I'm on Twitter! More Must Reads

    follow me on Twitter

    Friday, December 5, 2008

    Fixing the Economy - My Plan

    Just caught a little glimpse from CNN of Obama's jobs plan. Looks a lot like typical Liberal fare. Infrastructure projects, a tax credit of some kind. Roads and bridges are good, and a necessary function of government, but, let's be serious here.

    Unless we're willing to really endure some corrections - like lots of foreclosures, and the bankruptcy of the automobile (and associated) industries, in order to lower costs structures and make these businesses competitive - we need some drastic, supply-side work done.

    If Obama really wants to jump start things - let's go with my plan:
    1. A serious and drastic cap gains tax reduction - if not 0%, how about a reduction to 5% or 7.5%. That would get some capital spending started immediately.
    2. A serious income tax reduction, not tinkering, like Obama wants to do with no changes on "the rich," but a real reduction, on the order of 30-50% on ALL taxpayers, especially those rich investors.
    3. Privatize at least a portion of social security. Get these obligations off the government's books, and get this capital into the market, where it can help spur investment.
    4. While I dont' want the automakers to fold, I do want them to restructure. Work something out that is a pseudo-Chapter 11 for them. Get real concessions from the unions who hamstring them, and get rid of their rotten management.
    5. Quickly devise a plan to get the government out of the financial industry.
    6. Repeal rotten laws like Sarbanes Oxley.
    7. Get rid of CAFE standards and some of the other mandated standards the automakers and other industries must deal with.

    The path forward needs less government, and more capitalism, not the opposite. If we continue on the tack we are on, we will wind up with 2 years of recession and a weak growth cycle.

    Drastic times call for drastic measures. Let's have some.

    Monday, December 1, 2008

    Sarah Palin Stumps for Saxby

    Today the wife, youngest daughter, and I made it over to the big Palin/Chambliss rally at the Gwinnett Arena.

    I'd estimate there were about 4000-5000 present. I guess that's not too shabby for a run-off election event. Sarah Palin is the big draw. No one would have attended without her, so it's a good idea for Chambliss to end his campaign with the biggest, most exciting attraction.

    The event, for us, was only marred, because some of the more aggressive adults pushed youngest daughter out of the way to get to Sarah for an autograph, breaking a 13 year old's heart. Some old men just gotta get close to greatness, I suspect.

    As for the speech by Sarah, it was a pretty vanilla stump speech. I can't really get past her diction and speaking style, but, the regular folks seem to lap it up, and she always has a few good applause lines. I just wish she had better speechwriters, and didn't seem to ramble on sometimes.

    I'd say 3,000-5,000 present. The AJC was there and the report is pretty accurate. Note they said about 1000 for the Martin/Ludacris event. Otherwise, she's a great draw and worth the short trip to see her.

    Here are a few action shots.

    Mom and Daughter await Sarah


    Some of the crowd

    Saxby




    Sarah!

    Sarah speaking

    The back side of the arena, with the press stand.

    Saturday, November 29, 2008

    Georgia Tech 45, Georgia 42

    Paul Johnson:
    "That old high school offense looked pretty good today."
    That sums it up.

    Don't

    I Don't Envy Barack Obama

    I personally think George Bush has done a fine job as a wartime president, and I think he is at peace with the job he has done. I have supported him for 8 years (despite what he has done to Conservatism as a cause) because he was absolutely right on the War on Terror and he has prosecuted it in a steadfast manner.

    In every war, leaders make mistakes at the strategic level, and one can argue that Iraq was either a strategic blunder, or a necessary cog in the larger GWOT. One can argue the rationale used all day long, and we have. My bottom line is it was hard to imagine fighting a "Global War On Terror" and not taking down Saddam Hussein during it at some point.

    W was ridiculously married to his initial strategy in Iraq, which plainly wasn't working. It took David Petraeus and (yes) John McCain to get him to change. Fortunately, he listened to Petraeus and McCain was able to bring enough political pressure and fortitude to Bush to get him to change direction and lead us to the point we can now legitimately claim victory in Iraq. This Thnaksgiving weekend, we all owe a huge debt of thanks to these two men, and also to President Bush, but mostly to the troops on the ground, who still secure this peace.

    Now, it will be up to BHO to bring this chapter to a conclusion with honor, dignity, and leaving intact the second functioning democracy in the Middle East.

