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

HOW CAN YOU TELL WHEN A CLINTON IS LYING?

Of course, everyone knows the punchline: "When her lips are moving."

Hillary has the very same aversion to honesty as her priapic husband, Bill. The only difference is she just can't pull it off with the aplomb, the elan, of the former Co-conspirator in Chief.

And now, with the Legacy Media all agog with Saint Obama, even the Clintonistas' propaganda organ can't keep a lid on the lies. Let's review, shall we?

Remember the cattle futures?

Back in 1994, the Washington Post reported that, in 1978, Hillary was allowed to make a $12,000 investment in cattle futures, although she had only $1000 in her account. Within ten months, she somehow leveraged that under capitalized "investment" into a $100,000 profit, a 10,000% rate of return. Of course, when questioned about these things, Hillary claimed that she learned how to do that by reading the Wall Street Journal. The WSJ, for its part, questioned this stunning windfall, asking if, perhaps, this was some sort of bribe filtered through the futures market.

The bottom line is, no one who is at all experienced in such financial dealings believes that Hillary benefited from nothing more than good advice and a little luck. There is something rotten there, and although the Legacy Media didn't want to look to deeply into it, the smell lingers on.

Anyone remember when Hillary claimed she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary?

It didn't take long for that whopper to be found out! It turns out that Hillary (the mendacious politician) was born five years before Sir Hillary and Tonzig Norgay climbed Mount Everest. This one still stinks, since snopes.com even references the matter and thoroughly debunks this myth as an utterly false urban legend. Still, the Legacy Media does little promote the truth of this fairy tale. Katie Couric, on CBS News, reported on Sir Edmund's death this past January with fluffy comments about our very own prevaricator, Hillary. No mention in the piece, by the way, of the false story that Hillary started.

Rose Law Firm billing records, anyone?

They were subject to subpoena for two years, in relation to congressional investigations Clintonista scandals, but the Clinton White House denied they had them. Suddenly, the New York Times reported, just twenty four hours after another "miraculous discovery", as Sen. Alphonse Damato (R, NY) quipped, they turned up in the First Lady's book room in the White House residence. Further, when subjected to forensic examination, they were found to have only Hillary's fingerprints all over them. No serious explanation was ever forthcoming, and the matter seemed to disappear. But is does make one wonder...

Oh, and the other "miraculous discovery"? That was an internal White House memo detailing Hillary's involvement in the firing of the White House Travel Office employees (otherwise known as "Travelgate") which Hillary was also denying any knowledge of.

If you are tempted to defend Hillary by saying this was merely the result of being closely identified with her known perjurer, the priapic Bill, let's also recall that she worked for the House Judiciary Committee back in 1974. World Net Daily has the story. Her boss, Jerry Zeifman, no member of the vast right-wing conspiracy, had to ultimately fire her without a letter of recommendation. What Hillary and her partner, Bernard Nussbaum of Clintonista scandal fame, tried to do was to deny President Richard Nixon the right to counsel in the Watergate investigation, on the grounds that there was no precedent, despite the then recent impeachment case of William O. Douglas. So how did Hillary support her arguments? World Net Daily reports: "Zeifman claims Clinton bolstered her fraudulent brief by removing all of the Douglas files from public access and storing them at her office, enabling her to argue as if the case never existed." The article further quotes Mr. Zeifman as saying that Hillary was a "liar" and "an unethical, dishonest lawyer." This from a lifelong Democrat.

We could go on and on with the many versions of Hillary's reality, but let's just skip ahead, shall we? Let's look at some of the more recent adventures in the Land of Hillary.

Hillary was an opponent of the Iraq war before Saint Obama:

Jake Tapper, of ABC News, makes mincemeat of that bit of theater. Even, as Hillary has tried to say, if you only consider the question from the year 2005, when Saint Obama entered the Senate. And if you don't use the Hillary measuring stick (the January, 2005 starting date) she still doesn't explain her vote for the Iraq invasion in the first place. Nor her sometimes pro, sometimes con stances regarding our troops in Iraq.

