Archive for June, 2008

Obama’s Hometown Paper Says “Repeal 2nd Amendment”

June 30, 2008

You always got to like it when liberals show just how shockingly out of touch with reality – and with American life – they truly are.

It’s even better when it’s the hometown paper of a candidate for President who is solidly positioned as THE most liberal Senator in the country.

The Chicago Tribune today said, in its editorial titled, “Repeal the 2nd Amendment“:

No, we don’t suppose that’s going to happen any time soon. But it should.

The 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is evidence that, while the founding fathers were brilliant men, they could have used an editor.

I would argue instead that the editors of the Chicago Tribune could use a brain.

Once you decide to destroy one fundamental civil right, you pretty much open the door to destroying all the rest of them. I mean, what the heck, why go for second when you can get first? Why not repeal the 1st Amendment? Then we wouldn’t have to read the drivel from those idiotic morons over at the Chicago Tribune.

Okay, so the Chicago Tribune wants to go the way of the Nazis, the Fascists, the Communists, and every single other totalitarian regime throughout history that has ever sought to solidify power by taking away the ability of its citizenry to defend itself against tyranny.

The language of the 2nd Amendment is crystal clear to anyone who isn’t radically committed to overthrowing it. If “the people” is a synonym for a “a well regulated militia,” then it follows that whenever we see the term anywhere else, we should NOT consider it as an individual right, but rather only the right of some government supervised and organized group.

Stop and think about it: do liberals want some white supremacist group starting a “militia”? Would they honor the gun rights of that militia? How about a bunch of American radical Islamicists who want to start a militia? Obviously not. Only a government supervised and government controlled entity such as the National Guard would qualify for liberals.

But is that “the people”? I’m not in the National Guard, and you probably aren’t either. So you aren’t “the people”?

Clearly, the “well regulated militia” was intended to be comprised of private individual citizens, “the people.” You could play the same stupid game with the first amendment, and argue that only the organized press should have free speech, because “the people” should have the Constitutional rights of speech and assembly only by means of “the press.”

You start to see what asinine nonsense this view is. It is terrifying that the Supreme Court was composed of such hard-core judicial activists in the past that they pretty much did whatever they wanted to do with the rights of Americans.

This editorial openly demonstrates just how radical the Chicago Tribune is, and how radically leftist Chicago politics are.

And it provides a neon “pointing finger” sign aimed at Barack obama.

Obama has said that he believed the Washington D.C. complete ban on handguns was constitutional, even as he has tried to say he’s also for individual gun rights. It’s one of his better “I voted for that bill before I voted against it” moments.

During An Interview, Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: “One other issue that’s of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently – I’m quoting here – ‘I have no intention of taking away folks’ guns,’ but you support the D.C. handgun ban.” Obama: “Right.” (Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08)

But Obama has previously held views on gun ownership even more radical than this:

In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The “Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns.” Question: “Do you support state legislation to … ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?” Obama’s Response: “Yes.” (Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96)

Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes. “Adding even further skepticism to Obama’s claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Instit ute — an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership.” (Illinois State Rifle Association, “ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners,” Press Release, 8/24/04)

In 2004, Obama Voted Against Self-Defense Rights. “[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.” (Ryan Keith “Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics,” The Associated Press, 1/17/07)

In 2004, Running For U.S. Senate Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-Empt State Concealed Carry Laws. “In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed.” (Liam Ford, “Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns,” Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04)

I in particular react to Obama’s vote against self-protection. There is a clear correlation between gun controls for ordinary citizens and sky-high crime rates. Washington D.C. – which had the most restrictive gun controls in the country for some 32 years – has spent most of those same 32 years as the murder capital of the United States.

If you force yourself into my home uninvited – and you are not a police officer exercising a lawful warrant – I will shoot you dead. That provides a rather powerful disincentive for you to try to break into my house, doesn’t it? But for most of his political career, Barack Obama has supported taking that right – and that ability to protect myself and my family – away from me and from other law abiding citizens.

Only law abiding citizens pay attention to laws; criminals don’t. That’s the difference between “law-abiding” and “criminal.” When it’s illegal for law-abiding citizens to own guns, then only criminals will have the guns.

People like Barack Obama are protected by armed Secret Service agents, or can afford to live in safe areas. But what about the rest of us? What about the millions of ordinary people who can’t count on their police arriving in thirty seconds or less? Shouldn’t they have the right to protect themselves in their own homes?

Barack Obama has come out of the radical leftist cesspool of Chicago politics. He’s trying to position himself as a centrist moderate for the general election, but the truth of the matter is, we simply shouldn’t trust this guy.

Advertisements

New Orleans and Cedar Rapids: A Tale of Two Mindsets

June 30, 2008

Why didn’t we see rioting and looting in Cedar Rapids such as we saw in New Orleans?

The question has been raised in forums and blogs, but hasn’t become a topic that journalists have examined. Maybe they haven’t asked the question because they know they wouldn’t like the answers?

Last week, somebody asked the question, “Why aren’t the people of Iowa not looting and rioting like the people [sic] New Orleans did after Katrina floods?

It’s a darn good question to ask.

And – before somebody starts to say that comparing the flooding in Iowa with the flooding in New Orleans is apples and oranges, let me make it apples and apples: Let’s compare the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in Mississippi with the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans.

The Associated Press ran this article describing the broken FEMA response in Hancock County, Mississippi:

WASHINGTON — Facing a growing body count and shortages of food, water and ice, federal emergency officials braced for riots in Mississippi in the days following Hurricane Katrina, new documents reveal.

Federal Emergency Management Agency officials knew their response system had been shattered by the Aug. 29 storm and were unable to provide fast help _ even when the needs were obvious.

“This is unlike what we have seen before,” William Carwile, FEMA’s former top responder in Mississippi, said in a Sept. 1 e-mail to officials at the agency’s headquarters. He was describing difficulties in getting body bags and refrigerated trucks to Hancock County, Miss., which was badly damaged by the storm.

Carwile wrote that he personally authorized Hancock County to buy refrigeration trucks because “the coroner was going to have to start putting bodies out in the parking lot.”

The next day, in another e-mail to headquarters about substandard levels of food, water and ice being distributed in Mississippi, Carwile reported, “System appears broken.”

In a Sept. 1 exchange, FEMA regional response official Robert Fenton warned headquarters that the expected levels of water and ice being sent were far below what was needed.

“If we get the quantities in your report tomorrow we will have serious riots,” Fenton wrote.

But, guess what? We didn’t see rioting, looting, rapes or murders in Hancock County either, in spite of the predictions and in spite of the total collapse of the relief effort.

I saw little pieces such as the following:

Mississippi citizens did not riot in the streets. Did not ransack neighborhoods or shoot at rescuing personnel. We helped, and continue to help, each other. We are not looking for handouts from the government, but we surely need everyone’s help. And we thank those that have done so

And (under the heading, “Mississippi IS Different“):

What I’m about to say is a bit controversial. But I’ve given this a lot of thought. While no disaster could come close to what the Mississippi Gulf Coast has endured, there have been similar situations. I think that most people in most places would not be so generous, so thoughtful of others. My gut feeling is that if right after a disaster there was a truck distributing gallons of water, with debris everywhere and people standing in line in the hot sun with no idea of when the next truck would be coming or what they were going to do next, people there would not only take the 5 gallons being offered, but would ask for another 5.

But that didn’t happen here. I have heard this sort of story too many times in too many towns to question it. There weren’t riots in Mississippi. There wasn’t a rampage of looting. People took enough for their basic needs and looked out for their neighbors. Ken Wetzel of Project Teamwork told me how there were no distribution points in East Biloxi so he spent every morning and afternoon picking up supplies and driving them through Point Cadet in East Biloxi, bringing water and MREs to help those who had lost their cars and couldn’t get to the supplies.

It’s just one of the things that I love about Mississippi.
Posted by Ellathebella

So let’s just acknowledge the fact that New Orleans completely self-destructed, when other communities banded together and took care of their own.

It’s not about race. Yes, New Orleans was predominantly black, and Iowa is predominantly white. But there have been black people who have heroically banded together in the aftermath of disasters, and there have been white people who have fallen apart (for example, remember the all the horror in Bosnia?).

It’s not even about political affiliation, although I think that how a community votes is a far better indicator as to how they will handle a crisis like a hurricane or a flood than the color of their skins.

Mississippi has generally been pretty reliably Republican. Iowa is a “battleground” state, in that it narrowly voted for Gore in 2000, and narrowly voted for Bush in 2004. But the Democrats in Iowa are as different from the Democrats in New Orleans as the night is different from the day.

