Wouldn't that, in an of itself, also be an injustice? After all, neither you nor your ancestors robbed any banks. Why should you have to pay for the crimes of someone else's ancestors?

Well, the same argument can be made about affirmative action. While I am white, my ancestors weren't even in America during the days of slavery, nor were they involved in any of the Jim Crowe laws. I have never engaged in bigotry and, to the best of my knowledge, neither have any of my ancestors. So why should I have the deck stacked against me to right some wrong that had nothing to do with me or my ancestors?

And what does affirmative action say about the folks it purports to help? "You're too stupid and too incapable to deal with life on life's terms, so we enlightened Liberals are going to help you." Wow! That's uplifing, isn't it? No wonder Thomas Sowell often expresses gratitude that he was educated before it became cool to like black people!

Someone (I forget who, but it wasn't me) once said that affirmative action is the ultimate in masochism, since it forces someone who thinks you're a turkey to hire you anyway. How true that is!

Look, racism is not only bad, it's stupid. I don't want to see any kind of racism, whether we're talking about the Bad Old Days of Jim Crowe or the supposedly enlightened days of affirmative action.

Furthermore, I have decided to limit anonymous and his postings to avoid giving a forum to his bigotted and scatological screeds. If he wants wants to make a point or an argument and can control his demons, then, by all means, he will be heard.

If not, I reserve the right to silence him on my blog. Let's just hope he can act like an adult.

Copyright Feb. 18th, 2008

AND NOW, BACK TO THE FRONTRUNNER

Today, I'd like to examine Barak Hussein Obama a little more closely than I had in Obama Where Art Thou.

Having already outlined his biography, let's examine the man as a candidate. He is young, energetic, and articulate. I won't go so far as Joe Biden, who said Obama was "clean". I doubt that he was talking about personal hygiene. Although, with Biden's track record for unfortunate comments, maybe he was.

Obama is a stunning speaker. He has, as the Irish like to say, "The Gift of Gab". His speeches seem to move people in a way that neither McCain nor Hillary can. He is a welcome change, in a rhetorical sense, from the linguistic manglings of President Bush or the holier-than-thou intonations of John Kerry. And he is (Thank God!) not at all shrill like Hillary.

His technique of speaking is reminicent of Martin Luther King, Jr. His youth and his energy calls to mind John F. Kennedy, as do his looks. Compare this to Hillary. It's been said that a man could listen to Hillary promise him a million dollars, and all he'd hear is his ex-wife yelling "Have you put out the garbage yet?"

That is only the style, however. What of the substance? Well, that is a question, isn't it?

Obama speaks of "Change We Can Believe In." He believes in "The Future" and "All Americans Uniting." His supporters echo his slogan, "Yes We Can."

"Change"? What kind of "change"? What does he see in our "future", of which he is wont to tell us he looks toward?

What are his policy proposals? There, he's a little bit vague. During the primaries, he, Hillary and Edwards vied for who would raise taxes the most and fastest. They argued about who's Universal Healthcare plan would have the most mandates. And all three want to punish Big Oil, Big Pharmaceutical, and Big Insurance -- everything, in fact, but Big Government. And for a while, it seemed, they were in a race to see who would get out of Iraq first, although only Edwards would suggest a date for that withdrawal. In short, if you heard Edwards or Hillary, you've heard Obama's proposals. They are all interchangeable.

What Barak Obama does is use his soaring rhetoric to hide his extremely Liberal (face it, he's a Stalinist) ideology. He doesn't speak about his policies in detail because then everyone would know he isn't the "Agent of Change" he portrays himself to be. His policies are nothing but warmed over Socialism.

One need only to read his speech today in Janesville, Wi.:

• Universal Healthcare, whether Hillary's or Obama's, would be a Marxist nationalization of one of the largest parts of our economy.


• He describes the current mortgage troubles as if they were President Bush's fault, rather than the result of government forcing lending institutions to write bad loans, lest they be accused of "red lining".