Hillary knows what it's like to be under fire:

Everyone has heard about this one -- that Hillary and Chelsea landed in Bosnia under heavy sniper fire -- by now, so there is little point in going over the matter in detail. Suffice it to say that even CBS News, purveyor of the phony documents story, couldn't let that one slide. Although, I have to admit that I have questions after viewing Barely Political's revealing video on YouTube. Actually, no, I thought it was a brilliant bit of political satire.

Young woman dies after being denied medical care:

The NowPublic.com web site reports Hillary's anecdote thusly:

Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton shared a touching story while on the campaign trail the last few weeks. If we had health care for everyone, things like this wouldn't happen.

Clinton shared, “I remember listening to a story about a young woman in a small town along the Ohio River, in Meigs County, who worked in a pizza parlor,” “She got pregnant, she started having problems. There’s no hospital left in Meigs County, so she had to go to a neighboring county.”

“She showed up, and the hospital said, ‘You know, you’ve got to give
us one hundred dollars before we can see you.’ She didn’t have a hundred dollars.”

“So the young woman went back home. The next time she went back,
she was in an ambulance. It turned out she lost the baby. She was airlifted to Columbus. And after heroic efforts at the medical center, she died.”

Folks should be angry that this happened in America. Angry about the woman who died? No, The Story, it is inaccurate.

Even the New York Times, long standing Clinton defenders that they are, had to cover this contatempt. It seems that both the hospital and the family of the young lady deny the veracity of the story. The only thing Hillary got right was that the mother and baby both died. But they did have health insurance and they were not denied treatment. But that doesn't stop Hillary from repeating the apocryphal tale on the stump. Hey! Why let facts get in the way of a good speech? Says Hillary, " “It hurts me that in our country, as rich and good of a country as we are, this young woman and her baby died because she couldn’t come up with $100 to see the doctor.”

Again, I could go on and on with these tid bits. But the point of the matter is, how much more mendacity do Americans have to take from the Clintons? Weren't the 1990's bad enough?

And if -- God forbid! -- Hillary wins the election in November, why would anyone in the world believe anything coming from her administration?

Ah, yes! The Clintons! They are a gold mine for folks who write about the political scene. Still, America will be much better off when they finally leave that scene.

Copyright April 7th, 2008

CHAOS IN LIBERAL LA LA LAND

You know, it's almost too good to be true! The more the Left looks silly, the sillier they get. I couldn't make this stuff up on my best days!

What I am talking about is the pure chaos that has befallen the Democratic Party. They are in complete disarray and they are beginning to eat their own.

First off, Hillary Clinton didn't get the coronation that the "smart" money said was hers. Her running in the primary was a mere formality back in the Fall. But along came Saint Obama and his message of hope and change. It didn't matter that there's not a dime's worth of difference between the two, policy-wise. Obama was the Rorschach candidate, a tabula rosa upon which the Liberal elites could pin their hopes and dreams.

That Saint Obama was a phenomenal public speaker and had little track record to be torn apart by his competitors only fed the mystique. Compared to the trailer trash aura of the Clintonistas, the scandal upon scandal, Obama was a breath of fresh air.

Of course, Hillary won't let some upstart get in her way on the road to the White House. Dirty tricks are bread and butter to the Clintonistas, which is yet another reason why her welcome in the Democratic Party has worn a bit thin. Look to Hillary trying to bully the DNC into seating the delegates from Florida and Michigan, despite the fact that she agreed to cutting the two states out of the primaries as punishment for voting too early. And who knows what she'll do to get the super delegates to vote for her?

Dirty tricks aside, look at the conundrum the Liberal voter must face: "Am I a sexist if I vote for the man, or am I a racist if I vote for the white woman?" What's a Liberal to do? Either way, he's open to charges of bigotry of one stripe or another.

Speaking of bigotry, there is still more fallout from the affair of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. First, Geraldine Ferraro (who's questionable comment was, "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position.") is now taking umbrage to being lumped in with the good Reverend as a racist. Never mind that what she said could very easily be construed as racist to begin with!

Saint Obama, not knowing when to leave well enough alone, went on the talk radio circuit to elaborate on his big race speech. Said the Saintly One:

"The point I was making was not that Grandmother harbors any racial animosity. She doesn't. But she is a typical white person, who, if she sees somebody on the street that she doesn't know, you know, there's a reaction that's been bred in our experiences that don't go away and that sometimes come out in the wrong way, and that's just the nature of race in our society."