I’ve got a big load of relatives living in Iowa: in Iowa City, Des Moines, Cedar Rapids, Lone Tree. Some are Democrats and some are Republicans, but they are overwhelmingly conservative, with conservative religious values to match.

I remember all the anger and bitterness and BLAME and the sheer spirit of self-centered entitlement that characterized New Orleans from the very first moments that the TV cameras arrived and started interviewing people. It was all Bush’s fault; it was all the government’s fault; it was all racist white people’s fault. It didn’t matter that New Orleans was firmly in Democratic hands, from the governor to the mayor. It didn’t matter that federal money for levies had been squandered on silly projects going back years. It didn’t bother that the local leadership on up didn’t have a plan or a clue. It didn’t matter that most of the residents were so completely unprepared that they didn’t even have an inflatable raft in a city that was UNDER sea level and surrounded by water.

By way of contrast, I’ve seen a total lack of blame coming from these other towns that suffered quite terribly.

We’ve got a tale of two mindsets: independent vs. dependent; moral vs. shameless, selfless vs. selfish, grateful vs. greedy.

There is a real contrast between the thousands of decent, hard-working, and self-sufficient Iowans from all over the state who got in their trucks and drove for hours to help communities in crisis such as Des Moines and Cedar Rapids fill tens of thousands of sandbags and the residents of New Orleans who had to be terrified of their neighbors. To the extent that things went well, it was because people banded together and took care of one another in an amazing way; to the extent that the society didn’t completely collapse when the water won, it was because people didn’t prey on one another, but stood together in solidarity in the face of crisis.

Liberalism teaches that people are helpless, and that they must constantly look to their government to take care of them. So nobody prepares, nobody plans, nobody takes individual responsibility or individual initiative. And nobody helps anybody. That’s supposed to be the government’s job. When a crisis hits liberal cities such as New York (remember the power outage that led to rioting and looting?) and Los Angeles (remember the Rodney King verdicts, that led to rioting, looting, mayhem, and people burning down their own communities?), there is a moral disaster of epic proportions characterized by anger, entitlement, and blame.

The Iowa caucus (which went to Barack Obama) is proof enough that Iowans aren’t racist. But there is no way that Iowans would ever have tolerated New Orleans’ Mayor Ray Nagin, or his culture of dependence and blame.

Jay Leno Hits Obama Right On The Head With One-liner

June 29, 2008

Barack Obama announced that this week he’ll visit Iraq and Afghanistan before the election in November. He said he wants to see an area that’s been overrun by violent extremists. So it sounds like he already misses his old church.”

Jay Leno, The Tonight Show, as featured on ABC‘s June 22, 2008 This Week segment, “the Sunday Funnies.”

Obama’s Vile Claims that Republicans, McCain Are Anti-black, Anti-women Justify ANY Counterattack

June 28, 2008

After John McCain announced that he supported ending the federal ban on offshore drilling and allowing states to make their own determination, Barack Obama said:

SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D), Illinois: This is yet another reversal by John McCain, in terms of his earlier positions. And I think we could set up an interesting debate between John McCain 2000 and John McCain 2008.

This was only one day before Barack Obama on June 19, 2008 announced his decision to go back on his earlier promise to support campaign reform by accepting – and publicly calling upon other candidates to accept – public financing.

Barack Obama has been all over the place on a whole host of isses: his all-over-the-place stance on gun control; his staffers telling Canada his official NAFTA position was merely “populist positioning”; his position on talking to rogue leaders such as Iran’s Ahmadinejab without preconditions which he has since hedged beyond recognition; his position on the status of Jerusalem which changes based on whether he’s talking to Jews or Arabs; his previous demand that telecommunications companies be unprotected from lawsuits for cooperating with the US government; his initial call for an immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Iraq; his reversal over the Cuba embargo; and on and on. John McCain has been the rock of consistency compared to Barack Obama – even in spite of the fact that Obama hasn’t had much of a career to actually have time to reverse positions. Most of McCain’s flips – in direct contrast to Obama’s – were announced prior to the primary elections so voters could consider the ramifications and vote accordingly. And his recent change of position over allowing states to decide whether to pursue offshore drilling is perfectly understandable given the new situation of $4.50/gallon gas. And yet here Barack Obama is, talking smack just like the self-righteous, self-aggrandizing hypocrite he is.

And consider Obama’s reasoning for breaking his promise to accept public funding:

“We’ve made the decision not to participate in the public financing system for the general election,” Obama says in the video, blaming it on the need to combat Republicans, saying “we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system. John McCain’s campaign and the Republican National Committee are fueled by contributions from Washington lobbyists and special interest PACs. And we’ve already seen that he’s not going to stop the smears and attacks from his allies running so-called 527 groups, who will spend millions and millions of dollars in unlimited donations.”

Liberal and Democratic 527s have ten freaking times the cash conservative and Republican causes have. Liberal money is all over the place. Obama is expected to raise shocking loads of money – $500 million dollars in just the final 2 months of the campaign alone – at a time when Democrats are out hysterically proclaiming that we’re in the second coming of the Great Depression. And liberals constantly talk about “swiftboating” (they’ve turned the noun into a verb), disregarding the fact that the Swiftboat Veterans for Truth was made up of over 200 fellow members of John Kerry’s riverine unit in Vietnam – including a Rear Admiral and Kerry’s own direct superior – as well as most of Kerry’s former fellow boat skippers. They also conveniently forget the fact that the Swiftboat Veterans caught a number of Kerry “misstatements.” And let’s not also forget those forged documents allegedly proving President Bush sought and received preferential treatment as a National Guard flight officer that showed up on Dan Rather’s CBS newscast.

A recent Democratic attack ad campaign engaged in a clearly racist attack against a Republican candidate of Italian ancestry named Dino Rossi, playing the theme music from The Supranos as it attempted to unfarily tie him to the mob. Even a number of Democrats characterized the ad as “racist and beyond offensive.” Democrats are every bit as good at “gaming the broken system” as Republicans have ever been.

You remember the MoveOn.org ad that ran at a substantially discounted rate in the New York Times that proclaimed, “General Petraeus or General Betray Us?” Try reading MoveOn or the DailyKos for a little sampling of some of the nastiest bile ever vomited out of the mouth of the sleaziest creature that ever crawled.

Please don’t try to argue that Barack Obama somehow has to go to extraordinary lengths to clear his pure-as-the-driven-snow reputation from those dirty Republicans.

Having said all the above, allow me to introduce a particularly pathetic recent example of Obama launching despicable cheap-shot character attacks against John McCain:

“John McCain, if he’s elected, is going to pick a Supreme Court that will roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years.”

Now, you see, I hear that kind of crap, and I have to ask: why NOT label “Barack Hussein Obama” as a covert Muslim who will introduce sharia law into the United States? All it would take would be one Supreme Court Justice appointment to do precisely that.

Let me tell you something: there’s a far better case that Barack Hussein Obama is a Manchurian-type Muslim candidate than there is that John McCain will roll back every gain that women have made in the last 50 years.” A FAR better case.

John McCain is somewhat against abortion, it is true. The anti-abortion position has been a significant plank on the Republican platform for a generation. Is this news to you? I have written at length that “a woman’s right to choose” is in fact the denial of any kind of right for men, who are forced to either sit by while women murder their children, or who are forced to provide nearly two decades of child support for a child they may not want to “choose.” And I have argued that nothingnothing – has been more destructive to fatherhood than 1) defining a child in the womb as a thing that deserves absolutely no dignity, status, or protection; and 2) taking away any element of right or privilege that ought to be accorded to fathers.

Why should fathers stick around? They did nothing more than contribute half the genetic materials that abortionists call “products of conception” when they burn a baby to death with acid or chop it into pieces and vacuum it out of the womb. Why shouldn’t fathers be resentful that they are forcibly required to pay support for the very same children that women could have legally butchered in their wombs?

That isn’t a right of women; it’s an abject denial of rights of children and fathers.

And “roll back every gain women have made in the last 50 years“? Is Obama serious, or simply slanderous? This kind of language is just as loaded as saying that John McCain will roll back every gain blacks have made in the last 50 years.” It is absolutely vicious.

Oh, wait, Obama has already used that vicious, hateful, cheap-shot too:

JACKSONVILLE, Florida (Reuters) – Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama said on Friday he expects Republicans to highlight the fact that he is black as part of an effort to make voters afraid of him…

“They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?”

If this isn’t “playing the race card,” then there is simply no such thing as “playing the race card.” Obama doesn’t have a single piece of evidence to cite that Republicans have done any such thing. But a truly dishonorable man simply doesn’t need any evidence to slander his opponents.

No. There’s a much better case that secretly Muslim Barack Hussein Obama will seek to impose sharia law on the United States.