    Yet, BHO's job is not getting any easier, just as the most difficult of the initial GWOT battles draws to a close. This week's events in India demonstrate that Islamofascists are determined to shed blood in the name of their "cause." Russia is openly flaunting the Monroe Doctrine (hopefully Katie Couric has been briefed on it) and is rattling her saber at our friends in Eastern Europe. Afghanistan, which has suffered from too much success too soon, and now suffers from History (Brits, Russians, Americans?), demands his attention.

    At home, the economy has taken its worse hit since 1979. Democrats are talking about an incerdible $800B stimulus package on top of the already nearly $1T spent on bank and financial bailouts. By the time these are done, there will be zero dollars remaining for any of BHO's domestic priorities.

    Conservatives are buoyed that the economic crisis may force BHO to actually apply economics to his policies, vice pander for votes. It's a shame that we have to enter into a crisis to have Democrats acknowledge reality. Still, we could see bailouts of the automobile industry that keep the inflated wage scales of the UAW intact, amid other atrocities.

    For those of you that voted for BHO, he does seem like a thoughtful person. That may serve us well, it may not.

    If W fashioned himself the modern Lincoln or FDR wartime president, does BHO see himself as their "domestic" counterpart? Healing the nation's psychic wounds from slavery, and saving our financial mess?

    I might advise BHO and his supporters that those two presidents had limited success in their agendas at home. Of course, reconstruction wasn't carried out by Lincoln, but we saw its legacy last through 1964 in law, and through today in perceptions. FDR's depression-era reforms were not all that successful, and hinder our economy to this day. While many were necessary and serve us well, I think it's safe to say the Federal beast was hatched by FDR.

    Anyway, good luck President-elect Obama. You're going to need it.

    Don't

    Friday, November 28, 2008

    Global Warming Descends...

    With the elevation of Vaclav Klaus to the presidency of the EU, a renewed emphasis on Global Warming reality (i.e. it is nothing more that the normal warming/cooling cycle of the planet)may be setting in.

    A couple of articles emphasize this:
    Join those who find this "science" junk.

    Don't

    Tuesday, November 25, 2008

    Palin to Georgia

    Sarah Palin is coming to Georgia to campaign for Saxby Chambliss on Monday, Dec. 1, in advance of the runoff the next day. Will she be able to sway any voters, or, more importantly, get out the vote for our 41st senator? I plan on attending her rally with the wife and our 13 year old daughter. Hope to see lots of other families there. If we make it, will send a report!

    If you're in Georgia, sign up here!

    Czech Prez In Cross-hairs of NYTimes

    In this New York Times article, they say things about Czech president, Vaclav Klaus, that they would like to say about American conservatives. Klaus is one of us, and appears to be scaring Europe's Left Wing. Good for him, and perhaps for us, too.

    Friday, November 21, 2008

    Change?

    Well, the Obamadministration is shaping up.

    If you haven't been paying attention, this is really starting to look a lot like the Clinton administration, even including a Clinton (Hillary!) in the high level Sec'y of State post.

    I guess if you're a conservative, like me, you're starting to think that this may not be so horrible after all. Let's face it, the Clinton years, economically, were not horrible years, and, if BHO decides he wants to be a free trader, wants to keep cap gains rates low, and only raises taxes on those making over $250k, it may not be really awful for the rest of us. Forget that those making over $250k will not hire more workers in their small businesses, will not spend as much on luxury items that the little guys build and sell, and won't invest their extra money in ventures that the little guys might want to start. But, given that a Marxist/Socialist won, it could be worse than Clinton III.

    His economic team, while certainly left of center, is likely to be pragmatic and not likely to allow Obama to ruin the economy. So, I think we can take some solace there.

    In foreign policy, I think most of us can agree the Clinton years were a disaster. Terrorism prospered, our president made an apology tour for slavery, and the military was emasculated.

    Will Hillary make a difference there? Maybe. She has more balls than the rest of the Obama foreign policy team is likely to have, and given the prospect of a joke like Madeline Albright, she's going to be better. Plus, it opens the door for Rudy to take her seat in 2010. Furthermore, we already see him backing off the Iraq pullout plans, and he's said he's going to send MORE troops to Afghanistan.

    Clearly, social policy is going to be far left. We'll see if BHO signs the Freedom of "Choice" Act, making on demand abortion the law of the land, as his first act, as he has promised. We'll see if he lifts the ban on federal funding of abortion, and permits the US government to fund abortions overseas. If he shows this group the back of his hand, he may be someone we can deal with on the right.