Just asking, but how far would I get if I called Obama a "typical" black person? Wouldn't I be considered racist? To be fair, an Obama spokesman parsed the Senator's words, saying that he meant to say "a person of her generation.".

Yet, what he really said was that white folks are afraid of blacks, think they are criminals and that they're dangerous. Regardless of what Saint Obama meant to say, what he actually said was an invidious stereotype of white people.

In short, what he said was racist.

But, it seems, that Hillary has a bit of a Rev. Wright problem herself! The New York Times, in their Caucus blog, published a photo of Rev. Wright shaking hands with the priapic Bill Clinton in 1998. The photo was provided to the Times reporters by none other than the Obama campaign.

And what was Rev. Wright doing with old Priapic Bill? Why it was none other than the prayer breakfast he held on the cusp of Ken Starr's reporting on his investigations. Yup! The Horn Dog in Chief met with the Racist Reverend to atone for Monica Lewinski!

Meanwhile, Hillary's lackey, Bill Richardson, who performed so admirably as her screen during the early days of the primaries, has jumped ship and endorsed Saint Obama. Richardson, who polls extremely well among Hispanics, being an Hispanic himself, probably didn't get enough goodies promised from the Clintonistas. So he's taking his ball (and a good chunk of the Hispanic vote that Hillary really needs right about now) and ran to the Saintly One, saying, "Este es un hombre que nos entiende y que nos va a respetar!" (This is a man who understands us and who will respect us!)

I told you I couldn't make this stuff up!

If this sort of thing keeps up, I might have to reassess my predictions for the November elections. While Hillary and Saint Obama keep hammering at each other, spending money better spent on the actual elections rather than the primaries, John McCain looks more and more like the grown up!

Here's another cloud on the horizon of the Leftist La La Land: the Franklin and Marsh College Poll reports that one in five Democrat voters will vote for John McCain if their candidate doesn't get the nomination. That is a significant, if not fatal, weakness in the base, don't you think?

Personally, I'm having more fun this election cycle than anyone should be allowed! Despite their arrogant confidence that the nation has turned Left, the Democrats just can't seem to get their act together.

But will John McCain take advantage of this chaos? So far, it seems not. As written here at Montag's World, in McCain on the Warpath, he disavowed the help and endorsement of Conservative talk host, Billy Cunningham, for his use of Saint Obama's middle name. Then, he fired a campaign aid who e-mailed a link to a video that made Obama seem un-American, when juxtaposed with the sermons of Rev. Wright.

Hey! John! Wake up! This is a presidential campaign, not a student body election! If you can't play rough, then get out of the sandbox!

With the Chaos In Liberal La La Land, this could be John McCain's election to lose. Let's just see if he gets on the ball.

Copyright March 21st, 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

MORE CHILLY WINDS FROM SOUTH AMERICA

More news about the ever-brewing Cold War. One theater of this looming threat is in South America, where Hugo Chavez has brought unapologetic Stalinism back to the region that Ronald Reagan liberated from tyranny. Consider this to be an expansion of Cold War? I Blame Global Warming!

Unfortunately, that liberation occurred two decades ago. The Clinton administration, with the usual Democrat/Liberal liking for Marxist dictators, allowed Chavez to ascend to power in Venezuela. Matters were made worse due to the War on Terror, which took American attention off the threat to our South. Soon, the assets of American corporations were nationalized, media outlets critical of this pint-sized thug were closed, sometimes violently.

Chavez has succeeded in getting the Kennedy clan, in the person of Joseph Kennedy, to gain popular support in the US, using oil from the state owned Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A., or PDVSA. With smarmy adds, Joe Kennedy uses that tried and true Liberal vision of soup kitchen America, and gives away heating oil to "the poor", all thanks to the "people of Venezuela".

Of course, "the poor" here in America are far better off than the middle class in almost every other nation in the world, but why let mere facts get in the way of a good shibboleth? And does anyone think that giving oil away in America does the actual people of Venezuela any good? Let's go further, are the people any better off if the government sells the oil, let alone gives it away?

From my observations of Marxist "paradises" of the past, I think not!

