Obama, Democrats Say To Hell With White Working Class. I Say To Hell With Obama And Democrats.

It’s fascinating to try to figure out whatever you want to call the “thought process” of the diseased liberal mind.

It’s fine for Barack Obama and the Democrat Party to abandon the white working class; it’s racist for conservatives to point out the fact that Obama and Democrats are doing what they are in fact doing.  Slate’s David Weigel is disturbed that Fox Nation would title the following the New York Times piece as “Obama Campaign Plans To Abandon White Working Class.”  Even as he himself quotes Edsall as pointing out that:

… preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

“All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment… and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.”

On Weigel’s own quote from Edsel and on his own acknowledgment, of course, Democrats are clearly pushing a race-based strategy.  And completely abandoning working class whites.

It is also a strategy of egghead intellectual ivory tower white plantation owner “massahs” who are in “coalition” with poor, stupid, ignorant black and brown-skinned inferiors who need whitey massah’s benevolent wisdom and direction lest they degenerate back into the apelike savagery from which they so-recently shambled from.  Because when you see a phrase describing “voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment,” think “elitist white massah.”

Another, possibly even bigger admission, that comes out of the piece below is the tacit admission that every single time a Democrat claimed to represent the working class, they were in actual fact lying demagogues.  Because “working class Americans” largely vote REPUBLICAN and HAVE BEEN VOTING REPUBLICAN.  That acknowledgement largely doesn’t sell well, so liberal demon-possessed cockroaches in the media and political circles have created a fake truth rather than admit the truth that the Democrat Party today is composed of: pseudo-intellectual white Marxists, hypocrite white crony capitalists who demand government control so that they can benefit from all the pork and boondoggles such government largesse creates, and parasites of all colors who will gladly sell their souls (not to mention their votes) for another welfare check.  And of course useful idiots (also of all races) who haven’t ever once ever been able to think for themselves.

Versus the people who want to be self-sufficient and not worship at the altar of government control, regulation and subsidy, who left the Democrat Party twenty years ago.

Democrats don’t give a damn about the working class; they piss on the working class.  The only “working class” (deceitfully defined by the mainstream media as “THE” working class) are communist unions who exploit all the other actual workers by forcing them to provide union workers with enormous and unfair compensation and benefit packages that will ultimately implode America.

A third point is that this isn’t about “intelligence” or even so much about “education.”  This is about the Democrats pursuing the white elitists who have benefitted from “the system” created by crony capitalism in the promise that if these keep voting Democrat, they will ergo keep benefitting from the crony capitalism socialism that Democrats will continue imposing.

November 27, 2011, 11:34 pm
The Future of the Obama Coalition
By THOMAS B. EDSALL

For decades, Democrats have suffered continuous and increasingly severe losses among white voters. But preparations by Democratic operatives for the 2012 election make it clear for the first time that the party will explicitly abandon the white working class.

All pretense of trying to win a majority of the white working class has been effectively jettisoned in favor of cementing a center-left coalition made up, on the one hand, of voters who have gotten ahead on the basis of educational attainment — professors, artists, designers, editors, human resources managers, lawyers, librarians, social workers, teachers and therapists — and a second, substantial constituency of lower-income voters who are disproportionately African-American and Hispanic.
It is instructive to trace the evolution of a political strategy based on securing this coalition in the writings and comments, over time, of such Democratic analysts as Stanley Greenberg and Ruy Teixeira. Both men were initially determined to win back the white working-class majority, but both currently advocate a revised Democratic alliance in which whites without college degrees are effectively replaced by well-educated socially liberal whites in alliance with the growing ranks of less affluent minority voters, especially Hispanics.

The 2012 approach treats white voters without college degrees as an unattainable cohort. The Democratic goal with these voters is to keep Republican winning margins to manageable levels, in the 12 to 15 percent range, as opposed to the 30-point margin of 2010 — a level at which even solid wins among minorities and other constituencies are not enough to produce Democratic victories.

“It’s certainly true that if you compare how things were in the early ’90s to the way they are now, there has been a significant shift in the role of the working class. You see it across all advanced industrial countries,” Teixeira, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, said in an interview.

In the United States, Teixeira noted, “the Republican Party has become the party of the white working class,” while in Europe, many working-class voters who had been the core of Social Democratic parties have moved over to far right parties, especially those with anti-immigration platforms.

Teixeira, writing with John Halpin, argues in “The Path to 270: Demographics versus Economics in the 2012 Presidential Election,” that in order to be re-elected, President Obama must keep his losses among white college graduates to the 4-point margin of 2008 (47-51). Why? Otherwise he will not be able to survive a repetition of 2010, when white working-class voters supported Republican House candidates by a record-setting margin of 63-33.

Obama’s alternative path to victory, according to Teixeira and Halpin, would be to keep his losses among all white voters at the same level John Kerry did in 2004, when he lost them by 17 points, 58-41. This would be a step backwards for Obama, who lost among all whites in 2008 by only 12 points (55-43). Obama can afford to drop to Kerry’s white margins because, between 2008 and 2012, the pro-Democratic minority share of the electorate is expected to grow by two percentage points and the white share to decline by the same amount, reflecting the changing composition of the national electorate.

The following passage from “The Path to 270” illustrates the degree to which whites without college degrees are currently cast as irrevocably lost to the Republican Party. “Heading into 2012,” Teixeira and Halpin write, one of the primary strategic questions will be:  Will the president hold sufficient support among communities of color, educated whites, Millennials, single women, and seculars and avoid a catastrophic meltdown among white working-class voters?

For his part, Greenberg, a Democratic pollster and strategist and a key adviser to Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign, wrote a memorandum earlier this month, together with James Carville, that makes no mention of the white working class. “Seizing the New Progressive Common Ground” describes instead a “new progressive coalition” made up of “young people, Hispanics, unmarried women, and affluent suburbanites.”

In an interview, Greenberg, speaking of white working class voters, said that in the period from the mid-1960s to the early 1990s, “we battled to get them back. They were sizable in number and central to the base of the Democratic Party.” At the time, he added, “we didn’t know that we would never get them back, that they were alienated and dislodged.”

In his work exploring how to build a viable progressive coalition, Greenberg noted, he has become “much more interested in the affluent suburban voters than the former Reagan Democrats.” At the same time, however, he argues that Republican winning margins among white working-class voters are highly volatile and that Democrats have to push hard to minimize losses, which will not be easy. “Right now,” he cautioned, “I don’t see any signs they are moveable.”

Teixeira’s current analysis stands in sharp contrast to an article that he wrote with Joel Rogers, which appeared in the American Prospect in 1995. In “Who Deserted the Democrats in 1994?,” Teixeira and Rogers warned that between 1992 and 1994 support for Democratic House candidates had fallen by 20 points, from 57 to 37 percent among high-school-educated white men; by 15 points among white men with some college; and by 10 points among white women in both categories. A failure to reverse those numbers, Teixeira warned, would “doom Clinton’s re-election bid” in 1996.

Teixeira was by no means alone in his 1995 assessment; he was in agreement with orthodox Democratic thinking of the time. In a 1995 memo to President Clinton, Greenberg wrote that whites without college degrees were “the principal obstacle” to Clinton’s re-election and that they needed to be brought back into the fold.