British journalist Melanie Phillips has quite a story in the Israel Insider titled, “Obama takes on the Great Global Blogosphere Conspiracy Against His Holiness.” She links to Obama’s official website, which carries a denial titled, “Barack Obama Is Not and Has Never Been a Muslim.” It contains the statement, “Obama never prayed in a mosque. He has never been a Muslim, was not raised a Muslim, and is a committed Christian.” And Phillips points out that Obama has said, “I’ve always been a Christian,” and “I’ve never practiced Islam.”

However, as Phillips points out:

But none of this is true. As is explored in detail on Daniel Pipes‘s website, Obama was enrolled at his primary schools in Indonesia as a Muslim; he attended the mosque during that period; his friends from that time testify that he was a devout Muslim boy. A former teacher at one of these schools, Tine Hahiyary, remembers a young Obama who was quite religious and actively took part in “mengaji” classes which teach how to read the Koran in Arabic. The blogger from Indonesia who reported this commented:

“Mengagi” is a word and a term that is accorded the highest value and status in the mindset of fundamentalist societies here in Southeast Asia. To put it quite simply, “mengaji classes” are not something that a non practicing or so-called moderate Muslim family would ever send their child to… The fact that Obama had attended mengaji classes is well known in Indonesia and has left many there wondering just when Obama is going to come out of the closet.

His father was a Muslim, as was his stepfather. His grandfather was a Muslim convert. His wider family appear to have been largely devout Muslims. Yes, we only know about Obama?s early years as a Muslim; and yes, twenty years ago he became a Christian. The issue, however, is why he has been less than candid about his early background and his family. Indeed, he appears to have actively deceived the public about it. That is why the blogosphere is so exercised about it.

There’s actually a whopping load of documentation proving that Barack Hussein Obama has been disengenuous to the extreme about his background – which is exactly what we would expect a Manchurian-style candidate to do.

Phillips also points out:

Now here’s another curious thing. Much has been made of his membership of the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago whose former pastor and his long-standing mentor, Jeremiah Wright, Obama was forced finally to renounce on account of his obnoxious views (although he has signally failed unequivocally to denounce those views themselves and the no less obnoxious philosophy of the Trinity United black power church). But according to a passing reference in a profile in The New Republic last year, Pastor Wright was himself a Muslim convert to Christianity. He seems to have moved from being a Muslim black power fanatic to a Christian black power fanatic — which might go some way to explaining his close affinity to the Muslim black power ideologue Louis Farrakhan.

I went to the article she cited and – sure enough:

After many lectures like this, Obama decided to take a second look at Wright’s church. Older pastors warned him that Trinity was for “Buppies”–black urban professionals–and didn’t have enough street cred. But Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist who had studied at Howard and Chicago, and Trinity’s guiding principles–what the church calls the “Black Value System”–included a “Disavowal of the Pursuit of ‘Middleclassness.'”

And just Google “black liberation theology” and “Marxist” and see that the one is virtually identical to the other.

Now, I’ve written over 70 articles – many directed at Barack Obama – and never once used his “full” name until now. Nor have I ever attempted to link him to Islam until now.

I want to make it clear: I am directly responding to incredibly cheap shots by Barack Obama against an honorable man.

Barack Obama: don’t you dare whine and cry foul every time someone criticizes you, and then go out and unload these kinds of hateful and unsubstantiated charges on your opponent.

“Vote for Obama, vote for Obama”

June 27, 2008

Sometimes a good joke beats a good argument, and this one made me laugh:

Vote for Obama, Vote for Obama
The seven dwarfs always left to go work in the mines early each morning.
As always, Snow White stayed home doing her domestic chores.
As lunchtime approached, she would prepare their lunch and carry it to the mine.
One day as she arrived at the mine with the lunch, she saw that there had been a terrible cave-in.
Tearfully, and fearing the worst, Snow White began calling out, hoping against hope that the dwarfs had somehow survived.
’Hello, hello!’ she shouted.
’Can anyone hear me? Hello!’
For a long while, there was no answer. Losing hope, Snow White again shouted,
’Hello! Is anyone down there?’
Just as she was about to give up all hope, there came a faint voice from deep within the mine.
’Vote for Obama, Vote for Obama’
Snow White fell to her knees, crossed herself and prayed,
’Oh, thank you, Lord! At least Dopey is still alive.’

Democrats, The Countrywide Scandal, and Self-Righteous Hypocrisy

June 27, 2008

I still recall that tragic day nearly two years ago when the Democrats regained power. Incoming House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made one of those smarmy, pompous, self-righteous, over-the-top, flies-in-the-face-of-the-facts sort of statements that has come to characterize her when she said, ““Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history.” She liked the ring of that so much she said it again and again with varying iterations. “The Democrats intend to lead the most honest, most open, and most ethical Congress in history.”

Well, of course she was completely full of what my dog regularly adds to my back yard. Remember how she tried to appoint people like Jack Murtha (the traitorous slimebag who was so ready to convict Marines of war crimes) and William Jefferson (the greedy slimebag caught red handed with $90,000 in his freezer) to important House positions?

Well, strike another blow for Democrats’ ethical purity.

A June 13, 2008 Associated Press story titled, “Sens. Dodd, Conrad tied to special mortgage deals,” opened with the following:

WASHINGTON — Senate Banking Committee Chairman Christopher J. Dodd, a leader of Congress’ efforts to help homeowners ensnared in the subprime mortgage meltdown, reportedly got special treatment on his own mortgages from the CEO of Countrywide Financial Corp., a company whose practices he has called “abusive.”

At least one other lawmaker, Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., also benefited from the VIP treatment after placing a personal call to Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo seeking a mortgage.

Both senators say they weren’t aware they were getting special deals.

Still, their involvement in a special program that awarded discounts and waived fees for “friends” of Mozilo – first reported by Conde Nast Portfolio magazine’s Web site – raised questions about whether lawmakers weighing a homeowner rescue themselves benefited from the actions of a leading offender in the mortgage meltdown.

It could be especially damaging for Dodd, D-Conn., one of four Senate Democrats who pursued his party’s 2008 presidential nomination, given his high-profile role in crafting the housing rescue.

In order to believe Dodd’s and Conrad’s stammering protestations of innocence, one must accept that neither man understood what the acronym “V.I.P.” meant.

The magazine (this being another big story in which the elite media had to be dragged into coverage by exposure from new media revelations) said other participants in the company’s VIP program included former Secretary of Housing and Urban Development Alphonso Jackson, former Secretary of Health and Human Services Donna Shalala, and former U.N. ambassador and assistant Secretary of State Richard Holbrooke.

A whole bunch of prominent, smarmy, holier-than-thou Democrats, in other words.

Dodd and Conrad made their pathetic excuses, but “An internal e-mail from Mozilo, however, said the exception was “due to the fact that the borrower is a senator,” according to the Portfolio report.”

So, the bottom line is that while the housing market meltdown was taking place, and as Democrats were out in force taking turns blaming President Bush for every aspect of the crisis, Democrats were benefitting from sweetheart deals handed out by some of the worst (by their own charges) offenders of the subprime mortgage scandal.

The AP story concludes:

Mozilo received compensation worth more than $22.1 million and cashed $121.5 million in stock options in 2007, while Countrywide posted a loss of over $700 million and saw its stock plummet 80 percent. The company agreed in January to be acquired by Bank of America Corp. for $4.1 billion in stock.

Countrywide has come under fire for its lending practices, including providing mortgages with low initial “teaser” rates that balloon higher than borrowers can afford. Dodd and other Banking Committee Democrats wrote to Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke in December 2007 singling out Countrywide and calling the loans “abusive.”

A watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, called Friday for House and Senate investigations of Dodd and Conrad, and any other lawmakers who may have received preferential mortgages through the Countrywide program.

Rep. Mark Souder, R-Ind., said Congress should hold hearings on “Friends of Angelo” loans.

Souder told the Fox Business Network, “The question is, who are the friends? What is the list? How is it done? What does it mean? If we don’t pursue it, it would show preferential treatment.”

By all appearances so far, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate leadership promise to move on this scandal with all the speed of chilled mollases. They called for Rep. Tom Delay’s head on a platter when there was nothing more than a charge from an ideologue district attorney. Rep. William Jefferson has been officially under criminal indictment for over a year, and he’s still happily “serving” his district (his sister, Brenda Jefferson, just copped a guilty plea for activities he was involved in, by the way).

Don’t ever expect Democrats to live up to the standards they demand of Republicans.