    If he allows union card check laws to be passed, he will be paying off the union lobby, and helping to destroy industries across the country. Also will be interesting to see what he does on the auto industry bailout.

    I don't expect BHO to govern as a conservative. None of us should. He won't. Elections have consequences. We lost. If he can get away with it, he could socialize every industry, raise taxes to disastrous rates, and make this a libertine social democracy (barely). That's a recipe for disaster and will make him a one term president. I don't think the guy is stupid.

    Now, if you're a Kos-reading Kool-aid drinker, is this guy really about change????

    Don't

    Wednesday, November 19, 2008

    Bush headed to Florida?

    No, silly, not to retire there!
     
    The George H.W. Bush aircraft carrier, being commissioned January 10th, is potentially going to be homeported in Florida, at Mayport, vice in Norfolk.
     
    This week, the Navy announced that it prefers stationing a nuclear aircraft carrier in Florida, but it will take an act of Congress to fund it.
     
    The Hill provides the details on the Congressional in-fighting that will occur.
     
    Don't...

    Monday, November 17, 2008

    Obama voters. Ugh!!!!!!!

    With a h/t to Gateway Pundit, you must watch this, the best argument for poll taxes ever made. I am sorry folks, but I am sick of my well informed vote having to contend with these uninformed (though I am sure they are not stupid) people.

    It'll make you cry (and, if it doesn't, it's because you voted for Obama, and you are happy we're a nation of ignoramouses).

    For more, visit How Obama Got Elected, and stay tuned for the documentary.



    Don't...

    Not Evil Just Wrong. Irish film makers need your help to debunk Al Gore

    A couple of Irish film-makers want to get a documentary finished that takes on Al Gore and his "Inconvenient (un)Truth."

    Will they get the money they desperately need to get this film distributed?

    With your help, you can visit their web site and donate to get this film distributed to all major market US theaters.

    Nothing more to

    Sunday, November 16, 2008

    KC-45, ever going to happen?

    One thing I haven't touched on lately is defense issues.

    Of interest to me and something I think will tell us much about the Obama administration, is the still ongoing battle in the Air Force over the replacement for the KC-135/KC-10 tanking fleet.

    John McCain bragged about this during the election ("people are in jail because of me"). When the USAF originally tried to let this contract years ago, they did it as a single source bid (to Boeing) which led to the imprisonment of the AF's chief acquisition officer, Darleen Druyun. It's now a case study in corruption.

    A consortium led by Northrop-Grumman and including Airbus (based on their A-330), won the KC-45 tanker contract last year, but, immediately, Boeing cried foul, and the competition was essentially forced to another review. You can read some details of the review here.

    In my opinion, the outcome of this contract will tell us much about how the Obama administration is going to work. This contract is so politicized, that I do not find it likely that it will be let on the merits of the bids. If that happens, it will say something positive about the Obama DoD.

    The Boeing proponents forced this to be redone, because Boeing lost, and because the Chicago-headquartered Boeing was losing to a consortium with a large European component, and, final assembly was being proposed in a bright red state (Alabama) by Northrop.

    If we are to believe the article, DoD intends to request a best-and-final-offer from both competitors, where the cost will be decided based on a first article cost.

    Who wants to guess that Boeing will just squeak under the Northrop bid?

    The Cult of Obama, now marketed

    I posted not too long ago about the replacing of Che with Obama in the Left's marketing psyche.

    With a h/t to Libertarian Republican, check out this AP news piece, with it's reference to Obama icons as Che-like (gotta watch the first 1:55 or so).

    I think Obama probably wants the comparisons between himself and Che, however, to end at the T-shirt design level.

    Bo calls out the GW nutjobs!

    My buddy, Bothenook, posts today on the GISS's latest attempts at global warming subterfuge, and how they got caught, then attempted to perpetuate their lie, to sell their agenda.

    In Bo's post, he doesn't claim to know the "exact truth" behind these people's agenda, but I think he doesn't give himself enough credit. His "educated guesses" are right on, and these people will stop at nothing until they hold absolute power.