In practice, or perhaps out of necessity, the Democratic Party in 2006 and 2008 chose the upscale white-downscale minority approach that proved highly successful twice, but failed miserably in 2010, and appears to have a 50-50 chance in 2012.

The outline of this strategy for 2012 was captured by Times reporters Jackie Calmes and Mark Landler a few months ago in an article tellingly titled, “Obama Charts a New Route to Re-election.” Calmes and Landler describe how Obama’s re-election campaign plans to deal with the decline in white working class support in Rust Belt states by concentrating on states with high percentages of college educated voters, including Colorado, Virginia and New Hampshire.

There are plenty of critics of the tactical idea of dispensing with low-income whites, both among elected officials and party strategists. But Cliff Zukin, a professor of political science at Rutgers, puts the situation plainly. “My sense is that if the Democrats stopped fishing there, it is because there are no fish.”

As a practical matter, the Obama campaign and, for the present, the Democratic Party, have laid to rest all consideration of reviving the coalition nurtured and cultivated by Franklin D. Roosevelt. The New Deal Coalition — which included unions, city machines, blue-collar workers, farmers, blacks, people on relief, and generally non-affluent progressive intellectuals — had the advantage of economic coherence. It received support across the board from voters of all races and religions in the bottom half of the income distribution, the very coherence the current Democratic coalition lacks.

A top priority of the less affluent wing of today’s left alliance is the strengthening of the safety net, including health care, food stamps, infant nutrition and unemployment compensation. These voters generally take the brunt of recessions and are most in need of government assistance to survive. According to recent data from the Department of Agriculture, 45.8 million people, nearly 15 percent of the population, depend on the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program to meet their needs for food.

The better-off wing, in contrast, puts at the top of its political agenda a cluster of rights related to self-expression, the environment, demilitarization, and, importantly, freedom from repressive norms — governing both sexual behavior and women’s role in society — that are promoted by the conservative movement.

While demographic trends suggest the continued growth of pro-Democratic constituencies and the continued decline of core Republican voters, particularly married white Christians, there is no guarantee that demography is destiny.

The political repercussions of gathering minority strength remain unknown. Calculations based on exit poll and Census data suggest that the Democratic Party will become “majority minority” shortly after 2020.

One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics — populations frequently marked by diverging material interests. Black versus brown struggles are already emerging in contests over the distribution of political power, especially during a current redistricting of city council, state legislative and congressional seats in cities like Los Angeles and Chicago.

Republican Party operatives are acutely sensitive to such tensions, hoping for opportunities to fracture the Democratic coalition, virtually assuring that neither party can safely rely on a secure path to victory over time.

Allow me to rephrase the Democrat strategy in a nutshell: “If you vote for us, we Democrats are such cynical, un-American slime that we will take what somebody else worked for and earned and we will “redistribute” it to you.  After, that is, your white superiors who do your thinking for you take a giant chunk of all that money they used the force of government to steal for themselves.”

This is why I rightly and correctly call Democrats things like “traitors” and “cockroaches.”

It’s why even brief exposure to an American flag creates Republicans:

Shock Study: U.S. Flag Only Boosts GOP
By Paul Bedard
Posted: July 20, 2011

Just a brief exposure to an image of the American flag shifts voters, even Democrats, to Republican beliefs, attitudes and voting behavior even though most don’t believe it will impact their politics, according to a new two-year study just published in the scholarly Psychological Science.

What’s more, according to three authors from the University Chicago, Cornell University and Hebrew University, the impact had staying power.

“A single exposure to an American flag resulted in a significant increase in participants’ Republican voting intentions, voting behavior, political beliefs, and implicit and explicit attitudes, with some effects lasting 8 months,” the study found. “These results constitute the first evidence that nonconscious priming effects from exposure to a national flag can bias the citizenry toward one political party and can have considerable durability.”

It’s why doing something as innocuous as going to a Fourth of July parade makes people Republican:

Harvard: July 4th Parades Are Right-Wing
June 30, 2011

Democratic political candidates can skip this weekend’s July 4th parades. A new Harvard University study finds that July 4th parades energize only Republicans, turn kids into Republicans, and help to boost the GOP turnout of adults on Election Day.

“Fourth of July celebrations in the United States shape the nation’s political landscape by forming beliefs and increasing participation, primarily in favor of the Republican Party,” said the report from Harvard.

But there are vile people in this country who hate America and despise Americans even as they demand to parasitically leech off of those Americans.  And these vermin call themselves “Democrats.”

Thomas Edsell in his concluding sentences says of this racist-based Democrat strategy:

“One outcome could be a stronger party of the left in national and local elections. An alternate outcome could be exacerbated intra-party conflict between whites, blacks and Hispanics…”

I am reminded of Jesus’ warning concerning the last days: race shall rise against race.  Which of course is exactly what liberals want, as long as they can cynically exploit that conflict.

Mark my words: all the people who vote for Obama and the Democrat Party will one day soon be gladly voting for the Antichrist-beast from the pages of the Book of Revelation.

Obama Reducing Afghanistan Into ‘Echoes Of Vietnam’

History has an unsavory way of repeating itself.  And that is especially dangerous when Democrats are running things.

From the Wall Street Journal:

APRIL 7, 2010
The Karzai Fiasco
Echoes of Vietnam in a spat that only helps the Taliban.

President Obama isn’t faring too well at converting enemies to friends, but he does seem to have a talent for turning friends into enemies. The latest spectacle is the all-too-public and counterproductive war of words between the White House and our putative ally, Afghan President Hamid Karzai. The only winner so far in this spat is the Taliban.

The Obama Administration seems to have had it out for Mr. Karzai from the day it took office, amid multiple reports based on obvious U.S. leaks that Vice President Joe Biden or some other official had told the Afghan leader to shape up. The tension escalated after Mr. Karzai’s tainted but ultimately recognized re-election victory last year, and it reached the name-calling stage late last month when President Obama met Mr. Karzai on a trip to Kabul and the White House let the world know that the American had lectured the Afghan about his governing obligations.

The public rebuke was a major loss of face for Mr. Karzai, who later returned fire at the U.S., reportedly even saying at a private meeting that if the Americans kept it up, he might join the Taliban. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs kept up the schoolyard taunts yesterday by suggesting that Mr. Obama might not meet with Mr. Karzai as scheduled in Washington on May 12.

“We certainly would evaluate whatever continued or further remarks President Karzai makes, as to whether it is constructive to have that meeting,” said Mr. Gibbs, in a show of disdain he typically reserves for House Republicans.

The kindest word for all of this is fiasco. American troops are risking their lives to implement a counterinsurgency strategy that requires winning popular support in Afghanistan, and the main message from America’s Commander in Chief to the Afghan people is that their government can’t be trusted. That ought to make it easier to win hearts and minds.

Mr. Karzai has been disappointing as a nation-builder, has tolerated corrupt officials and family members, and can be arrogant and crudely nationalistic. Presumably, however, Mr. Obama was well aware of these defects last year when he recognized the Afghan election results and then committed 20,000 more U.S. troops to the theater.