Venezuela has deepening ties with such lovely nations as Communist China, Russia, Iran, and Cuba. Indeed, Venezuela has teamed up with China and Cuba to drill for oil in the Gulf of Mexico, a rich oil field that our Democrat friends, along with John McCain, have placed off limits for American oil companies.

To give you an idea of just how out of touch with reality our Friends on the Left are, let's look at their alleged "Energy" Bill, which recently passed the House of Representatives. Michelle Malkin points out that this travesty of legislation would produce no new energy, yet would raise taxes on American oil companies and give breaks and subsidies to PDVSA. In other words, we would make hamstring the development of domestic oil supplies even further than the enviro-weenies have done already, while giving a competitive advantage to a state-owned Communist front company.

But that's not the really bad news yet. Let's look to Venezuela's neighbor, Columbia.

Colombia has had a hard time of it in the past. They are the world's leading source of cocaine and other drugs. Despite their best efforts, and the help of the United States, they have had little success weaning their peasants from the relatively lucrative crop of coca, in favor of more conventional crops. To make matters worse, they have their own Marxist insurgency, an insurgency that has taken over much of the cocaine production from the cartels and is funding its revolution against the Colombian government with profits from the sale of the drug. They supplement their income and their revolution with kidnappings and murder.

These murderous little darlings call themselves the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia, or FARC, and have been supported by the Soviet Union, the Chinese, the Cubans and other Stalinist states for over four decades. Now, they are supported by Venezuela.

On March 1st, 2008, Colombian forces staged a raid against a FARC camp just over the border in Ecuador. Killed in the attack was FARC leader, Raul Reyes and sixteen other of his terrorist "soldiers". This did not sit very well with neither Mr. Chavez nor Ecuador.

Chavez is now amassing troops and armor on the Colombian border, as is Ecuador, another relatively Marxist state. They are now threatening one of our allies in South America. Outright war has become a distinct possibility in South America. This would be the sort of entree that Russia and China would love to exploit. And Chavez, with his decidedly anti-American worldview, would absolutely welcome their support.

What is needed now is to revisit the policies of Ronald Reagan, which had rolled back the Marxist threat in South America, giving nations like El Salvador, Nicaragua, and Honduras a chance to be free. Currently, the trend in the region is toward Stalinism, which must be stopped with great alacrity.

John McCain might be a good president for these uncertain times. However, as I have exhaustively outlined in Montag's World, he just ain't gonna win the election.

So how would Hillary or Saint Obama fair? Think Carter. Think Soviet expansionism. Think of Iran. If they play to type, we will see a Marxist Columbia, with all efforts to curb the growing and exporting of cocaine ended.

Why would I say that? Let's consider each of the leading Democratic candidates.

Hillary's signature campaign issue is nationalized health care. Her biggest supporters have long sung the praises of Cuba's health care system. Michael Moore, for instance, made a movie extolling the benefits of Castro's top-down, government run system. And I guarantee that, when the vote comes up in the Senate, Hillary will vote to give Citgo the breaks that will be denied to American oil companies. The Democrats, especially the modern Liberal Democrats, are historically incapable of defining, let alone defending, America's interests. Hillary will be just another in a long line of Democratic appeasers.

But what about Saint Obama? After all, hasn't he promised to get tough with Pakistan? Yes, he has. But Pakistan is an American ally, and he's already promised to surrender in Iraq and meet with all our enemies for unconditional talks. This will do ... what? How will diplomatic talks keep Columbia from succumbing to a Marxist assault both from within and from their neighbors?

Again, the policies of the Reagan era are what's needed today. We need to confront these Marxist thugs diplomatically, as well as covertly from within. We need to identify groups whose interests correspond with ours and give them all the aide they need to bring their nations back into the democratic mold. Neither Hillary nor Saint Obama are capable, or even willing, to do what is necessary to stop this cancer from spreading.

That being said, let us also remember what old Jimmy Carter made possible: a quarter of a century of Conservative leadership in America. A Democratic win in November will unite and energize Conservatives, while the Democrats will self-destruct, just like Carter. The damage done by the Left to America and her interests will almost guarantee such a Conservative Renaissance.

This is not at all the future that I would prefer, but we got stuck with Juan Pablo McCain, as Billy Cunningham has taken to calling him. Therefore, we Conservatives are left with the Conservatives-in-the-wilderness gambit.