• He is a master of the rhetoric of class warfare, pitting us against the rich and the corporations, never mind that they provide the investments and the infrastructure of our economy.


• He wants to subsidize what he calls "working families" with tax credits and federally funded daycare, all while punishing the achievers who actually made the jobs held by "working families".


• He proposes to "reform bankruptcy laws" to protect "victims of predatory lending".


• Obama wants a "National Infrastructure Reinvestment Bank" spending billions, and payed for by surrender in Iraq.

Friends, this is all boilerplate Liberalism, the kind that Democrats have been spewing since George McGovern. The only difference is that Barak Obama looks and sounds better than McGovern.

But, really! All he offers are platitudes. He is like the Miss America constestant that says "All I really want is world peace."

Barak Obama is an empty suit, nothing more. He offers loads of style, mounds of soundbites, and inspires much enthusiasm. But he says nothing new.

Last December, the Boston Globe asked Obama a series of questions regarding the Constitution, the Congress and the powers of the presidency. His answers were stunning, not only in their Liberal naivete, but in their total ignorance of just what the Constitution says and what the Supreme Court has to say on these issues.

Let us not ignore the question of race. Obama has been quite successful running as an American, avoiding the issue of race as much as the Clintonistas will allow. It is noteworthy that, among the Republican candidates, no one has so much as mentioned his race. Although Mike Huchabee was reprehensible when he maligned Mitt Romney's Mormon faith.

But among the Democrats? Pennsylvania's Gov. Eddie "Don't Call Me Fast Eddie" Rendell had the temerity to say "...I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate." This is stunning, aside from the obviously libelous and inflamatory denouncement of white America, when one considers that he is talking about the frontrunner of the Democratic field. I've already cataloged other instances of this sort of Liberal racism in previous columns, so I'll just leave it at that.

My friend, Evan Sayet, wrote today: "Whites WILL vote for a black man so long as he's not running as a black man." He's correct. Previous black Democratic candidates (Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, for instance) ran on the idea that America is racist and they were rightfully rejected. Obama, as Liberal as he is, doesn't, and that gives him traction outside the black electorate.

What Barak Obama proves, beyond any shadow of a doubt, is that America is no longer the racist nation portrayed by Civil Rights, Inc. A truly racist country would never have a black candidate do so well. This is especially true given his success in a Party that has its roots in the Confederacy and the Klan.

Of course, Obama is still wrong in so many ways and with so many issues. He is, before his blackness or lack thereof, still a Liberal. And his administration would be catastrophic for our country, despite all his talk of hope and change. If he is defeated in his quest for the White House it won't be because of racism, at least not from the Right. It will be because the electorate looked at his ideas and found them wanting.

Given the almost certain nomination of John McCain as the Republican presidential candidate, I am still certain that either Obama or Hillary will become our next president. McCain is too distrusted by the Republican base to beat Hillary, and Obama is far too shiny and new compared to McCain.

Of course, as noted yesterday in Through Race Colored Glasses 2/12/08, Hillary just might tear the Democratic Party apart along the fault lines of race and gender.

As I said yesterday: "Ah! Life is good!"

Copyright Feb.13th, 2008

SUPER DOOPER!

I write this as Monday turns to Super Tuesday. There are now 43 primary constests in 22 states. This is the day that makes or breaks Mitt Romney. For the Democrats, the slogging goes on until Feb. 12, and then we'll see what's what.

We all know where I stand on the races. John McCain would be like voting for Democrat-Lite. As near as I can tell, there's not a dime's worth of difference between Barak and Hillary. Huckabee wants to vice president under John McCain. And Romney is the only Republican who is actually Conservative and has had any real world experience.

John McCain, as was explained last week in The Elites Choose a Candidate, is the choice of the Establishment Rockefeller Republican elites, or RINO's. These Jurrasic era bluebloods look to McCain as the Republican most likely to win in November. Indeed, if some of the early polls of a match up between McCain and Hillary are to be believed, he has a slight lead, at least for now. That lead, though, is likely to evaporate should he become the Republican nominee and the Legacy Media bring out their knives.