You go to war with the allies you have, and it’s contrary to any diplomatic principle to believe that continuing public humiliation will make Mr. Karzai more likely to cooperate. On the evidence of the last week, such treatment has only given the Afghan leader more incentive to make a show of his political independence from the Americans.

All the more so given that Mr. Karzai has already heard Mr. Obama promise that U.S. troops will begin leaving Afghanistan as early as July 2011. This shouting spectacle will also embolden the Taliban, who after being run out of Marjah have every reason to tell the citizens of Kandahar that even the Americans don’t like the Afghan government and are short-timers in any case.

This treatment of an ally eerily echoes the way the Kennedy Administration treated Ngo Dinh Diem, the President of South Vietnam in the early 1960s. On JFK’s orders, U.S. Ambassador Henry Cabot Lodge refused to meet with Diem, and when U.S. officials got word of a coup against Diem they let it be known they would not interfere. Diem was executed, and South Vietnam never again had a stable government.

By contrast, President George W. Bush decided to support and work closely with Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki during the 2007 U.S. military surge in Iraq. The Maliki government was sectarian and sometimes incompetent, and some of its officials were no doubt corrupt, but Mr. Bush understood that the larger goal was to defeat al Qaeda and to stabilize the country. From FDR to Reagan, Presidents of both parties have had to tolerate allied leaders of varying talents and unsavory qualities in the wartime pursuit of more important foreign-policy goals.

Coming on the heels of the U.S. public chastisement of Israel’s government, the larger concern over the Karzai episode is what it reveals about Mr. Obama’s diplomatic frame of mind. With adversaries, he is willing to show inordinate patience, to the point of muffling his objections when opposition blood ran in the streets of Tehran. With allies, on the other hand, the President is unforgiving and insists they follow his lead or face his public wrath. The result will be that our foes fear us less, and that we have fewer friends.

I wrote an article yesterday which came out today that recognized this same (quite obvious) point: Obama commits tens of thousands of troops and spends hundreds of billions of dollars in Afghanistan, and then refuses to call the Afghani government an ally?  How is that not insane?

We won’t lose the war in Afghanistan because of our troops.  Our troops are the greatest warriors in the history of the world, and they truly deserve the word “heroes.”  If we lose, we will lose because of our failure-in-chief.

Turning Afghanistan into the next Vietnam by poisoning the national government is inherently stupid.  It is tantamount to refusing to recognize that we are fighting a war against Islamic jihadism.   The Bush Doctrine of preventative war stated, “The struggle against militant Islamic radicalism is the great ideological conflict of the early years of the 21st century.”  Obama is now fundamentally altering that strategy into one that incredibly refuses to recognize that Islamic jihadism has anything whatsoever to do with terrorism.  Obama first refused to use the phrase “war on terror” favoring the neutered (as in “having no testicles”) phrase, “Overseas contingency operation,” and now he is leaving that “overseas contingency operation” with its feet dangling in midair.

Just who or what in the hell are we supposed to be fighting???  Every single attack we have faced – be it on foreign battlefields or right here at home – was the result of a radical Islamic worldview.  And we’re supposed to pretend that we’re too morally stupid to realize that???

The recent past is a canvass full of examples.  Following a long list of Muslim terrorists attempts to create “man-caused disasters” in the US under Obama’s watch, we had a Muslim Army psychologist with “Soldier of Allah” business cards murder a dozen soldiers at a military base while screaming “Allahu Akbar!”.  Then we had a Muslim terrorist try to explode a passenger jet on Christmas day.

So, yesterday, we had another “incident” on a passenger jet plane.  A man from the Qatari embassy named Mohammed Al-Madadi was on his way to visit a convicted al-Qaeda terrorist minion named Ali Al-Marri imprisoned in Denver when he created an international incident by mocking American security authorities by “joking” that he was attempting to light his shoe bomb.

But we’re responding by increasingly assuming that Islam has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with terrorism.  Your grandma is a bigger security risk than Osama bin Laden as far as Obama is concerned.

Obama once said he didn’t like to think in terms of “victory,” in very direct opposition to every president before him (including Ronald Reagan, who summed up his Cold War goals in four words: “We win, they lose.”).  I suppose it’s good that Obama doesn’t want victory, because he will never secure one given his America-despising policies.

Obama wanted to relabel terrorism as a “man-caused disaster“; but the only “man-caused disaster” is the Obama administration.

Some ‘Change’: Closest Ally Britain Says Obama Undermining War In Afghanistan

We’re constantly told that the world loves us again now that Barack Obama is president.

Mind you, that “love” is utterly meaningless.  We’re not benefiting in any way from all the “love” we’re supposedly receiving.

We’re certainly not getting more support for the war on terror – oops, forgot Obama says we can’t use that term anymore – I mean the “overseas contingency operation” – from our adoring allies.

Take a look at the following table available from iCasualties.org/Operation Enduring Freedom as of November 24:

In addition to the fact that our casualties under Barack Obama will easily double from 2008 when George Bush was president, there is one more important feature: the fact that, other than the U.K. our allied troop support (see “other”) has actually DECREASED under the leadership of Barack Obama.

While they’ve given token lip service praise of Barack Obama’s “wonderfulness,” they have quietly been doing even LESS to help us in Afghanistan than they were under George Bush.

And the ONLY exception to that pathetic trend is the United Kingdom.

But listen to what the United Kingdom has to say about how Barack Obama is sabotaging and undermining the mission in Afghanistan:

Bob Ainsworth criticises Barack Obama over Afghanistan

Bob Ainsworth, the defence secretary, has blamed Barack Obama and the United States for the decline in British public support for the war in Afghanistan.

James Kirkup, Thomas Harding and Toby Harnden
Published: 9:00PM GMT 24 Nov 2009

Mr Ainsworth took the unprecedented step of publicly criticising the US President and his delays in sending more troops to bolster the mission against the Taliban.

A “period of hiatus” in Washington – and a lack of clear direction – had made it harder for ministers to persuade the British public to go on backing the Afghan mission in the face of a rising death toll, he said.

Senior British Government sources have become increasingly frustrated with Mr Obama’s “dithering” on Afghanistan, the Daily Telegraph disclosed earlier this month, with several former British defence chiefs echoing the concerns.

But Mr Ainsworth is the first Government minister to express in public what amounts to personal criticism of the US president’s leadership over the conflict which has so far cost 235 British lives.

Polls show most voters now want an early withdrawal, following the death of 98 British service personnel this year alone.

Ministers say the mission is vital to stop international terrorists using Afghanistan as a base, but Gordon Brown has promised an “exit strategy” that could start next year.

The Defence Secretary’s blunt remarks about the US threaten to strain further a transatlantic relationship already under pressure over the British release of the Lockerbie bomber and Mr Obama’s decision to snub Mr Brown at the United Nations in September.

Mr Ainsworth spoke out as the inquiry into the 2003 war in Iraq started in London, hearing evidence from British diplomats that the UK government concluded in 2001 that toppling Saddam Hussein by military action would be illegal.

Mr Obama has been considering advice from General Stanley McChrystal, the US commander in Afghanistan, to send more than 40,000 extra troops to the country.

Next week, after more than three months of deliberation, the president is expected to announce that he will send around 34,000 more troops.