I am always an optimist. For all the trouble I have with McCain, the glass is still half full!

Copyright March 2nd, 2008

McCAIN ON THE WARPATH

Well, it finally happened. John McCain showed a bit of his famous temper yesterday. The trouble is, it wasn't against his prospective opponents among the Democrats. Once again, John McCain has demonstrated why he shouldn't even be in the Republican Party, let alone the putative nominee for the presidency.


What got McCain all in a twist were the comments of Billy Cunningham, a Conservative talk radio host who was doing the warm-up for a McCain rally in Cincinnati, Oh. Apparently, Mr. Cunningham's remarks were so beyond the pale that Senator McCain made a special point to repudiate those remarks. He then went on to apologize that they were made at his rally. USA Today quotes the GOP front runner:

"I take responsibility and I repudiate what he said. I will not tolerate
anything in this campaign that denigrates either Sen. Obama or Sen.
(Hillary) Clinton."

This is all fine and dandy. It shows McCain's genteel side. It's just a shame that he can't show the same fire and outrage about the Democratic contenders that he shows for his Republican supporters. There was the famous exchange last year wherein McCain dropped the F-bomb on fellow Republican Senator John Cornyn during official Senate business. CNN's Jack Cafferty wrote an extended piece on his temper. Let's not forget that he implied that Conservative opponents to his amnesty bill for illegal aliens were racist nativists.

But enough about McCain, at least for the moment. What did Billy Cunningham say that deserved such ire? What did he do at that rally that so embarrassed John McCain?

Well, he made several pointed comments regarding the front runner for the Democratic nomination: Barak Hussein Obama and the coverage of his campaign in the Legacy Media. From the USA Today story:

• [sooner or later, the media would begin covering Obama's] "sweetheart deals in Chicago and the illegal loans he got in Chicago."


• He also called Obama a "hack Chicago-style Daley politican"


• He described an Obama administration as "the great prophet from Chicago takes the stand and the world leaders who want to kill us will simply be singing Kumbaya together around the table with Barack Obama."


• What was even worse he called Barak Hussein Obama-- not once, but twice...TWICE, I say! -- "Barak Hussein Obama".
  

These would be very serious matters in the fantasy world that the Legacy Media and John McCain live in. But here in the Real, we know that everything Billy Cunningham has said is absolutely true!

Saint Obama has yet to explain his cozy financial arrangements with the indicted Tony Rezco, other than to say it was a mistake. But just what was the mistake? What did he do to make it right? We don't know, because Obama won't say and Rezco is now lawyered up. But it is apparent that Obama received some loans from Rezco, and that Rezco didn't have that kind of money. So where did it come from?

Here's a trick question for you: Name one politician from Chicago who wasn't a "hack Chicago- style Daley politician"? Let's be real here, folks! We're talking about a town where everyone who dies is immediately registered as and votes for Democrats. The Daley's have run this town for decades, and there is little chance that this state of affairs will change in the near -- or even the distant -- future. Only New Jersey and New Orleans can come close to the corruption of Chicago. These aren't attacks on Saint Obama. These are merely statements of fact.

Oh, so why do I write "Saint" Obama? It's his supporters who claim his near divinity. Right here on BlogSpot, there's a site that asks the question "Is Barack Obama the Messiah?" Timothy Noah posts, on Slate.com a periodic item entitled "Obama Messiah Watch" which explores the possibility that Obama is the Son of God. And then, Louis Farrakan had this to say about Obama:

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be
made better. This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red
and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of
his words, those people are being transformed. A black man with a white
mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. A
black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from
her fall."

Which now brings us to Billy Cunninghams next point about the "great prophet from Chicago etc..." What is a messiah but a "great prophet"? Isn't that what Obama's supporters are saying?

And what of Obama's foreign policy statements? He's already signed on to the idea of diplomacy, first, last, and only. He's already pledged to meet with our enemies unconditionally. And he's threatened to invade one of our allies, Pakistan.

And John McCain says "I will not tolerate anything in this campaign that denigrates either Sen. Obama or Sen. (Hillary) Clinton"? What did Billy Cunningham say that wasn't true?