Having said all this, there remains still one more link to be pointed out: the link between Barack Obama – he of the Tony Rezko sweetheart real estate deal – and the man he appointed to head his important vice president selection committee:

Lawmakers’ participation in the VIP program is coming to light just days after similar revelations about former Fannie Mae CEO Jim Johnson prompted Barack Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, to ax Johnson from his vice presidential vetting team.

Conrad, the Budget Committee chairman, said it was Johnson who referred him to Mozilo in 2002 when the North Dakotan was seeking a loan to buy a vacation home in Bethany Beach, Del.

“I called (Mozilo). I said, ‘I’m buying this property. Would you be interested in the mortgage?’, and he said, ‘Yeah. Call these people and we’ll take a look,'” Conrad said.

“I did not think for one moment _ and no one ever suggested to me _ that I was getting preferential treatment,” Conrad said.

So Kent Conrad calls the CEO of sleazy Countrywide fishing for a personal mortgage, and it never once occurs to him to think that the really, really good deal he gets as a result just might be a political favor?

And there’s Barack Obama’s (now ex) point man, Jim Johnson, steering Conrad toward the promised land.

Assuming you believe Barack Obama – who oh-so-innocently received his own sweetheart real estate deal – it is just a coincidence that the man he appointed to lead one of the most important committees of his campaign would be dirty.

In which case it has to occur to you to ask just how many dirty Democrats there are involved in the housing market scandal.

But have no fear: Democrats will continue to lay the blame for the mortgage meltdown on Republicans, no matter how many of their most prominent members are involved, and no matter how up-to-their eyeballs that involvement turns out to be.

If you’re gag reflexes can handle it, you should read Pelosi’s “pledge” of unparalleled integrity and ethics (and note that Barack Obama’s name appears on the “look at me: I’m wonderful too!” line):

Pelosi: ‘We Will Create the Most Open and Honest Government in History’

Wednesday, January 18, 2006

Contact: Brendan Daly/Jennifer Crider, 202-226-7616

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid, Congresswoman Louise Slaughter of New York, and Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, unveiled Democrats’ “Honest Leadership, Open Government Act,” which will restore honesty, integrity, and openness to government. Below are Pelosi’s remarks as prepared.

“Good afternoon. It is fitting that we gather in the building of the Library of Congress named for Thomas Jefferson, the author of our Declaration of Independence. Today, Democrats are here to make a Declaration of Independence from special interests.

“These halls contain great wisdom. In the hall behind me are three paintings about government. The central painting contains President Lincoln’s famous words, ‘A government of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ On the right side, a mural entitled ‘Good Administration’ shows a figure reading and voting, symbolizing the value of an informed and involved citizenry. On the other side is a painting entitled ‘Corrupt Legislation,’ which shows a figure burning a scroll of learning and trampling a Bible.

“It is a harsh image, to see a Bible underfoot – but it makes a powerful point: corrupt government undermines our values. We come here today to support those values, and to lay out an agenda for a new era of honest, open, and transparent government.

“For a long time now, an ethical cloud has hung over the Capitol. For years, Democrats have called for an end to the Republican culture of corruption.

“Yesterday, House Republican leaders unveiled a vague and insufficient set of so-called reforms. What is important about their list is not what it does do, but what it doesn’t do. It doesn’t kill the K Street project, it doesn’t address procedural abuses in the House that Republicans use to implement their culture of corruption, and it doesn’t charge the Ethics committee to act immediately. The Democratic plan we unveil today addresses all of these necessary reforms.

“Republicans are resisting true reform because they all benefit from enabling the culture of corruption to continue. Republicans have allowed this poison tree of corruption to bear the fruit of bad policy for the American people. When a prescription drug bill puts pharmaceutical companies first, senior citizens pay higher prices for prescription drugs. When the energy bill give tax breaks to oil companies already making historic profits, Americans pay the price at the pump and in record home-heating costs. When liability is waived for vaccine manufacturers, companies will profit, but Americans can get hurt.

“The intention of our Founding Fathers was for Congress to be a marketplace of ideas. The Republicans have turned Congress into an auction house – for sale to the highest bidder. You have to pay to play. It is just not right.

“Democrats are leading the effort to turn the most closed, corrupt Congress in history into the most open and honest Congress in history.

“That is why, with our Democratic Declaration of Honest Leadership and Open Government, we are pledging to enact and enforce legislation that will:

  • Ban all gifts and travel from lobbyists. Period.
  • Kill the K Street Project, the Republican plan that trades favors for lobbying jobs, and toughen public disclosure of lobbyist activity.
  • Remove the revolving door by doubling the amount of time Members and staff are prohibited from going from legislating to lobbying. Stop legislators from negotiating legislation, while also negotiating employment contracts for themselves with those who benefit from that legislation. Keep former Members who are lobbyists off the floor of Congress.
  • Next we would end the ‘dead of night’ special interest provisions that turn bills into special-interest giveaways. Lawmakers must have the opportunity to read every bill before they vote on it. It’s common sense.

“When it comes to contracting and cronyism, we intend to:

  • Eliminate the practice of irresponsible no-bid contracts, bring criminal penalties against war profiteers, and ensure that the government contracting process is honest, open, competitive, and fair. No more Halliburtons.
  • Prohibit cronyism in key appointments by making sure any individual appointed to a position has proven credentials. Brownie certainly wasn’t doing a ‘heck of a job’ for the survivors of Hurricane Katrina.

“These are tough standards, but they are just the beginning. We are prepared to do even more.

“If we are to have true reforms, two things need to happen: We must have strong enforcement, with an active and functioning Ethics Committee. That is why last week I wrote to Speaker Hastert asking him to join me in urging the Ethics Committee to begin investigations immediately. Second, if and when the Speaker brings reform legislation to the floor, an open rule is absolutely essential. A new era of openness can only begin if we debate the reforms in an open manner.

“Taken together, Democratic proposals will lead this country in a new direction, put an end to business as usual, and make certain this nation’s leaders serve the people’s interest, not the special interests.

“Ours must be a government ‘of the people, by the people, and for the people.’ That means all of the American people. Republicans have made it a government of, by, and for a few of the people. America can do better. We can and we will. With this agenda, Democrats will create the most open and honest government in history, and put power back where it belongs – in the hands of all the people. Together, America can do better.”

The Democrats demonized the Republicans with an unprecedented blitzkrieg of nasty attacks, even as they promised to be bi-partisan. But they who were so quick to point out how awful the Republicans were and how oh-so-wonderful they would be have magnificently failed to improve the moral climate of Congress in the least.

The thing that infuriates me the most about Democrats isn’t that they are any more corrupt than Republicans. I don’t know that they are. I do know that the bigger government becomes, and the more billions getting doled out to one special interest or another, the more corruption there will be as groups try to influence politicians to steer money their way.  But what never ceases to tick me off to no end is that Democrats are so full of venomous attacks, so full of smarmy assurances of their own wonderfulness, and inevitably always so full of hypocrisy.

The Republicans have introduced some excellent Congressional reform measures that have gone absolutely nowhere under the Democratic leadership.

Barack Obama – just like Nancy Pelosi – is full of promises about what a wonderful job he’ll do if given power, and how wonderful he’ll be. Trust me: he won’t do any better than the Congress that has attained the distinction of achieving the lowest approval ratings of all time.

Obama’s Radical Misunderstanding of Bible Parallels Radical Misunderstanding of Constitution

June 26, 2008

Barack Obama demonstrated just how ignorant he is regarding the religion he claims to embrace in a bizarre exegesis of Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount:

Obama said that while he does not believe in gay marriage, he does think the state should allow civil unions that allow a same-sex couples to visit each other in a hospital or transfer property to each other.

“If people find that controversial then I would just refer them to the Sermon on the Mount, which I think is, in my mind, for my faith, more central than an obscure passage in Romans,” Obama said.

You know, I’ve read the Sermon on the Mount many times (found in Matthew, chapter 5). Somehow I’ve always missed the part where Jesus called for Gay civil unions. (If you find that part, please let me know). On the other hand, I immediately found the “obscure” passage in Romans referring to homosexuality quite relevant.

You don’t even have to read very far to find it. St. Paul begins by revealing the fact that God’s wrath falls on the ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who in their unrighteousness suppress the plainly revealed truth (Romans 1:18-20) and instead foolishly exchange the truth of God for a lie (v. 21-22). And St. Paul says that because they deliberately suppress the truth, that God therefore gave such people over to the impure lusts of their hearts (24-32); such that men who are aware of God’s decrees not only practice such sin, but encourage others to practice it also. St. Paul refers to the sin of homosexuality again in 1 Corinthians 6:9 and 1 Timothy 1:10. He’s really quite clear.

The only thing that is “obscure” is Barack Obama.