Mr Ainsworth, speaking to MPs at the defence committee in the House of Commons, welcomed that troop ‘surge’ decision, but lamented the time taken to reach it.

He said that the rising British death toll, the corruption of the Afghan government and the delay in Washington all hamper efforts to retain public backing for the deployment.

“We have suffered a lot of losses,” he said. “We have had a period of hiatus while McChrystal’s plan and his requested uplift has been looked at in the detail to which it has been looked at over a period of some months, and we have had the Afghan elections, which have been far from perfect let us say.

“All of those things have mitigated against our ability to show progress… put that on the other side of the scales when we are suffering the kind of losses that we are.”

Britain has 9,000 troops in Afghanistan and has announced it will send another 500, a decision some US officials saw as a move to put pressure on Mr Obama.

Mr Ainsworth said he is confident that once Mr Obama confirms his new strategy, allies will follow and British public opinion will shift back in favour of the mission.

“I hope and believe that we are about to get an announcement from the USA on troop numbers and I think that that will be followed by contributions from many other Nato allies and so we will be able to show that we are going forward in this campaign to an extent that we have not been able to in recent months with those issues still hanging,” he said. […]

So you’ve got the documented record of Barack Hussein undermining the ONLY ally that has been worth butkus – or a butt kiss, for that matter – to the United States in Afghanistan.

The repeated acts of public humiliation of Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the UK at the hands of Obama and his administration are detailed HERE.

And during the three month period that Obama has dithered – and that is the Brits’ term, in addition to our own Pentagon command, rather than Dick Cheney’s term, as the media keeps falsely reporting – the public support to remain in Afghanistan has dropped dramatically.

And there’s no reason to believe that the forfeited public support will come back.

Maybe Barack Obama is a dandy leader of the whole world – at least until the Antichrist shows up to take over for him – but he is in fact a lousy President of the United States, and an even worse commander-in-chief of the American forces in Afghanistan.

Navy SEALs Charged: Another Cancerous Case Of Obama Criminalizing Those Who Protect Us

Update, April 23, 2010: The 2nd of three SEALs have now had all charges dropped against them.  These were stupid and immoral charges that should never have been made in the first place.  The Obama administration has created a paranoid and toxic atmosphere of political correctness run amok.

Welcome to Obama’s America, where there are only three truly evil acts: 1) being a conservative; 2) working for Fox News; 3) being a patriot who tries to keep America safe from its enemies.

These SEALs are at least guilty of number 3, and are most likely also guilty of 1 as well.  That’s more than enough for Obama.

And of course Fox reported on the story.  But we already know they’re guilty of Crimes Against Obama.

Navy SEALs Face Assault Charges For Capturing Most-Wanted Terrorist

Tuesday, November 24, 2009
By Rowan Scarborough

Navy SEALs have secretly captured one of the most wanted terrorists in Iraq — the alleged mastermind of the murder and mutilation of four Blackwater USA security guards in Fallujah in 2004. And three of the SEALs who captured him are now facing criminal charges, sources told FoxNews.com.

The three, all members of the Navy’s elite commando unit, have refused non-judicial punishment — called an admiral’s mast — and have requested a trial by court-martial.

Ahmed Hashim Abed, whom the military code-named “Objective Amber,” told investigators he was punched by his captors — and he had the bloody lip to prove it.

Now, instead of being lauded for bringing to justice a high-value target, three of the SEAL commandos, all enlisted, face assault charges and have retained lawyers.

Matthew McCabe, a Special Operations Petty Officer Second Class (SO-2), is facing three charges: dereliction of performance of duty for willfully failing to safeguard a detainee, making a false official statement, and assault.

Petty Officer Jonathan Keefe, SO-2, is facing charges of dereliction of performance of duty and making a false official statement.

Petty Officer Julio Huertas, SO-1, faces those same charges and an additional charge of impediment of an investigation.

The three SEALs will be arraigned separately on Dec. 7. Another three SEALs — two officers and an enlisted sailor — have been identified by investigators as witnesses but have not been charged.

FoxNews.com obtained the official handwritten statement from one of the three witnesses given on Sept. 3, hours after Abed was captured and still being held at the SEAL base at Camp Baharia. He was later taken to a cell in the U.S.-operated Green Zone in Baghdad.

The SEAL told investigators he had showered after the mission, gone to the kitchen and then decided to look in on the detainee.

“I gave the detainee a glance over and then left,” the SEAL wrote. “I did not notice anything wrong with the detainee and he appeared in good health.”

Lt. Col. Holly Silkman, spokeswoman for the special operations component of U.S. Central Command, confirmed Tuesday to FoxNews.com that three SEALs have been charged in connection with the capture of a detainee. She said their court martial is scheduled for January.

United States Central Command declined to discuss the detainee, but a legal source told FoxNews.com that the detainee was turned over to Iraqi authorities, to whom he made the abuse complaints. He was then returned to American custody. The SEAL leader reported the charge up the chain of command, and an investigation ensued.

The source said intelligence briefings provided to the SEALs stated that “Objective Amber” planned the 2004 Fallujah ambush, and “they had been tracking this guy for some time.”

The Fallujah atrocity came to symbolize the brutality of the enemy in Iraq and the degree to which a homegrown insurgency was extending its grip over Iraq.

The four Blackwater agents were transporting supplies for a catering company when they were ambushed and killed by gunfire and grenades. Insurgents burned the bodies and dragged them through the city. They hanged two of the bodies on a bridge over the Euphrates River for the world press to photograph.

Intelligence sources identified Abed as the ringleader, but he had evaded capture until September.

The military is sensitive to charges of detainee abuse highlighted in the Abu Ghraib prison scandal. The Navy charged four SEALs with abuse in 2004 in connection with detainee treatment.

I’d first like to thank these SEALs for their service; second, I’d like to thank them for capturing Ahmed Hashim Abed; third, I would like to thank them for giving this slimebag a fat lip.

Let’s assess the record of this administration: repeatedly attempting to contact al-Qaeda — merits a promotion; giving a terrorist murderer a fat lip — merits a court martial.

This is what happens under the Obama worldview that requires providing Miranda rights to terrorists and according them all the rights and privileges of American citizens.

It is a cancer that resulted in the Obama administration declassifying vital intelligence secrets which kept this country safe in order to use it as a political weapon

It is a cancer that resulted in the Obama administration literally attempting to criminalize the role of our intelligence professionals at the CIA for their role in desperately striving to keep this country safe.  Now, surprise, surprise, the morale at the CIA is at a 30-year low (dating back to the last time a Democrat tried to destroy the Agency).

It is a cancer that resulted in a Muslim captain who’d had regular email contact with al-Qaeda as well as “soldier of Allah” on his business card getting promoted to major before murdering 14 human beings and wounding more than 30 more at a military base – as he screamed ‘Allahu akbar!’ – while our own SEALs get disciplined for capturing such murderous bags of slime.

It is a cancer that resulted in five confessed terrorists going from requesting the death sentence at a military tribunal to getting an opportunity to plead not guilty and use the civilian trial Obama gave them as a platform for their jihadist worldview while putting America (and George Bush) on trial.

It is a cancer that has resulted in a president dithering for nearly three full months while ignoring his own handpicked general’s request for more troops in Afghanistan.  While nearly twice as many American soldiers have died (so far!) than died under George Bush.