Could it be that he used Barak Hussein Obama's full name, as has been done for many past presidents and presidential candidates? William Jefferson Clinton, Ronald Wilson Reagan, Richard Milhaus Nixon, Lyndon Baines Johnson, Hillary Rodham Clinton? Since when is using a candidates real middle name a faux pas?

But you have to give Billy Cunningham credit. When he found out how McCain threw him under the bus he said '"I've had it with McCain. I'm going to throw my support to Hillary Rodham Clinton."

This story is precisely the reason that John McCain won't win the election in November. He has no fire in his belly when it comes to the Democrats he is running against. He has nothing but disdain for his fellow Republicans and, when speaking of the differences between him and the Democratic contenders, he mumbles his remarks in a passionless monotone.

John McCain, in short, would have been a far better candidate for the Democrats.

Copyright Feb. 26th, 2008

REALITY CHECK

Many of my friends on the Left believe (rather, they claim to believe) that every single recommendation of the 9/11 Report should have immediately become law and/or official United States policy. Had President Bush, immediately upon entering the White House, presciently knew what those recommendations would be and enacted them in the first months of his presidency, 9/11 would never have happened.


Perhaps. But then, had Bill Clinton not had Jamie Gorelick build that wall between the CIA and the FBI, perhaps something could have been done earlier. Or, as demonstrated by Robert "Buzz" Patterson in his book Dereliction of Duty, if Bill actually took time out from Monica Lewinsky to take Osama bin Ladin down, perhaps this column might not be necessary.


Be that as it may, there are problems looming for the United States, problems that none of the current Big Three candidates for president seem likely to address. These problems all stem from one major issue: illegal immigration.


By way of disclaimer, let it be known that my position on illegal immigration has evolved somewhat. Now, being a radical free market social Conservative with major Libertarian tendencies, and all things being equal, I am generally an open borders kind of guy. Put the government back into its Constitutional bottle (end all social spending, cut taxes as low as possible, radically simplify the tax code, make English the official language, etc.) and no one would really care how many people came from what countries to make a life as an American. Should our economy have a downturn and we aren't able to absorb all those immigrants, well, the market would settle that: news of hard times would get back to the homeland and the flow of immigrants will slow, perhaps even stop.


Nowadays, however, all things are not equal at all. We were attacked on 9/11. Most of the nineteen hijackers were not only in the country illegally, they had multiple drivers' licenses and identities. It has become painfully obvious that open border policies have failed to prevent this act of war.


And what do our leaders, of both political parties, have to offer for solutions? Sadly, only more open borders.


Today's immigration mess didn't just appear out of thin air. The problem goes back at least forty years. Ted Kennedy, back then, decided that our old system of immigration wasn't fair enough. Twenty years later, immigrants from Europe, who by and large share our values, were discouraged in favor of Latin Americans. Not only that, enforcement of our borders was given short shrift.


Of course, twenty years later, there was a public outcry about the burgeoning illegal immigration problem. Ronald Reagan, facing a Democratically controlled Congress, made a deal. The idea was that the border would be closed but, in the meantime, illegal aliens already here were granted a one time amnesty. So what happened?


Well, the Democrats got their amnesty, but blocked all attempts to close our borders, despite their solemn promise. News of the amnesty went South, and still more desperate people went North. Today, we are given estimates of between twelve and twenty-two million illegal immigrants in America.


First of all, there is no way to enforce a serious legal code, not if almost anyone can enter the country at will. And then, how do they get around pesky identifications and taxes and such? No problema! That's what they have identity theft for!


Of course, absent the terrorist threat and absent a government actually following the Constitution, this situation is untenable. Consider how the federal government, either through acts of Congress or the courts, has mandated that these illegal aliens are eligible to all the rights and protections that citizens or legal immigrants are entitled. Consider also, the poor folks whose identities have been stolen for the illegals' benefit. You see, of course, that one broken law begets another, and another...


Now, let's throw in Islamo-fascism and the terrorist threat. The way our borders are currently enforced, does anyone really doubt that terrorists can easily get into the country through Mexico? Does anyone doubt that the "coyotes", those who engage in human smuggling, are taking offers from al Qaeda and the like?