Frankly, it’s too bad Barack Obama doesn’t read the book of Romans, and so clearly has so little respect for the Apostle Paul. Maybe he’d have a clue about the Christian faith. Sadly, Obama believes that Jeremiah Wright, Jim cone, and Louis Farrakan understand Christianity better than the man who “turned the world upside down” (Acts 17:6) with his explaining and defending the faith that Jesus Christ brought to the world and commissioned His apostles to teach.

But let me return to the teachings of Jesus, since Barack Obama has so little regard for the teachings of St. Paul.

Going back to the Sermon on the Mount and Matthew 5, it is interesting that in the very same chapter that Jesus gives the Sermon on the Mount, He says, “Do you think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I came not to abolish, but to fulfill them. For truly, I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Therefore, whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven” (Matthew 5:17-19).

And what does the Law say about homosexuality? “You shall not lie with a male as with a woman; it is an abomination” (Leviticus 18:22).

It is an abomination because homosexuality perverts God’s natural created order. He who created man and woman in His own image (Gen 1:27) created woman as a suitable companion for man, and man said of the woman, “This is the bone of my bone and the flesh of my flesh” (Gen 2:23). And God said that a man should leave his parents and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh (Gen 2:24). And God said, “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth” (Gen 1:28, Gen 8:17).

Many today (who fall under the judgment and wrath of God according to Romans 1:32), teach that the ordinances against homosexuality no longer apply to us today. But Leviticus 18:22 should serve as a clear rejoinder, being sandwiched as it is between offering your children for child sacrifice (Lev 18:21) and bestiality (Lev 18:23). Of course, our mass culture of abortion and “anything goes” morality no longer really much cares what God has to say, does it?

When it comes to gay couples visiting one another in the hospital, or transfer property to one another, in Barack Obama’s straw man, I have no problem with either. But we don’t have to have “civil unions” to do either, do we? In our society, where lawyers are as plentiful as cockroaches and twice as nasty, one can arrange darn near anything. Surely, a process can be obtained by which homosexuals, senior citizens, friends, and spinster siblings can take advantage of partnerships that enable them to do find support, companionship, and benefit from one another without making such relationships tantamount to marriage!

Some things should remain undefiled and sacred. Marriage – which is under enough difficulty in our pluralistic religion-dismissing society – ought to be one of them.

But Barack Obama is not done with his analysis of the Bible. He continues in what he calls a “Call to Renewal Address“:

“Which passages of Scripture should guide our public policy? Should we go with Leviticus, which suggests slavery is ok and that eating shellfish is abomination? How about Deuteronomy, which suggests stoning your child if he strays from the faith? Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application? So before we get carried away, let’s read our bibles. Folks haven’t been reading their bibles.”

Now, I suppose Obama believes he made a point, but how many Christians do you see today questioning whether or not they should own slaves, or whether eating shellfish is a sin against God? I personally have yet to encounter a single person so confused – at least until Barack Obama.

The dietary laws given by God were principally ordained as a means of separating the people of God from the pagan nations. It had to do with the holiness of God and the holiness that God called Israel to (Lev 11:44-45). It had to do with living under God’s Old Testament Covenant, which discriminated between that which was sacred, and that which was profane (i.e. of defiling oneself).

The children of Israel were set apart by God, and were called to be holy according to God’s holy ways. In order to be saved, one had to become a Jew (be circumsized, put oneself under the Covenant system). Jews and Gentiles were separated from one another, and from God.

But the prophets said that God would ordain a New Covenant (Jeremiah 31:31; Luke 22:20; 1 Corinthians 11:25).

The Book of Hebrews says, “When He said, “A new covenant,” He has made the first obsolete. But whatever is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to disappear (Heb 8:13); and says of Jesus, “And for this reason He is the mediator of a new covenant, in order that since a death has taken place for the redemption of the transgressions that were committed under the first covenant, those who have been called may receive the promise of the eternal inheritance” (Heb 9:15); and also, “and to Jesus, the mediator of a new covenant, and to the sprinkled blood, which speaks better than the blood of Abel” (Heb 12:14).

Christians are familiar with God’s introducing this principle to St. Peter in Acts chapter 10. A devout Gentile Roman officer named Cornelius has a vision that calls upon him to seek St. Peter (vs 5). But God must prepare Peter to come to Cornelius’ house and welcome this Gentile into God’s family. And so Peter likewise has a vision, in which a sheet comes down from heaven filled with food declared unclean, and a voice says, “Kill and eat.” And when Peter piously refuses to defile himself according to the Old Covenant, the voice from heaven says, “What God has made clean, do not call ‘profane'” (v. 15). It takes Peter three times to get the message: God is bringing Gentiles into the New Covenant. You do not have to abide by the Jewish dietary system, or be circumsized, or offer animal sacrifices. Faith in the sacrifice of the Christ of the New Covenant is the sole requirement. And Peter tells Cornelius of his lesson in Acts 10:34. And Cornelius is saved as the prototypical example of the first Gentile convert to Christianity.

Hebrews 10:4 tells us that it was never the blood of bulls that took away sins, but that the blood of animals – offered in sacrifice – had ever pointed the way to the ultimate once-for-all sacrifice of Christ. And that all who have ever been saved have been saved by Christ.

As for the issue of slavery, it must first be understood that – while not specifically overturning slavery – the Mosaic system provided pagan slaves specific rights granted by no other people in the world at the time, and it specifically banned slavery among Jews. A Jew could be indentured in servitude, but could not be “owned,” and his service could not be permanent.

But again, we merely have to turn to the Paul – whom Obama spurned – to see what God has to say about slavery in the New Covenant era. Read the Book of Philemon (why not? It’s really short!). Paul appeals to a Christian slave owner named Philemon to accept a runaway slave-turned convert named Onesimus back into his household as a free man – and not as a slave.

When slavery was overturned in Great Britain – and finally in the United States – the movements were championed by Christians appealing to the writings of St. Paul.

So even the most simple-minded of Christians have for two thousand years known the answer to these issues that Barack Obama continues to misunderstand!

Note how Obama abandons clear passages that condemn his views in favor of a radically subjective understanding of a passage that nowhere re-enforces them.

The Bible is not some byzantine codebook which must be read while constantly bearing in mind that we must never believe too deeply or accept to much. Barack Obama tells us to read the Bible (except for St. Paul’s writings, apparently), but not to trust it, lest one fall into the trap of saying that we mustn’t eat shellfish, or that we should re-institute slavery.

The man reveals himself to be the same spiritually ignorant – and biblically illiterate – man who embraced a hateful Marxist pastor as his spiritual mentor for 23 years.

So James Dobson is right; Barack Obama is just one more spiritually blind leader of the blind, blithely practicing “a confused theology.

Having established this point, let me say that this issue does not just have to do with interpretations of the Bible, or with one’s (in Obama’s case terrible) choice of church. It has to do with worldview, and with decisions that would effect every single American for decades to come.

In terms of the choice of Justices for the Supreme Court, there are two sides: the originalist/strict constructionist judge, who is bound by the meaning and intent of the Constitution, and the judicial activist, who views the Constitution as “a living, breathing document subject to change.”

The problem is that the latter have imposed some of the worst legal decisions in American history, and America has had to pay terrible consequences for those decisions.

In the Dred Scott v. Sanford decision, likely the worst decision ever, the Supreme Court ignored the overwhelmingly clear mandate of the Constitution in favor of a desired outcome. In writing his dissent to this despicable example of judicial tyranny, Justice Benjamin R. Curtis wrote, “When a strict interpretation of the Constitution, according to the fixed rules which govern the interpretation of laws, is abandoned, and the theoretical opinions of individuals are allowed to control its meaning, we no longer have a Constitution; we are under the government of individual men, who for the time being have power to declare what the Constituition is according to their own views of what it ought to mean” (Dred Scott 60 U.S. 621 (Curtis, J., dissenting)).

In the 1886 Plessy v. Fergusen decision, an activist Supreme Court mandated segregation and forced a private industry (the railroads) to separate individuals on account of race (“equal but separate”) in an abandonment of the plain language of the 14th Amendment. This terrible decision would be the law of the land for the next 58 years until finally reversed by the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education decision. And even then, the Court failed to reject Plessy’s reasoning as a violation of the 14th Amendment’s equal protection, but instead – in still more activism – opened up a Pandora’s Box of sociological and psycho-analysis mumbo jumbo.

In the 1944 Korematsu v. United States decision, the activist Supreme Court upheld the executive orders of FDR requiring forced internment of some 110,000 American citizens of Japanese descent in clear violation of the plain sense of the 5th Amendments prohibitions against deprivation of life liberty, or property without due process.