Today Obama came out and – while continuing to criticize Bush for not having the right “strategy” – said he intends to “finish the job” without bothering to have any kind of explanation as to what the “job” even is.   Which is to say, some fat load of good his three months of “policy reviews” has done.  Meanwhile, the morale of our troops is sinking, while the morale of the Taliban and the number of the American body count is rising.

And we have Barack Hussein to thank for inflicting us with this cancer.  The sooner he is gone, the sooner our healing from cancer can begin.

Note to fools: there is no CSI Kandahar, and there is no CSI Baghdad.  We cannot possibly ask our soldiers to gather evidence and turn battlefields into crime scenes.  We are worse than idiots for demanding that our warriors on foreign battlefields act like domestic police officers.  It is a blatant category fallacy.

Prayer for Barack Obama:

Psalm 109:8 – “Let his days be few, and let another take his office.”

Saudi Source Says Obama Willing To Give Afghanistan To Taliban For Quiet

Back in May of 2008, I wrote about the danger of appeasement that the election of a liberal Democrat to the presidency posed.

The trend of American casualties had been increasing, without question, but we have NEVER seen the kind of DOUBLING of fatalities (we’re now at 293 American fatalities, versus 155 last year, with more than a month to go) that we are seeing now under Obama’s leadership.  That’s because the Taliban and the terrorists now know that we have a dithering, indecisive, vacillating and appeasing weakling in the White House whom they will be able to push around.

And apparently their piling on is paying off big as “the leader of the free world” cringes before them.

This story is only coming from a single source in Saudi Arabia, but, if true, it means we’re at Neville Chamberlain’s level of disgusting appeasement in exchange for a psuedo “peace in our time” all over again.

Afghan Source: The U.S. Has Offered the Taliban Control in Return for Quiet

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement’s foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

Source: Al-Watan (Saudi Arabia), November 22, 2009

Even going back to April of last year, the Democrat presidential debates displayed a frightening ignorance of history, which would invariably lead to appeasement and – following the pattern, more demanding and stubborn enemies who sensed our weakness –  if their policies were ever implemented:

As a student of history, I remember the abject failure of the Western allies to grasp the growing threat of their enemies throughout the 1930s. I remember the refusal of the liberal governments of the Allied powers to comprehend what are now known to have been fundamental realities of naked aggression and looming war. British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlain abandoned his country’s commitment to Czechoslovakia with a promise from Hitler of peace. The liberal, “anti-war” Chamberlain returned home saying, “I believe it is peace in our time!” Chamberlain saw Britain’s policy as a willingness to compromise and a desire for peace. But Hitler saw only weakness, hesitation, and cowardice, and became emboldened for total war. Again and again, the West had had an opportunity to demonstrate its genuine resolve to Hitler, and again and again the West had failed to stand.

In our present day, the Democratic Party has demonstrated a shocking degree of treachery in regard to Iraq. It is their war as much as it is Republicans’ war – because it should be America’s war.

History repeats itself because we keep putting the same sort of moral cowards in power.

Note that I was referring to Iraq, rather than Afghanistan, in my above warning.  Why?  Because the Democrats were talking tough about Afghanistan, even as they talked about walking away from Iraq.  Who could have known that a Democrat would so violate his own promises and be so shockingly weak in a war that he himself said was a “must win”? I fully believed that Barack Obama would be a weakling and an appeaser in office; but I simply had no idea that he would be as pathetically weak as he has actually revealed himself to be.

Thankfully, George Bush’s surge strategy in Iraq worked – and worked so well that even Obama’s weakness hasn’t been able to turn the success in Iraq around.  Barack Obama opposed that strategy and said it would fail.  And when he was proven wrong, this weakling and coward merely deleted his wrong, deceitful, and malicious prediction from his web site.

Obama’s dithering (and that’s the term Pentagon officials used, rather than merely Dick Cheney, btw), have 1) emboldened the enemy, 2) undermined American troop morale, 3) undermined the confidence of the military that Barack Obama will remain true to his commitment, and 4) weakened the people of Afghanistan’s trust for us all at once.

The last is the worse: the months that Obama has spent cravenly dithering while the resurgent Taliban have spread their control has forced the Afghani people to begin to choose the Taliban – whom will stay the course – over a U.S. under Barack Obama which clearly won’t.  And that means we may have already lost.

And now this?

What do you expect from the president who sold out Poland to Russia on the 70th anniversary of weakling appeasers just like Obama selling out Poland to Russia?

On top of the defeat in Afghanistan, Obama faces a far more significant defeat in Iran.  Obama is desperate to talk; Iran is determined to build nuclear missiles.  Iran will get become a nuclear military power under Obama’s watch, because the only way to prevent them from becoming such a power is to be willing to go to war with them to stop them – and Iran knows that Obama will not take that step.

As the nightmare of a nuclear-armed Iran manifests itself in the form of increased terrorism, sky-high gas prices, and even nuclear war, just remember: we conservatives tried to warn you.

Update, November 23, 2009: Did I say that 293 U.S. soldiers have been killed so far this year?  Make that 297.  Meanwhile, the survivors are hunkering down and beginning to despair that they are in Afghanistan for no apparent reason while their commander-in-chief dithers around for three months more worried about his own political skin than about his soldiers.

Obama Making World Safer For America’s Enemies

What would be an obvious follow-up for Obama’s well-received “Apologize for America” tour?

Why, a “Disarming America” tour, of course.

Barack Obama ready to slash US nuclear arsenal: Pentagon told to map out radical cuts as president prepares to chair UN talks

Barack Obama has demanded the Pentagon conduct a radical review of US nuclear weapons doctrine to prepare the way for deep cuts in the country’s arsenal, the Guardian can reveal.

Obama has rejected the Pentagon’s first draft of the “nuclear posture review” as being too timid, and has called for a range of more far-reaching options consistent with his goal of eventually abolishing nuclear weapons altogether, according to European officials. […]

The review is due to be completed by the end of this year, and European officials say the outcome is not yet clear. But one official said: “Obama is now driving this process. He is saying these are the president’s weapons, and he wants to look again at the doctrine and their role.”

The move comes as Obama prepares to take the rare step of chairing a watershed session of the UN security council on Thursday. It is aimed at winning consensus on a new grand bargain: exchanging more radical disarmament by nuclear powers in return for wider global efforts to prevent further proliferation.

That bargain is at the heart of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, which is up for review next year amid signs it is unravelling in the face of Iranian and North Korean nuclear ambitions.

In an article for the Guardian today, the foreign secretary, David Miliband, argues that failure to win a consensus would be disastrous. “This is one of the most critical issues we face,” the foreign secretary writes. “Get it right, and we will increase global security, pave the way for a world without nuclear weapons, and improve access to affordable, safe and dependable energy – vital to tackle climate change. Get it wrong, and we face the spread of nuclear weapons and the chilling prospect of nuclear material falling into the hands of terrorists.” […]

Barack Obama’s first foreign policy instinct is, as always, horrifyingly wrong.  When Russia recently invaded Georgia, committing ethnic cleansing and destroying democracy there in the process, Obama issued an incredibly weak, pandering, and yes, appeasing, statement which he later shifted to appear stronger than he was.