If you doubt me on this, consider the 9/11 Report:

• According to the Report, al Qaeda owns, of all things, a travel agency in Mexico!


• The Report notes that the hijackers committed various irregularities regarding their visas, passports and other documents. Some entered the country illegally, some overstayed their visas, most had fraudulent drivers' licenses. All of this to gain access to American airliners to be used as guided missiles.


• Members of the panel asked many questions about the failures of our Immigration and Naturalization Service, as well as failures on the part of the FBI and the CIA

There is no doubt that, had our border enforcement been better, the 9/11 hijackers would not have had as easy a job to do.

Now, we have several recent stories, which I've culled from World Net Daily:

• Mexico has just arrested two Iraqis with false Bulgarian passports. They suspect that they are being purchased by jihadists for $10,000 from Mexicans in Greece.


• Quoting WND: "In addition, earlier this month, Norwegian authorities reported that Iraqis affiliated with al-Qaeda and former Baath Party members may have slipped into Kuwait after obtaining $15,000 Norwegian passports. Authorities in Kuwait say they are on the lookout for any Iraqi citizen bearing a Norwegian passport."


• Let's not forget that dozens of Iraqis were arrested entering Monterrey, Mexico, illegally, heading for the United States.


• Joseph Farrah, the editor of WND reported in 2003: "While President Bush considers a broad-based amnesty plan for millions of illegal aliens in the U.S., there is growing evidence the Mexican border continues to be used as a covert entry point for the smuggling of Arabs into the country."

We are facing a very serious threat, my Friends. While Chuck Schumer might holler for stricter security in our ports, he has little positive to say about securing our borders.

President George W. Bush has been strong on the War on Terror (God bless him!) but when it comes to securing the border? Chuck Schumer might as well have been the president, for all the differences (or lack thereof) in their positions regarding "comprehensive immigration reform".

John McCain likes to "reach across the aisle" to the Democrats. In this case, we just dodged a bullet with the McCain-Kennedy Bill, also supported by President Bush, which would totally fail to close our borders, while simultaneously granting amnesty to all those illegal aliens who've broken our laws. Been there, done that in 1986. In this time of war, do we need to repeat the mistake of Ronald Reagan?

Yes, McCain has promised on the campaign trail that he "gets it". He's learned his lesson and that he will shut down our borders but good the first thing when he gets to the White House. Yup! And I can sell you a slightly used bridge in Brooklyn for a measly couple of grand. With McCain in the White House and the Democrats in charge of the Congress, we'll have almost all of Mexico, along with whatever al Qaeda operatives there are, in the US and voting Democrat within ten years.

Hillary and Obama aren't any different either. Both want our borders open. Both favor granting illegals drivers' licenses. Neither of them, in last night's debate in Texas, wantto take a stance on making English our official language. In short, both like the influx of unskilled, under educated, illegal immigrants who have no interest in actually becoming Americans. Of course, that would, presumably, not be an obstacle when registering them as Democrats!

Now don't think that I am anti-immigrant. On the contrary, I love immigrants. I'm the grandson of immigrants. But I want immigrants who come here to become Americans. These are not the sort who become illegal aliens.

Read my opening comments about open borders, all things being equal. The mess we're in today is because my ideas about government and immigration were never implemented. We opened our borders without putting the government back into it's Constitutional bottle.

Then again, when I was an open borders guy, we weren't at war. As many folks have noted, 9/11 changes things. What we found out in the aftermath is that we are far too vulnerable thanks to illegal immigration.

My fear is that too many of our political elites, on both sides of the political divide, just don't see it.

Copyright Feb. 22nd 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

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

THROUGH RACE COLORED GLASSES 2/12/08

One of the many joys in my life is to watch Political Correctness run, head on, into itself. This year's presidential election is perhaps the most extreme case I've seen in my life.

Political Correctness (or "PC" for the remainder of this column) is strictly in the province of the Left. In simplest terms, it is a form of thought and speech control, wherein any deviation from the precepts of PC are to be met with howls of "Racist, Homophobe, Misogynist, Zenophobe!" Or, in other words, anyone who disagrees with a Liberal.

For instance, if we were to point to the serious troubles in the black family, we are told that we are "blaming the victim". Similarly, if you took the trouble to examine the actual statistice that undermine the theory of the Glass Ceiling for women, you are obviously lying, since the oversimplified statistics show just a ceiling.