    In a related note - for global warming skeptics (or at least those who seriously doubt man's contribution to this), I have started a little link list to my previous blog posts on global warming. I'll probably add links to interesting GW articles and the like as well, so if you have one, send it on and you can always come back here to find them! I promise!

    you don't need to

    Friday, November 14, 2008

    Is T. Boone Pickens a Stupid Man?

    When T. Boone Pickens started pushing his "Pickens Plan" for energy independence, I wondered what his angle was.

    In case you live in a cave, Pickens' plan is to build a large (4000MW) wind-powered energy complex on land he owns in West Texas. In addition to his proposal that we use wind for 20% of our electric needs, Pickens wants to see the nations automobile fuel be switched to natural gas, which, of course, is abundant in this country, and which he claims, is the best, most readily available fuel for our automotive infrastructure.

    So, why, then, have I had a bad feeling about Pickens when I heard him talk about this. At various times, Pickens would say he was for an "all of the above" approach, yet, this was exactly the same approach McCain was advocating, yet we never saw Pickens get behind that, and, indeed, he seemed to poo poo McCain's plan, although it matched nearly exactly what Pickens was saying.

    While not outright cheerleading for Obama, Pickens seemed to be favoring him, if in a slightly snarky manner. Last night, I saw Pickens again on Hannity & Colmes, and at one point he said that he like Obama because he was the only one talking about being energy independent in 10 years, as Pickens is proposing.

    Now, I suspect Pickens isn't a stupid man, so he can't believe that Obama actually means this. Any idiot would know that Obama's promises are meaningless. He has no intention of ever doing anything to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and, it won't happen with Obama in charge of it.

    Pickens seems to think that, for Obama to do this, it means he supports the natural gas as automotive fuel scenario, which Pickens sees as the only means to get to the 10 year point (and, which, I suspect, is Pickens' target for $). But, T. Boone, Obama is not going to allow the drilling required to get at those resources. He isn't going to allow drilling for oil, nor is he going to allow you to take natural gas out of the ground. Obama, if he thinks at all, thinks that we are going to reduce our dependence on foreign oil through some kind of breakthrough in battery technology, which is a massive pipe dream, as is Obama's idea that we can conserve our way to energy independence (though, I suppose if Obama keeps us in a deep recession, he might be able to shrink us to independence).

    So, what's Pickens' angle?

    Curious what you think and will find out! I'll research more and report back!

    Wednesday, November 12, 2008

    Camille Paglia - On Palin, The Media, Ayers, Dohrn

    Camille Paglia, my favorite feminist, is having some post-election buyers remorse, I think.

    She has spoken glowingly of Sarah Palin before, and she does so again today, affirming:
    "As a career classroom teacher, I can see how smart she is -- and quite frankly, I think the people who don't see it are the stupid ones, wrapped in the fuzzy mummy-gauze of their own worn-out partisan dogma. So she doesn't speak the King's English -- big whoop! There is a powerful clarity of consciousness in her eyes. She uses language with the jumps, breaks and rippling momentum of a be-bop saxophonist. I stand on what I said (as a staunch pro-choice advocate) in my last two columns -- that Palin as a pro-life wife, mother and ambitious professional represents the next big shift in feminism. Pro-life women will save feminism by expanding it, particularly into the more traditional Third World."

    Like me, she thinks the Senate is the wrong move for Palin (I think it's the kiss of death for a presidential run). Again, Paglia says:

    "What a claustrophobic, nitpicking comedown for an energetic Alaskan. Sarah Palin should stick to her governorship and just hit the rubber-chicken circuit, as Richard Nixon did in his long haul back from political limbo following his California gubernatorial defeat in 1962. Step by step, the mainstream media will come around, wipe its own mud out of its eyes, and see Palin for the populist phenomenon that she is."

    Of the Media's treatment of Obama:

    "In the closing weeks of the election, however, I became increasingly disturbed by the mainstream media's avoidance of forthright dealing with several controversies that had been dogging Obama."

    One of those controversies, Ayers/Dohrn:

    "My concern about Ayers has been very slow in developing. The mainstream media should have fully explored the subject early this year and not allowed it to simmer and boil until it flared up ferociously in the last month of the campaign.

    "Given that Obama had served on a Chicago board with Ayers and approved funding of a leftist educational project sponsored by Ayers, one might think that the unrepentant Ayers-Dohrn couple might be of some interest to the national media. But no, reporters have been too busy playing mini-badminton with every random spitball about Sarah Palin, who has been subjected to an atrocious and at times delusional level of defamation merely because she has the temerity to hold pro-life views."