More recently, continuing the trend, Obama backed down to Russia’s threats and betrayed an American commitment to Poland and Czechoslovakia to “celebrate” the 70th anniversary of Russia’s brutal invasion of Poland.

Russia stared, and Obama blinked.  And cringed.

It is a crystal clear continuation to a program to alienate allies even as it bolsters enemies that I described months ago.  The world now sees America under Barack Obama as toothless as an enemy, and treacherous as a friend.

Now, this same man who vowed to keep Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons – but doing absolutely nothing to keep them from this present moment as they now have the ability to make a bomb – is now basically saying that the only nuclear weapons he’s going to stop are OURS.

In his April 16th, 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton, Obama promised:

“I have said I will do whatever is required to prevent the Iranians from obtaining nuclear weapons.”

But he did nothing.  NOTHING.  And now Iran has them at their whim.

And, in The Jerusalem Post’s words:

The Iranians have already called Obama’s bluff. An Iranian newspaper referred to the American agenda on July 26 this way: “[T]he Obama administration is prepared to accept the prospect of a nuclear-armed Iran… They have no long-term plan for dealing with Iran… Their strategy consists of begging us to talk with them.”

Well, too bad the “begging” strategery didn’t work.  We had such high hopes for it.  We figured, well, it didn’t work when Neville Chamberlain tried it with Adolf Hitler, so it’s bound to succeed now.

Who would have thunk that such a weak and pathetic policy of appeasement would fail yet again?

Iran has been working on developing nuclear weapons for years.  It stopped its program in 2003, following the U.S. invasion of Iraq, because they didn’t want to be next.  And the only “deterrent” which was ever going to have any chance of succeeding in stopping Iran’s nuclear program was the blunt promise of massive and overwhelming military force unless Iran verifiably cease its nuclear weapons program.  Which was never issued.

Now, this same man who vowed to stay tough in Afghanistan – and who is already buckling at the knees now that “the good war” is HIS war – is hard at work to undermine our national security even more by giving away our nuclear deterrent.

Charles Krauthammer recently cited Democrat strategist and Kerry ‘04 campaigner Bob Shrum’s describing Afghanistan as the “right war” as a tactic to attack Bush in Iraq while not being “anti-war.”  It was an incredibly cynical strategy from an incredibly cynical political party.  And it was a strategy that Barack Obama clearly embraced as well.  Frankly, anyone who believed that the Democrat Party would do the right thing for the right reasons in Afghanistan was simply deluded.

A recent article entitled, “Pentagon worried about Obama’s commitment to Afghanistan” ended with this assessment from a senior Pentagon official:

“I think they (the Obama administration) thought this would be more popular and easier.  We are not getting a Bush-like commitment to this war.”

And this is the guy who is making sweeping and fundamental changes to “radically” undermine our nuclear deterrent?

Ali Obama And The Forty Czars: A Frightening Story

Ali Baba had his forty thieves.  Ali Obama has at least 31 czars (reported today to be as high as 34) — and counting.  Whether Ali OBama’s czars also qualify as “thieves” or not, I shall leave to you to determine.

Reuters has a story entitled, “Obama fashions a government of many czars,” that begins, “Name a top issue and President Barack Obama has probably got a “czar” responsible for tackling it.”  Personally, I kind of like the “czar-free” government our founding fathers fashioned for us better.

Apparently I’m not alone in my preference.  Even Democrat Robert Byrd is one the record arguing that “President Obama’s ‘czar strategy’ is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House, outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.”

Taxpayers for Common Sense have been trying to keep track of all the Obama czars.  It’s difficult given the lack of accountability and openness that has emerged from the administration that said they’d make accountability and openness their hallmarks.  These czars have no accountability to anyone but Obama.  Democrats would be screaming bloody murder if George Bush had done such a thing, but mum has been the word as Barack Obama has ran an end-run around the Constitution (which has appallingly little regard for czars) and around Congressional oversight.

Too many czars (The Daily Citizen)
Pub Date: Jul 08, 2009

It has taken President Barack Obama less than eight months to do what imperial Russia could not do in 400 years.

Taxpayers for Common Sense reports that Obama has appointed 31 “czars.” That’s more than ruled Russia during its entire imperial history.

Obama has appointed a California water czar, a Mideast peace czar and a Mideast policy czar, a pay czar (to determine how much the private sector should pay, not the government), a health care czar, an energy czar and a green jobs czar, a Sudan czar, a climate change czar and numerous others, with the promise of more to come. And, if you can’t keep track of all the czars, don’t worry. Obama has also appointed an information czar.

The president should feel right at home when he visits Russia this week.

Few of these czars require any congressional approval, but Obama has given many of them power over cabinet-level officials who are subject to confirmation.

Taxpayers for Common Sense says all these appointments don’t guarantee that the federal bureaucracy will work any better. If anything, the group notes, the appointments simply add another layer to that bureaucracy, something that rarely makes the government more responsive to taxpayers.

More worrisome is the clear trend towards the government, especially the federal government, getting involved in an increasing amount of our daily lives. Equally troubling is the idea that the solution to any problem that faces us is a stronger hand on the reins.

The czars did Russian no favors. We have no reason to expect they will do the United States any good.

Robert Byrd used the words “unprecedented power grab” to describe Obama’s “centralizing authority.”  I’m getting really fed up with Obama’s “unprecedented power.”  When I googled the phrase “unprecedented power” and “Obama” I got 3,370,000 hits.  Which is about 3, 370,000 hits too many.  And really scary hits, too, such this one from Money Morning:

The plan clearly grants the central bank unprecedented new powers to conduct comprehensive examinations of almost any U.S. financial company, as well as any of that company’s foreign affiliates. It would also give the central bank oversight of any commercial company that owns a banking charter known as an industrial loan company, according to The Journal.

There’s also various synonyms for “unprecedented,” such as “sweeping”:

Washington (AP) – Health care overhaul legislation from President Barack Obama’s congressional allies would create a federal insurance czar with sweeping new powers to oversee medical plans nationwide, an idea already drawing fierce criticism.

Liz Peek in a Wall Street Weekly piece entitled “Obama’s Czars Play Russian Roulette With Business” describes the much-more-harmful-than-helpful role of massive federal control over more and more of our economy and our way of life:

To date, this administration has seemed more interested in penalizing and correcting businesses than in inspiring growth and profitability. Oversight measures are abounding, big and small. Next week the Treasury is set to release its plan for financial regulatory reform, which was meant to simplify the tangled web of overseers now in place – a system that grew up piecemeal as the banking and trading sector grew in size and sophistication. The word is that instead of reducing the number of agencies, Treasury Secretary Geithner will propose two new ones. Why? Because the congressional committees that are charged with monitoring these organizations refuse to give up power. I have to laugh.

When you stop and think about it, Obama is seizing total control of everything while simultaneously arguing his administration really isn’t responsible for anything.  That’s what makes me laugh.

Rahm Emanuel, Ali Obama’s chief of staff, said something only a couple of weeks after the election – before Obama assumed his “unprecedented power” – that serves to show that none of this has been a coincidence.

“You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.  Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before.”