Activist judges have repeatedly justified slavery, segregation, and racism, abandoning the plain sense of the Constitution in order to impose their views upon the text.

This is the quintessential essence of the warning against judical activists and judicial activism, and liberals are ignoring it.

Justice Thurgood Marshall, who is the prototype of the liberal justice, said, “You do what you think is right and let the law catch up” (see Deborah L. Rhode, “A Tribute to Justice Thurgood Marshall: Letting the Law Catch Up,” in the 44 Stanford Law Review 1259 (1992).

And Justice Marshall – precisely the sort of Justice that Barack Obama would affirm if elected president – said of the Constitution and of the men who framed it, “I do not believe that the meaning of the Constitution was forever “fixed” at the Philadelphia Convention… Nor do I find the wisdom, foresight and sense of justice exhibited by the framers particularly profound. to the contrary, the government they devised was defective from the start… (Stuart Taylor, Jr., “Marshall Sounds Critical Note on Bicentenniel,” New York Times, May 7, 1987).

Mark Levin writes, “Marshall couldn’t have been more wrong, and couldn’t have had a weaker grasp of the Constitution. The Constitution established principles of governance. Discrimination, injustice, and inhumanity are not products of the Constitution. To the extent they exist, they result from man’s imperfection. Consequently, slavery exists today not in the United States, but in places like Sudan. Indeed, the evolution of American Society has only been possible because of the covenant the framers adopted, and the values, ideals, and rules that set forth that document” (Men in Black, p. 9).

In contrast, consider the view of Chief Justice John Roberts:

“I had someone ask me in this process — I don’t remember who it was, but somebody asked me, you know, ‘Are you going to be on the side of the little guy?’ And you obviously want to give an immediate answer, but as you reflect on it, if the Constitution says that the little guy should win, the little guy is going to win in court before me. But if the Constitution says that the big guy should win, well, then, the big guy is going to win, because my obligation is to the Constitution. That’s the oath.”

The gravest problem for America is that Barack Obama believes about the Constitution what he believes about the Bible. He despises the clear intent, and the clear meaning, and the strict interpreation according to fixed principles, in favor of the same sort of radical interpretation he gives to the Sermon on the Mount to justify gay civil unions – when such is nowhere in the Sermon, but only in Barack Obama’s warped mind.

Christians are people who have subjected themselves to the Person and character of God and His ways as revealed in His Word. They don’t usurp the authority of the Bible, such that they decide which parts to follow, and which parts to disregard. Whenever one does so, one places oneself as the ultimate authority over the Bible and the God whose Word it is. And in the same manner, Judges who do not place themselves under the abiding authority of the Constitution as framed and established by our founding fathers become guilty of imposing their will on the Constitution. And it is then that they become “black-robed masters.”

If the Constitution is not fixed and objective in its meaning, then by what principle do Justices decide? By their own subjective views, and nothing more.

Antonin Scalia has warned that if one is able to devise rights out of scratch, from such as the penumbras and emanations that liberal activist justices used to create the right of abortion, then one can literally impose anything one wants – just as Justice Curtis warned.

For example, Justice Anthony Kennedy relied upon his understanding of the European Convention on Human Rights – and not upon the Constitution – to rule in the 2003 Texas sodomy case Lawrence v. Texas. He wrote, “The sweeping references by Chief Justice Burger to the history of Western civilization and the Judeo-Christian moral and ethical standards [in a 1986 Supreme Court case, Bowers v. Hardwick] did not take into account of other authorities pointing in an opposite direction” (Lawrence v. Texas, 123 S.Ct. 2472, 2481 (2003)). Sandra Day O’Conner, John Paul Stephens, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg have also called for using international law to inform their conclusions. O’Conner said such should be “a persuasive authority in American courts.”

But why do they choose the “international laws” they do? Why not use Sharia law? Doesn’t that count as “other authorities pointing in an opposite direction”?

what would liberals do if some right-wing justice cited “the international law” of Sharia to limit and even completely overturn the rights of women (and I mean all their rights)? They would howl in outrage, even though they themselves established the precedent and have been arbitrarily imposing their will on the Constitution for over 60 years (in fact, for far longer), since President FDR attempted to pack the Supreme Court in order to obtain the political decision he favored.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said “a too strict jurisprudence of the framers’ original intent seems too unworkable.” She takes the same view of the Constitution that Barack Obama takes of the Bible. But the reliance “of the framers’ original intent” seems plenty workable for justices such as William Rehnquist, John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, and Samuel Alitio; just as the “framers’ original intent” seems quite workable for millions of Christians regarding their Bible. It is only “unworkable” for someone who wants to impose their will upon the law rather than subject themselves under its authority and guidance.

Judicial activists are using international law as a salad bar, picking and choosing what they want and ignoring what they don’t care for. They are turning to international law because they do not wish to be limited or constrained by the Constitution – any more than Barack Obama doesn’t want to be constrained by Leviticus, or the Books of the Bible written by St. Paul, or any other authority that contradicts his subjective preferences.

Thus a Barack Obama will appoint federal judges who will – by the slimmest margin of a single vote – radically transform the morality and laws of a nation, such as they recently did in California, when four judges overturned the clear intent of over 60% of California voters in imposing their view of homosexual marriages upon society.

Barack Obama asked, “Or should we just stick to the Sermon on the Mount – a passage that is so radical that it’s doubtful that our own Defense Department would survive its application?”

It is Barack Obama – and not the Sermon on the Mount – that the Defense Department may not survive. The DoD has done fine with the latter; the real question at hand is whether it can survive the former. Barack Obama is a dangerous radical who has for years associated with dangerous radicals. His understanding of the world, of the faith he claims to profess, of the Bible he claims to honor, and of the Constitution he claims to seek to uphold, are dangerously flawed.

America can do better.

Blame Democrats for Sky-high Gas Prices

June 25, 2008

Let us not forget that we are two years into the “commonsense plan” announced by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi:

Washington, D.C. – House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi released the following statement today on President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority’s failure to address gas prices follows Pelosi’s statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91 a gallon on average for regular gasoline – 33 cents higher than last month, and double the price than when President Bush first came to office.

“With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas prices now.

“Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging, rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.”

She placed the blame for previous “high” prices (dang, they sure don’t seem so high now, do they?) on “President Bush’s, Speaker Hastert’s, and the Republican Congress’ empty rhetoric.” And she promised that we Democrats have the solution.” She blamed Republicans for the past, and put the responsibility squarely on her party for the future.

And just what has happened since the Democrat’s “commonsense plan” went into effect?

On January 21, 2007, just after the Democrats took over the Congress, the national average price per gallon of regular self serve gas was $2.18 per gallon. As of June 20, 2008 it was $4.075 a gallon.

That’s one great plan you’ve got there, Nancy.

You put that pretty dress of demagoguery on, Democrats. Now you wear the damn thing.

“Commonsense” and “Democrat” are antonyms. And Nancy Pelosi’s phrase, “Democrats have a commonsense plan” is an oxymoron. Maybe by the time gas tops $5 a gallon, enough Americans will recognize this.

Of course, Democrats – who are only good at blaming others for their messes – are still blaming everyone but themselves.

One of the dogs they are riding now are “oil futures” and “speculation.”

A brief explanation of futures contracts and oil prices has this:

A futures contract is an agreement to buy or sell a quantity of a product at a set price and date in the future. The New York Mercantile Exchange began trading oil futures in nineteen eighty-three.

Futures markets now largely set the price of oil. Yet these contracts rarely involve an exchange of real barrels of oil. Most oil is traded on what is called the spot market or through other contracts between producers and users. The prices, however, are usually based on futures prices.

Doug MacIntyre is senior oil analyst with the United States Energy Information Administration. He notes that the position of the government is that market forces of supply and demand are driving today’s high oil prices. But he also notes that more money has been going into futures.

This money can be from oil producers and users. But it also comes from banks, big investors called hedge funds and speculators with no need for oil. Speculators try to guess the direction a market will go; in some cases they profit when prices drop.

Realize for a second that it’s not “big oil” driving up the prices: it’s employee unions, banks, investment portfolios, retirement funds, and the like.

For the sake of (absurd) argument, let’s say that Democrats are completely right, and that supply and demand have nothing to do with the price of gasoline. The question becomes, why has the price of gas risen $1.90 a gallon? Why has it increased a whopping 86.93% since the Democrats took over the Congress?

Let’s see, if I were going to gamble on whether the cost of something would go up, would it occur to me that a party coming into power that promised that they would tax the hell out of an industry, hit them with “excess profit” fines, regulate the hell out of them, push all kinds of environmental restrictions on them, and keep them from increasing their domestic supply of product, tell me that the cost would A) go up or B) go down?