Another way of looking at PC is that it is completely given over to identity politics, or the issues of people as part of ethnic groups or some other such artificial division, rather than as individuals.

In New York City, we have the very Liberal Mayor Mike Bloomberg going on a very PC war on tobacco, banning tobacco from almost every enclosed public space. Yet, in Astoria, Queens, he is unable, or unwilling as a leading proponent of PC, to confront the proliferation of Arab coffee houses that feature hookahs, or waterpipes, for the tobacco enjoyment of their patrons. This has become a bone of contention for restaraunts and bars in the area that aren't Arab-centric. Neighborhood bar? Outside with your cigarettes! A hookah? Sure, no problem! Go ahead and light up!

But the most amazing collision of PC with itself has been in the Democratic primaries of this presidential election season. On the one hand, we have Hillary Clinton, formerly the annointed candidate of the Democrats and her identity group of women and feminists. On the other, we have Barak Hussein Obama with all the hopes and dreams of Liberal blacks and other minorities. Suddenly, we find the Democratic Party and the Left in collision with themselves, all thanks to looking at life and politics "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Hillary Clinton, by past record, shouldn't have any troubles like this. After all, Toni Morrison, in 1998, had already crowned her husband, Bill as America's First Black President, citing his upbringing in a single-parent family and his serial adultery as credentials. (Personall, if I were black, I'd be insulted by this.) Hillary, Bill, and even that tree, Al Gore, have all spoken before black audiences, often, embarrassingly, adopting the speaking style of black preachers.

Now, though, Toni Morrison is endorsing Barak Hussein Obama. What's Hillary to do? Oh, sure! She can get Andrew Young, that icon of the Civil Rights Movement and former ambassador to the United Nations, to point out, simultaneously, Obama's youth and Bill's "blackness" saying: "Bill is every bit as black as Barack. He's probably gone with more black women than Barack." But this just doesn't seem to be enough.

Obama, meanwhile, has identity politics troubles of his own, albeit minor troubles. His leading star-power endorsment is Oprah Winfrey. Now, Oprah, while herself black, isn't perceived necessarily as black. She is the uber fem, the avatar of WOMAN. This makes her something of a feminist icon, since she is also the richest woman in America. The British Times Online, however, reported last month on the backlash from women and feminists (these are not necessarily the same folks, although most feminists are women) calling Oprah "a traitor to her gender", by not supporting the female candidate.

So here we have the Establishment Civil Rights guys (Jackson, Rangel, Young etc.) lining up behind Hillary along with the Feminist intelligentsia. Meanwhile, the younger Turks are ginning up for Obama, notably the Hollywood set. Throw in the Kennedy's for a little Establishment gravitas, if you will, and we have the Democratic Party in extreme meltdown mode.

Today is the Potomac Primary and it looks like Hillary is about to get her clock cleaned. Obama is running away, apparently, with the Democratic votes. But don't you dare think that Hillary is going to go off and lick her wounds. Rush Limbaugh, today, made the prediction that, whoever wins in the primaries, Hillary will be sure to get the nomination.

And if she does, what happens in the Democratic Party?

Let's imagine, for a moment, that Obama wins the majority of delegates to the Democratic Convention. Florida and Michigan, punished by the DNC won't have their delegates seated at the convention, based upon rules agreed to by all the Democrat candidates. Does anyone seriously believe that Hillary won't demand that those delegates be seated and counted as hers? After all, they were won by Hillary since she "just didn't have time" to remove her name from the ballots in accordance to the DNC's decision. And just who runs the DNC? Why it's the Clintons, since Bill was their most recent president.

Now let's imagine the response by black Democrats to the usurping of the primaries by the white candidate. Hmmm... Not pretty would be my guess!

Of course, if anyone in the Democratic Party had any sense at all, not only would they be Republicans, they would see this sort of happy nonsense coming a mile away. These are the logical results of identity politics and PC. This is the direct result of looking at people as groups, rather than individuals. These are the fruits of looking at life "Through Race Colored Glasses".

Ah! Life is good! I love watching the Left crash on the rocks of their own irrationality!

Copyright Feb. 12th, 2008