    Read the whole article. Paglia should be on your must read list.

    Don't...

    Tuesday, November 11, 2008

    Chambliss v. Martin

    Fox5 Atlanta is reporting this morning that the Chambliss campaign is bringing in (drumroll)......John McCain (release that sigh!) to campaign in Cobb County for Chambliss.

    The Chambliss camp is characterizing the runoff here as "the first race in the 2010 election."

    I might add it's also the first test in the 2012 Presidential election (for the GOP).

    So, McCain is all well and good (seeing as he outpolled Saxby), but, if Chambliss wants real help in this run-off there are two Republicans who can really help him, and help their 2012 chances, and those would be...

    Mike Huckabee and Sarah Palin.

    Governor Huckabee is actively supporting Chambliss via his HuckPac. No data available from me on appearances by the Huckster here in Georgia, but he will be needed.

    Governor Palin, though, is the most popular person in the GOP (despite anonymous operatives attempts to change that) and the only counter we really have to The One, who I fully expect to pack a football field here for Jim Martin.

    Chambliss needs to get her down here, and for an extended period of time.

    With the Dems going to steal Norm Coleman's MN seat, and a special election necessary in Alaska when Ted Stevens will have to resign, it is imperative that the GOP keep this Georgia senate seat.

    Monday, November 10, 2008

    Barack to Bush: Buh-bye Executive Orders

    Gateway Pundit has some thoughts on executive orders that BHO will be rescinding. Now that BHO has to govern, he's going to start leaving a trail.

    Let's keep track and remind voters in 2010 what this ultra-left politician has done.


    Gateway Pundit: As Promised... Obama's First Move-- Expand Abortion Rights

    Saturday, November 8, 2008

    Football break

    Ok, a while back I boldly predicted that Georgia Tech would whip UNC's ass, and that created a little stir among the family members who all attended the leftist University (admittedly, some of them before it became a bastion of left-wing thought - see, I can even make a football post political!).

    Today, UNC took its revenge on Tech with a 28-7 smackdown. Despite Tech outgaining Carolina by 100 yards, 3 turnovers, and Josh Nesbitt's bum ankle did the good guys in. Regardless of what you think about the ACC, former Navy coach Paul Johnson has done a fantastic job at Tech, with 7 wins and bowl eligibility. If Tech can beat Miami at home, 8 wins will beat Chan Gailey's 6 year average in CPJ's first season. 9 would mean a victory over Georgia, which would make Johnson a god in Tech fans' eyes.

    Elsewhere in college football today, Penn State returned to earth and gave the pollsters all the reason they need to dump them from their top 10 lists. Alabama survived at LSU, and UGA squeaked past Kentucky (ugh!).

    In the ACC, FSU survived Clemson, VT whipped Maryland (Thursday) and Wake smacked UVA. Jimmy Clausen is proving why he sucks as Notre Dame is getting whipped by BC. While Florida and Alabama have settled the SEC championship game, the ACC still belongs to anybody. Funny thing is, in this crazy season, we could see a Virginia Tech/FSU championship game (VT controls their own destiny, FSU needs a Wake Forest loss and to win out). The more things change...

    Dont...

    What is wrong with USA Today?

    One of the fun things about flying is you get to pick up free newspapers in airports as you wait. Today, as I enjoyed a little. Memphis BBQ, I perused the A section of the Nation's Newspaper, USA Today.

    I know times are tough for the print media, but, honestly, did USA Today need to cut costs by having morons on the editorial page. I feel sorry for Jonah Goldberg (who's writing I really enjoy), who has an insightful article in this rag today, "Election Questions No One Ever Asks', but he has to share the opinion page today with the idiots who write this other dreck.

    First, Al Neuharth, who I think is the head cheese over there, writes that he thinks McCain ought to make "Two more maverick moves." Namely, that he should introduce a Constitutional Amendment to limit the age of a president to 69, and that he should retire at the end of his term in 2010. Since Al thinks people over 69 "lose it" he thinks this is a good idea, and, I guess he thinks McCain is losing it, so he should get off the stage. Of course, Al is a good Leftist, so he wants McCain to step down so some Democrat can get that seat in 2010, and I have some better suggestions on his ageism.