This seizure of sweeping, unprecedented power in the name of “crisis” in order to gain political advantage should truly frighten you if you understand history.

Jonah Goldberg wrote,

Crisis is routinely identified as a core mechanism of fascism because it short-circuits debate and democratic deliberation.  Hence all fascistic movements commit considerable energy to prolonging a heightened state of emergency (Liberal Fascism, p. 43).

You can go back to a February 13, 2009 Wall Street Journal article to see that Barack Obama is firmly in precisely such a fascist crisis-hyping tradition.

President Barack Obama has turned fearmongering into an art form. He has repeatedly raised the specter of another Great Depression. First, he did so to win votes in the November election. He has done so again recently to sway congressional votes for his stimulus package.

Michael J. Boskin wrote in the Wall Street Journal:

Mr. Obama’s $3.6 trillion budget blueprint, by his own admission, redefines the role of government in our economy and society. The budget more than doubles the national debt held by the public, adding more to the debt than all previous presidents — from George Washington to George W. Bush — combined.  It reduces defense spending to a level not sustained since the dangerous days before World War II, while increasing nondefense spending (relative to GDP) to the highest level in U.S. history. And it would raise taxes to historically high levels (again, relative to GDP). And all of this before addressing the impending explosion in Social Security and Medicare costs.

The Associated Press says:

WASHINGTON (AP) — The government will have to borrow nearly 50 cents for every dollar it spends this year, exploding the record federal deficit past $1.8 trillion under new White House estimates.

Budget office figures released Monday would add $89 billion to the 2009 red ink — increasing it to more than four times last year’s all-time high as the government hands out billions more than expected for people who have lost jobs and takes in less tax revenue from people and companies making less money.

The editorial board of the  liberal Washington Post writes:

To put it bluntly, the fiscal policy of the United States is unsustainable. Debt is growing faster than gross domestic product. Under the CBO’s most realistic scenario, the publicly held debt of the U.S. government will reach 82 percent of GDP by 2019 — roughly double what it was in 2008. By 2026, spiraling interest payments would push the debt above its all-time peak (set just after World War II) of 113 percent of GDP. It would reach 200 percent of GDP in 2038.

And all of this reminds me of the Cloward-Piven strategy:

In their 1966 article, Cloward and Piven charged that the ruling classes used welfare to weaken the poor; that by providing a social safety net, the rich doused the fires of rebellion. Poor people can advance only when “the rest of society is afraid of them,” Cloward told The New York Times on September 27, 1970. Rather than placating the poor with government hand-outs, wrote Cloward and Piven, activists should work to sabotage and destroy the welfare system; the collapse of the welfare state would ignite a political and financial crisis that would rock the nation; poor people would rise in revolt; only then would “the rest of society” accept their demands.

The key to sparking this rebellion would be to expose the inadequacy of the welfare state. Cloward-Piven’s early promoters cited radical organizer Saul Alinsky as their inspiration. “Make the enemy live up to their (sic) own book of rules,” Alinsky wrote in his 1972 book Rules for Radicals. When pressed to honor every word of every law and statute, every Judaeo-Christian moral tenet, and every implicit promise of the liberal social contract, human agencies inevitably fall short. The system’s failure to “live up” to its rule book can then be used to discredit it altogether, and to replace the capitalist “rule book” with a socialist one.

I genuinely believe that Barack Obama – a follower of Saul Alinsky as well as the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate when he belonged to it to go along with a long and deep relationship with leftist radicals – is pursuing a “heads we win, tails you lose” strategy.  If the economy somehow picks up under all of this massive spending and even more massive debt, then Democrats win big and Republicans lose.  If – much more likely – the economy crashes under its own massive weight due to hyperinflation as interest payments on the debt soar, then a starving, terrified people will scream for help from their government.  And Democrats will win the pure-socialist totalitarian state they have always envisioned.  Either way, Obama liberals believe they will win big.

Ali Obama and his 31 (or is it 34?  Incredibly, the media seems to have stopped reporting the growing number!) czars are no friends of America or the Constitution that framed its laws.  And whether Obama and his gang of czars intend to or not, their “redefinition of the role of government in our economy and society” will very likely overwhelm our entire way of life and send it crashing down.

What McCain-Palin Need To Do From Tonight’s Debate Till Election Day

John McCain is being saddled with the anger and fear of voters over the financial collapse, according to most polls.  Up until this week, neither President Bush, Senator McCain, Governor Sarah Palin, or most Republicans bothered to respond to the repeated Democrat charges that this fiasco was the result of the “failed policies of the last eight years.”

That perception needs to be changed by through a deliberate and sustained effort.  It needs to begin tonight.  And it needs to continue until November 4.

Barack Obama has been arguing that “guilt by association” is invalid.  But Obama’s central charge against John McCain amounts to pure guilt by association: John McCain is NOT George Bush, and he has never BEEN George Bush.  His entire career stands as a screaming testimony to the fact that he is very much his own man.

John McCain needs to find a few popular measures that President Bush supported and ask Barack Obama, “Do you oppose this because President Bush was for it?  How about this?  And this?”

When Barack Obama again and again says that John McCain has voted with George Bush 90% of the time, McCain needs to remind voters that Barack Obama has voted with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid fully 97% of the time.  He needs to remind voters that Barack Obama is the personification of a Democrat-controlled Congress that has a 9% approval rating – the worst in American history; worse than the 12% rating Congress had in 1979.  Meanwhile, even Barack Obama has voted with Bush 40% of the time, and more conservative Democrats like Louisiana Senator Mary Landrieu have voted with Bush over 70% of the time.

Given the fact that Democrats are likely to not only continue to hold power – and even expand their power to a filibuster-proof majority -this economy cannot afford the domination of tax-and-spend socialist liberals in total control of our government.

John McCain and Sarah Palin need to examine Barack Obama’s tax plan.  Obama claims that 95% of Americans would get a tax cut; the Republicans need to ask Obama if he actually believes that every single American pays taxes, such that 95% of Americans would receive a cut, and 5% would face a steep increase.  Do Barack Obama’s two little girls pay taxes?  How can he possibly give a “cut” to 95% of Americans?  In reality, Barack Obama is using the IRS tax code to give at least 30% and as many as 40% of American tax filers who DON’T pay federal income taxes what amounts to a welfare check.  And that is hardly what this economy needs right now.  Republicans need to point out that Barack Obama will heavily increase the taxes of small business owners and people who invest in jobs and supply the money this country needs in order to grow and expand.

When you tax small business owners, they lay off employees; when you tax investors, they shelter their money.  And that is hardly what this economy needs right now.

Barack Obama wants to give away another $845 billion dollars of American taxpayer money to the poor of the world in his Global Poverty Act.  It would cost each citizen at least $2500.  And that is hardly what this economy needs right now.

Barack Obama wants to massively socialize the American health care system – which represents about a quarter of the American economy.  He makes a lot of promises, but the costs would be staggering.  Massachusetts passed a law mandating universal coverage that promised to lower costs in utopian fashion; it is now facing $400 million in cost overruns in small state population in a short period of time.  Barack Obama’s plan would be the same sort of disaster on a far more massive scale.  And that is hardly what this economy needs right now.