If you picked B, you are intelligent enough to invest in the market and earn a profit; if you selected A, you are stupid enough to vote Democrat, and to believe their stupid oxymoronic slogans.

Now, if Democrats like Maxine Waters (who said during one of those Democrat communist show trials of oil company executives), “And guess what this liberal would be all about. This liberal will be about socializing … uh, um … “Would be about, basically, taking over, and the government running all of your companies. …” get their way and we go the way of Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, what do you think the speculators will “speculate” about the price of gasoline?

The show trials – and the shrill cries to socialize (or nationalize) the oil industry – are all part of another component of the Democrat’s “commonsense plan” to demagogue and demonize the oil industry instead of actually providing more energy.

Nancy Pelosi’s “increasing production of alternative fuels” has sent the corn commodities market sky high (hey, you can blame speculators for that market, too!). We are taking food off our tables and – by an expensive process that ends up producing less energy than it takes to produce it – providing ethanol. There’s some oxymoronic “commonsense” for you!

John F. Wasik puts it this way:

The U.S., in its quest to reduce its reliance on expensive imported oil, may soon consume as much as half its domestic corn crop for fuel production, though the economic benefits have yet to materialize. Ethanol produces one-third less energy than a gallon of gasoline at an average wholesale cost of 33 percent more, according to a U.S. Government Accountability Office study….

The other byproduct of the ethanol obsession is more-expensive food. Higher corn prices have boosted the cost of producing beef, poultry and thousands of processed products.

Food prices have climbed an average of $47 per person due to the ethanol surge since last July, according to an Iowa State University study published in May; corn futures reached a 10-year high of $4.28 a bushel in February. All told, ethanol has cost Americans an additional $14 billion in higher food prices.

These increases have also pushed up sugar prices, which rose to a three-month high in New York on July 18 on speculation that demand for the commodity will strengthen to help produce ethanol, an alternative to oil. Brazil is the largest sugar grower.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government has yet to discover whether its 51-cent-per-gallon ethanol subsidy is efficiently stimulating production of the fuel. One thing the bureaucrats know for sure: It cost the U.S. Treasury $2.7 billion last year with possibly more subsidies on the way.

That article is nearly a year old, now. The corn-ethanol lunacy has gotten much worse since then, and will get worse yet. You can wear the stupidity over your “alternative fuels” too, Speaker Nancy.

Nancy Pelosi is the new postmodern version of Marie Antoinette: “Let them eat ethanol.”

Or, hey! More windmills! That’ll keep your car running! Anything, anything but increased production of the one thing that actually fills your tank. That’s “the commonsense plan.”

I like the way Steve Gill put it:

The Democrats have pursued a clear energy policy since capturing control of
the Congress. First, increase taxes on the oil companies, which increases
the price at the pump. Second, prevent access to new oil sources by
continuing to ban exploration and drilling, which restricts supply and
increases the price at the pump. And finally, increase regulation and
bureaucratic red-tape imposed on the oil industry in order to satisfy the
demands of environmentalists, which increases the price at the pump.
Contrary to their campaign promises, Democrats have done virtually
everything they can do to raise the price of gasoline for U.S. drivers.and
their plan has worked to perfection. The only question is why they aren’t
doing more to take credit for the success of their plan?

Frankly, it’s up to us to make sure the Democrats take their fair share of “credit.”

How Barack Obama Inspired Me

June 24, 2008

Throughout the Republican nomination process, I – like many conservatives – was down in the dumps. None of our candidates resonated with “the base.” We had fine Christian social conservatives who had embraced big government policies; social libertarians who had embraced fiscal conservatism; and your R.I.N.O. (Republican In Name Only) candidates who had somehow just discovered their conservatism; and a “maverick” Republican who had stabbed his party in the back in his cooperation with Democrats a few times too often. The closest thing we had to a true conservative was probably Fred Thompson, who simply entered the race too late and proved unwilling to go out on the campaign trail and work for his votes.

I voted for the maverick back-stabbing Republican as the best choice of an uninspiring lot.

Democrats were apparently just thrilled with their two most popular candidates. They had a young, one-term Senator who had no experience whatsoever, and a former first lady whose entire political career had derived from her husband’s.

The media said that the nomination of Hillary Clinton might energize a listless Republican elecorate. That seemed like it might be true. The Clintons had accumulated more baggage than LAX Airport at Christmas time.

Apart from the fact that the young first-term senator from Illinois had nothing in his past to demonstrate that he was ready to be the chief executive and commander-in-chief of the most powerful nation on earth, nothing about Barack Obama energized me one way or the other.

And then I learned about Trinity United Church of Christ and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.

I wouldn’t have been more energized if someone had started poking me with a red-hot branding iron and then started chasing me around the room with it.

It didn’t matter to liberals and godless Democrats, of course. A relationship with one’s pastor was no more significant to them than the occassional talks one might have with one’s barber or one’s mail carrier – and who really cared what a barber or a mailman said, anyway?

But it sure did matter to me.

I know that politicians have to be involved with a lot of shady people in order to finance their campaigns, obtain access with the movers and shakers, and smooze their way to power. I knew that politics makes for strange bedfellows. That’s just part of the game. Since I’m not a politician, and since (apart from consistently voting) I’ve never even been very political, I don’t know a whole lot about such relationships, or how they affect the politicians who forge all these political alliances and marriages of convenience.

But I do know about what goes on in a church.

If my pastor had preached a sermon like the many we have heard about, my church would have erupted in moral outrage. Most of the congregation would have simply got up and walked out well before the sermon was even finished. Those who weren’t there that week would have heard all about it “from the grapevine.” A lot of people would have left, and they wouldn’t have come back.

The words, “God damn America” would have met with righteous outrage, not with standing ovations. And the members of my church – including a number of black members – would likewise never have tolerated any of the other hateful, vile lies that came out of Jeremiah Wright’s mouth against white people or against their country.

Barack Obama said he wasn’t there when Rev. Wright preached his most vile sermons (I’ve always wanted to know where Obama actually was the Sunday morning after 9/11, when Wright preached some of his nastiest stuff of all). But he knew all about what was going on in his so-called “church.”

He had to know.

If Wright’s hateful remarks came out-of-the-blue, in contrast to his usual messges, people would have talked about it (“Did you hear what the Reverend said last Sunday?”). You can’t just say something that hateful or that crazy out of the blue without creating a stir. People would have brought it up and wanted to talk about it. And people would have continued to talk about it. I know all kinds of stuff that goes on in my church and in the lives of my fellow members, whether I was there last Sunday or not.

The only way folk wouldn’t bother to talk about one of Rev. Wright’s “fiery sermons” is if he hadn’t said anything out-of-line with his usual fare.

And of course, if Senator Obama had missed a given Sunday, he could always pick up his copy of Trumpet Magazine (which is very specific about the radical hate-mongering going on in the life of the church). You’d think he would have at least picked up the magazine and flipped through it in one of the several issues in which he’d made the cover.

There’s all kinds of radical and hateful garbage in that magazine.

Heck, he could have just walked into the Trinity Church bookstore one day:

Having been a practicing Christian for more than 40 years now, and a practicing Catholic for 26 of those years, I have visited perhaps 100 various Christian bookstores, both Protestant and Catholic. In all of those places, one thing tied together the books for sale: Christianity.

Not so in Obama’s church bookstore.

I spent more than an hour perusing available books, and found as many claiming to represent Muslim thought as those representing Christian thought. Black Muslim thought, to be specific.

And the books claiming to support Christianity were surprisingly of a more political than religious nature. The books by James H. Cone, Wright’s own mentor, were prominent and numerous.

Now that I have read a number of the books that presumably Wright’s congregants (including Barack Obama) have also read, I can only conclude that the thing tying these volumes together is not Christianity, nor any real religion, but the political philosophy of Karl Marx.

One way or another, Barack Obama was a smart enough man to know what was going on in his church after having been part of it for 23 years.

I remember reading about one of the Nazi death camps the American troops liberated in the closing days of WWII. The soldiers were so morally offended by what they saw that they marched the German citizens of the nearby town to the camp at gunpoint and forced them to look at the horror that had been going on all around them.

The German people said, “We didn’t know. We didn’t know.” And the emaciated, dying Jews summoned up what was left of their strength and shouted, “You knew! You knew!”

Barack Obama knew, too.

He stayed in that church because it suited his Chicago-liberal-politics ambition, and because he didn’t find anything offensive about the message that was being preached.

Nothing Jeremiah Wright said ever seemed to bother Barack Obama until it occurred to him that America might not stand up and cheer the hateful and radical lunacy that was going on in that church the way his fellow radicalized members did. That was when he decided he’d better disinvite his longtime spiritual mentor from speaking at his announcement to run for president.