That apparent lead, also doesn't take into account the simple reality that, without the Conservative base, the Republican Party would be in permanent minority status, as it had been before Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Conservatives, it seems aren't quite ready to drink the Kool-Aide for McCain, nor are they likely to just hold their noses and go along with their RINO leaders. And it's not just Montag's World that is decrying the apparent McCain juggernaut. Here are just a few examples

• Sean Hannity has endorsed Mitt Romney.


• Rush Limbaugh, who claims that McCain will mean the destruction of the GOP.


• Mark Levin, who frequently writes of McCain's apostacy from Conservative principals.


• Evan Sayet on his blog is quite critical of McCain and has endorsed Romney


• Ann Coulter has gone so far as to threaten to campaign for Hillary, should McCain get the nomination.

These are just a few of the Conservative luminaries, the brain trust if you will, who are vehemently opposed to a McCain candidacy. Should McCain sweep Super Tuesday, as the conventional wisdom says he will, rank and file Conservatives such as myself are left in a quandry: Do we support the Establishment candidate who has opposed our ideals for more than twenty years, or do we sit out the election, ensuring a Democrat in the White House. Actually, the choice isn't all that stark, since a McCain administration would look a lot like a Democratic administration, although a wee bit stronger on the War on Terror.

In The McCain Mutiny I wrote of a McCain nomination "...even with all these warts, McCain is the superior choice." Now I'm starting to rethink that. For what possible reason would any Conservative stay with the Republican Party if our own elites reject us? What good is it to support a RINO just because "he's not as bad as those Democrats"? For all I can see (based on RINO's in New York and both Bush Administrations) we're still heading for the same destination, just at a slower pace.

Dennis Prager once said that you don't vote for the candidate, you vote for his Rolodex. In other words, who will he appoint to his Cabinet, his advisory staffs, or the courts? Generally, most RINOs have been OK on these matters, but there are some extreme exceptions. Although Bush the Elder chose well with Clarence Thomas, David Souter has been a nightmare. And we still have John Paul Stevens, appointed by Gerald Ford, another RINO. Even Conservatives give us a clinker now and then, Reagan having given us Anthony Kennedy, another Liberal judge.

So who's in McCain's Rolodex? One need only to look to Michelle Malkin to find out that he has advisors like Juan Hernandez and Jerry Perenchio, of the radical group, La Raza. Lest anyone doubt La Raza's radicalism, they oppose all immigration enforcement, favor immediate citizenship for all illegal aliens, and support the creation of Aztlan, the apocraphyl legendary home of the pre-Columbian Mexicans. Human Events, in an essay penned by Rep. Charlie Norwood (R. Ga) deftly traces the relationships between radical, anti-American "immigrants rights" groups and their ultimate goal of having the entire America Southwest annexed to Mexico. These aren't the kind of folks I'd like in my president's Rolodex!

Of course, in an age where the electorate tires of the bitter partisanship in Washington DC, is it any wonder that maybe a John McCain, who has proven he can "reach across the aisle" to Democrats, would be welcom change? But is the purpose of a Republican president to reach across the aisle and become a "Me too!" Democrat? Or is it to convince the Democrats to move more to the Conservative point of view? The RINOs, it seems would prefer the former.

No, Friends! The answer isn't to redefine Conservatism as Democrat-Lite. That way lies madness and defeat. I'm still hoping and praying for a Romney come back. California is beginning to look promising, as John Zogby points out. Although the premeir pollster is still confident in an ultimate McCain victory.

And yet, I believe in miracles. Just last night, I was talking to a few people about miracles and my belief in them. One of them said "It'd be a miracle if the Giants won the Superbowl." Well, guess what? The Giants did indeed win the Superbowl!

McCain, like Hillary, may be the presumptive winner of the nomination. But, again like Hillary, the conventional wisdom might be wrong, as it so frequently is, once again.

Here's to Mitt Romney! May he prove the RINOs wrong, just as Ronald Reagan did in 1980!

Copyright Feb. 4th, 2008