Barack Obama is trying to blame President Bush and Republicans for the financial disaster when Democrats are all over it.  John McCain needs to point out that past Obama advisor Franklin Raines was involved in massive fraud and chicanery of Fannie Mae just a couple years ago.  He needs to point out that Obama advisers – and lifelong Democrats – Jim Johnson, Franklin Raines, and Jamie Gorelick raided well over $300 million in bonus money from Fannie Mae even as the agency was crumbling.  McCain needs to point out that Republicans DID try to regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – which held over $5 trillion in mortgage assets – but that Democrats repeatedly blocked those attempts at regulation in the name of keeping the flow of mortgage loans available to poor and minority home buyers who couldn’t repay their obligations.  John McCain needs to point out that he himself prophetically warned the American people of this crisis two years ago when something could have been done to prevent this fiasco.  McCain needs to point out that Barack Obama himself has personally been deeply in the pockets of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac – as well as corrupt and negligent Lehman Bros – at a rate that goes far beyond anyone else in Congress.  And that his relationship as an instrumental part in securing these terrible subprime loans with Fannie Mae go back to his days as a radical ACORN organizer.

John McCain needs to use Barney Frank as the poster child of Democratic negligence over Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.  Barney Frank – who had an inappropriate (homo)sexual relationship with a key Fannie Mae official even when his Congressional committee had direct oversight in regulating the agency.  Barney Frank – who said for five years that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were healthy, and who led the Democratic fight against the very sort of regulation Democrats now claim the Republicans are guilty of having been opposed to.  Barney Frank – the leading overseer of GSEs for the last two years – was continuing to claim that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were fine as recently as July 14 of this year.  And John McCain needs to point out to the world that Fannie Mae’s and Freddy Mac’s stock crashed 90% while Democrats had direct control and direct oversight of these massive GSEs.

And that sort of corruption and incompetence is not what this economy needs right now.

Further, John McCain needs to point out that Barack Obama hasn’t merely had radical associations, but radical alliances.  Barack Obama spent 23 years steeped in the worldview of a radical, racist, anti-American pastor and church.  Barack Obama is the first “God damn America!” candidate for President.  And Barack Obama was more than just “palling around” with terrorist bomber William Ayers – in his capacity as a member of the Chicago Annenburg Challenge board, Barack Obama was directly in charge of administering funding in support of William Ayers radical Marxist educational initiatives.  Barack Obama didn’t merely “associate” with a terrorist who did something bad when Barack was merely 8 years old; Barack Obama officially partnered with William Ayers as a grown man as recently as 2001 to put “more than $100 million into the hands of community organizers and radical education activists.”

And that sort of radical activity is not something that either this country or this economy needs right now.

Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said, “I believe that this war is lost.”  And Barack Obama would have ensured that the war would have in fact been lost had he been President.  Obama talks about the loss of American prestige; does he genuinely believe that American troops slinking home in defeat with an emboldened terrorist enemy following us home would improve our international prestige?  John McCain needs to link Harry Reid’s proclamation of defeat with Barack Obama’s determination to snatch defeat from the jaws of success.

That defeatist mentality is not something that this country can afford right now.  As costly as a war is, the United States cannot afford to lose – and we would have lost had Barack Obama recalled the troops in defeat as he wanted to do three years ago.

Finally, John McCain needs to lead this nation to the conclusion that Barack Obama – the most radical, the most inexperienced, the most untested – candidate for President in this nation’s history, is not what either this country or this economy need right now.

Hillary Clinton Strategy for Remaining in Race Now Obvious

If it wasn’t already clear before, Hillary Clinton’s strategy now seems quite obvious.

She is going to avoid bitter personal “mudslinging attacks” that will undermine her own political future along with her rival’s, and instead focus on the issue of her superior general election viability.

She is claiming that she will remain in the race through the bitter end unless the votes and delegates are counted in Florida and Michigan. Rather than presenting herself as the cynical, manipulative, power-hungry, utterly self-centered politician who is determined to stay in the race even if her party burns down around her, Hillary Clinton is presenting herself as the selfless champion of the will of the people. How noble of her!

We see here the schism that too often lies between substance and rhetoric in modern Democratic politics. Normally, Republicans are the ones on the unpopular side of this divide, but here the victim is clearly the more liberal Barack Obama. When Florida and Michigan (seeking to be more ‘relevant’) violated the DNC’s rules by determining to hold their primary earlier, all the Democratic presidential candidates agreed to abide by the DNC’s exlusion of those states’ delegates. But now, regardless of the rules that she personally accepted, Hillary Clinton is claiming that the states’ decision to violate DNC rules has nothing to do with the people of the states that made the decision. They are, in the words of Mongo from Blazing Saddles fame, merely “pawns in game of life.” Obama played by the rules, and is calling for those rules to be followed.

Hillary Clinton gets to throw out the rules that she agreed to accept in what is clearly a self-serving gesture, and take the credit for being the champion of the “victims” in Florida and Michigan. It’s the same play that Democrats relied upon today when they (as the ones who actually caused our current energy crisis by refusing to allow domestic oil production) proceeded to hang the blame on the oil companies and the White House.  On a day like this, it’s frankly fitting that a Democrat would use the same junk rhetoric against her own party.

If Hillary gets Florida and Michigan included, as she demands, she will clearly be able to officially claim that she obtained more of the popular vote than Barack Obama.

And, of course, it is now practically an article of liberal faith – from the 2000 election – that the candidate who wins the popular vote should be president.

Hillary today said, “We believe that the outcome of our elections should be determined by the will of the people. Nothing more. Nothing less. And we believe the popular vote is the truest expression of your will. We believe it today just as we believed it back in 2000 when right here in Florida you learned the hard way what happens when your votes aren’t counted and a candidate with fewer votes is determined the winner.”

Notwithstanding the obvious insult to President Bush, Hillary Clinton’s statement serves to show that the Democratic position is – and has been – that such things as “the rules” shouldn’t matter, and that the process should rather be used in a cynical, self-serving way to attain partisan or personal advantage.

Do you think for a nanosecond that if the roles were reversed, Hillary Clinton would not be demanding that the process both candidates agreed to be followed? For that matter, do you think that if Barack Obama were in Hillary’s shoes, he wouldn’t be demanding the same things that Hillary is demanding now?

Including the delegates from Florida and Michigan will not affect Barack Obama’s lead in the ultimate measure that determines the winner – the delegate count. But it will undermine Obama as the nominee who failed to win the popular vote.

Rather than attempt to chop Obama down with bitter attack ads, Clinton will continue to focus on Obama’s inability to build a coalition capable of winning in November.

Her remaining in the race (oh so selflessly for the sake of those tired, poor huddled masses yearning to have their primary votes counted in Florida and Michigan) will have its own culminative effect on the Obama run, as the fractured Democratic convention bears the same fruit as all the fractured conventions that have occurred before.

Hillary’s plan is to allow Obama to be the latest McGovern-Dukakis-type fiasco, and then loudly trumpet to Democrats, “I told you so.”

She will claim that she was trying to point out Obama’s manifold weaknesses as a candidate for the good of the party, but Democratic leaders refused to listen to her wisdom.

Which will position her – as the wise leader who understood the dynamic all along – to make her own run from a superior political position in 2012.