Barack Obama didn’t become offended until it was politically expedient for him to become offended.

But it sure offended me. It offended my moral compass that a man running for the highest office in the world would listen to such despicable sermons and find nothing wrong with them. And it insulted my intelligence that he would so casually dismiss blame from himself with what amounted to his own version of “the Nuremburg defense.”

Now I’m not trying to argue that Barack Obama is any sort of a Nazi. Apart from remembering AND NEVER FORGETTING the horror this ideology caused, we should never cavalierly use such an evil label to attack opponents. What I’m saying is that Obama is trying to duck out of his knoweldge of and responsibility for what went on in his church the same way that the German people tried to duck out of their knoweldge of and responsibility for what happened in their country under Nazism.

Add to that Obama’s long (and getting longer) list of radical and even terrorist associations. Liberals keep saying, “Judge Obama by what he says, not by those around him.” But at what point do his voluntary, long-standing, adult choices actually cast a reflection on him, on his character, and on his actual values? The guy goes to a radical, marxist-oriented, anti-American church for over 20 years. He publically states that the racist, openly American-hating pastor is his spiritual mentor, and he names his book after one of that pastor’s racially hostile sermons (“White greed drives a world in need”).

And one begins to discover that Barack Obama has more radical associations than you could shake a stick at.

The liberal establishment has tried to destroy Republicans for merely going to speak at Bob Jones University; Barack Obama was a committed member of one of the most radical black-separatist churches in the nation for 23 years.

Is Barack Obama not to be held accountable for anything?

When I realized that the same people who blamed President Bush for every crime under heaven had no intention of applying anything resembling the same hyper-critical examination of their own candidate, I realized that somebody had to do something to reveal the truth. Somebody had to get involved to stop these people.

Barack Obama is the reason why I took up blogging. I had to act to do what I could to stop such a man from ever becoming president of my country. If my part is insignificant, if no one reads my work, if I don’t change a single person’s mind, it is not from my lack of trying.

John McCain wouldn’t have inspired me to get involved. I truly don’t even believe Hillary Clinton would have.

McCain is not great enough, and Hillary – bad as she is – is not quite terrible enough.

We have only to look at the radical church environment that Barack Obama embraced, and the radical anti-American friends and associations that keep popping up one after another, to know that this man has no business even serving in American public life, much less ever becoming our President.

Obama’s Breaking Promise On Campaign Finance Just One More Lie

June 23, 2008

A few news articles frame the story better than I could:

Barack Obama made it official today: He has decided to forego federal matching funds for the general election, thereby allowing his campaign to raise and spend as much as possible.

By so doing, the presumptive Democratic presidential nominee becomes the first candidate to reject public funds for the general election. The current system was created in 1976 in reaction to the Watergate scandal.

In a video e-mail sent to supporters, Obama said he was opting out of public financing because the system “is broken, and we face opponents who’ve become masters at gaming this broken system.”

The nastiest liars have always have that extra little bit of sheer chutzpah that allows them to blame the other guy for why they break their promises. “Ignore the fact that I am openly going back on my promise. Somehow it’s my opponent’s fault. You really should understand that I am the victim here.”

Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.

That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.

When Obama was the guy who wasn’t raising all the campaign contribution dough, he was high-and-mighty hoity-toity self-righteous in trying to get everyone to agree to limit their fund raising so he could compete with the big boys.

In November 2007, Obama answered “Yes” to Common Cause [and to a questionnaire by the Midwest Democracy Network] when asked “If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?”

Obama wrote: “In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Not so “aggressively,” according to the McCain campaign, which argues that Obama did not discuss this or try to negotiate at all with the McCain campaign, despite writing that he would “aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

Michael Dobbs, the Washington Post‘s esteemed Fact Checker, wrote, “Obama’s affirmative answer to the Midwest Democracy Network seems unequivocal,” Dobbs writes. “Now that Obama is raising $1 million a day, his enthusiasm for public financing appears to have waned.”

Barack Obama isn’t just a hypocritical liar; he’s a self-righteous hypocritical liar, which is the very worst kind. It’s bad enough when someone breaks his promises, but when he does it with a smarmy “holier-than-thou” attitude, that’s when you know you’ve got the rarest breed of demagogue on your hands.

This isn’t the first time Barack Obama has promised one thing, and then done the complete opposite. The man began his presidential run by breaking his promise, as a transcript from Meet the Press reveals:

MR. RUSSERT: Well, nine months ago, you were on this program and I asked you about running for president. And let’s watch and come back and talk about it.

(Videotape, January 22, 2006):

MR. RUSSERT: When we talked back in November of ‘04, after your election, I said, “There’s been enormous speculation about your political future. Will you serve your full six-year term as a United States senator from Illinois?” Obama: “Absolutely.”

SEN. OBAMA: I will serve out my full six-year term. You know, Tim, if you get asked enough, sooner or later you get weary and you start looking for new ways of saying things, but my thinking has not changed.

MR. RUSSERT: But, but—so you will not run for president or vice president in 2008?

SEN. OBAMA: I will not.

(End videotape)

MR. RUSSERT: You will not.

Every politician does some flip flopping and reconsideration of formerly-held positions. Believe me, in his short political career, Barack Obama has accumulated a whopping load more than his fair share. But it’s one thing to change your position in the proverbial “flip flop,” and quite another thing to flat-out break your word. Doing the former shows you are responding to the changing nature of the political climate; doing the latter shows you are a bald-faced liar.

For example, had John McCain said of his earlier position not to allow offshore drilling, “I will never change my position on this. Count on it.” That would have been tantamount to a lie.

Barack Obama is a demonstrated, documented liar. The guy who began his career undermining a clearly more popular candidate by using every cheap tactic to get the signatures of voters thrown out is now cynically, deceitfully, and despicably presenting himself as the candidate of “hope” and “change.”

Let’s take a moment to look at some of Obama’s more famous recent flip flops.

We can remember Obama pledging that he would meet with leaders of the very worst regimes on earth without preconditions, and then subsequently “clarifying” his remarks with so many caveats and qualifications that his position became identical to the Bush-position which he had originally demonized in the first place.

We can remember Obama claiming that Iran didn’t pose a serious threat to the United States, to (when confronted with the stupidity of his view) saying “Iran is a grave threat. It has an illicit nuclear program. It supports terrorism across the region and militias in Iraq. It threatens Israel’s existence. It denies the Holocaust…”

Glenn Kessler wrote a story titled, “Obama Clarifies Remarks on Jerusalem“:

Facing criticism from Palestinians, Sen. Barack Obama acknowledged today that the status of Jerusalem will need to be negotiated in future peace talks, amending a statement earlier in the week that Jerusalem “must remain undivided.”

Obama, during a speech Wednesday to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, a pro-israel lobbying group, had called for Jerusalem to become the site of the U.S. embassy, a frequent pledge for U.S. presidential candidates. (It is now in Tel Aviv.) But his statement that Jerusalem should be the undivided capital of Israel drew a swift rebuke from Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas.

If “clarifying your remarks” means saying the exact opposite thing to what one had said before, then I suppose we can say Obama “clarified.” But given the fact that he told a Jewish audience exactly what it wanted to hear, and then almost immediately afterward told an Arab audience exactly what it wanted to hear, I would use a different verb such as “pandered” and “lied.”

Considering the fact that there is a real probability that World War III will be fought over the status of Jerusalem, and considering that our next armed conflict will likely be with Iran, I dare say that these “flip flips” are NOT trivial issues. He has repeatedly trivialized the most important issues of our time with his back-tracking and pandering nonsense.

Doing a google search, I quickly found other flip-flops, some big, some little:

1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as “special interest” money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of “working people” and says he is “thrilled” by their support.

2. Public financing Obama replied “yes” in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.

3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time “to end the embargo with Cuba” because it had “utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro.” Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not “take off the embargo” as president because it is “an important inducement for change.”

4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should “crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants.” He replied “Oppose.” In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that “we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation.”

5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Believe me, this is a short list.  One site I came across provides a long litany of lies, flip-flops, and disingenuous use of language. The author is clearly partisan, but he backed up his smack-talk with plenty of sourced research.

Apart from the sheer, vile, despicable nature of Barack Obama’s 23-year relationship with Jeremiah Wright and Trinity United Church – which offended me enough to get involved in politics – the thing that most bothers me about Barack Obama is that he has taken this above-it-all, lofty, holier-than-thou approach as the “new politician” when he is every bit the scheming, manipulating, lying, lowdown, snake-in-the-grass politician from the shadiest tradition of rotten Chicago politics.