    Why not have Robert Byrd or Teddy Kennedy introduce this bill? They're about a million years old? Geez, why haven't these guys left the national stage. I empathize for Teddy Kennedy, but he's been off the reservation for years, and Robert Byrd long passed from senility into late stage Alzheimers. And, the junior senator from WV is 71. Why doesn't he step down. Hey, Al, I have an idea, McCain leaves when these two leave? Think a breathing Republican can't win a senate seat in West Virginia? I'll trade the one AZ seat for 2 in WV.

    If you really want to help the country, why not introduce bills term limiting Senators and Congressmen? The path to corruption and being a profligate spender begins with re-election. So, let's limit these guys to 2 terms in the senate and 12 years in the House. Really want change - that will do some.

    In a "Post-election thoughts" article, USA Today demonstrated their ignorance by incorrectly assuming that voters who were concerned about Sarah Palin's experience ("Surveys of voters, however, showed that three-fifths thought Palin wasn't qualified to be president"), of those, 82% voted for Barack Obama. What they failed to state was that this was not the deciding factor for those voters. Either they're stupid over there (likely) or they want to smear Palin (also likely).

    USA Today also claims that there was record turnout this year. All one has to do is look at the numbers to see that about the same number of votes were cast this year as in 2004. Heck, even CNN got that right (saw that in the Situation Room as I waited today). As a percentage of voting age population, it actually went down from 2004.

    Finally, they want to claim that Liddy Dole's loss was due to her negative advertising. Hey, USA Today, her loss was because she was a crappy candidate, a largely ineffective Senator, the financial mess, and Obama's strength in NC (and, she's about 100 years old - isn't Al Neuharth happy she's gone???).

    However, in some actual aviation news, the McCain-Palin E190, chartered from Jet Blue, that Palin was using set a world record with a 2900+ mile nonstop flight from Anchorage to Buffalo to return the plane.

    Friday, November 7, 2008

    Melissa Etheridge Pissed at California Voters; Refuses to Pay Taxes

    Well, Melissa Etheridge has weighed in. She is mad that Proposition 8 passed in California, putting the kibosh on state-sanctioned gay marriage.

    The Proposition actually says:

    "Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

    That seems pretty simple. And, apparently, it seemed pretty simple, and reasonable to the voters of California, who passed it. But, Melissa, have no fear, the 9th Circuit will strike it down, there will be a court battle, and your Obama-packed Supreme Court will (if another state's ban doesn't come before it) will divine a new right for gays to marry. So, you'll be okay, and the coarsening of society will continue only slightly abated.

    Melissa brings up the tired point of "When did it become okay to legislate morality?"

    Ummmmmm, since we started legislating.

    But, what really interests me, is Melissa seems to think she is some kind of second class citizen, and she's not going to pay taxes anymore, "Okay, so I am taking that to mean I do not have to pay my state taxes because I am not a full citizen."

    Does Joe Biden know about this?

    Don't...

    Thursday, November 6, 2008

    These people are stars

    In a linked report from Drudge, we are to believe that these people are "stars" and being considered for Obama's cabinet:
    1. John Kerry for State - Ugh! This is the worst. Send this guy to Turkmenistan, please, not DOS. The place is f'd up; enough without this insufferable idiot at the helm.
    2. Powell for DoD - Now we know what Powell got promised for his endorsement. I hate to break it to Powell-lovers, but I think this is a boon to Service Chiefs and big war thinkers. Plus, to the Left, what cred does the guy who made the WMD sale to the UN have?
    3. Kennedy for UN Ambassador - ok, whatever, she should fit in over there.
    4. RF Kennedy for EPA - this is certainly not a moderate choice. This is actually about the worst, an environmental whacko nut job Chavez supporter pounding US corporations for 4 years.
    5. Emanuel for COS - as long as his target is Reid/Pelosi, it's ok. Otherwise, a talented partisan hack.

    Not shaping up too good so far. Lots of Wahington insiders on this list.

    Do not

    Palin - Functioning Idiot AND Diva?

    In this report, Fox's Carl Cameron spends 5 minutes telling O'Reilly that basically Sarah Palin is an idiot who is also a prima donna. I have my doubts of the truth of these rumours, but, a few thoughts:

    1. If this is true, we are lucky this woman wasn't a heartbeat away from the button
    2. You would think some level of intelligence was required to be such a diva as she's being made out as. To hear this, she has none.
    3. What woman isn't a shopaholic?
    4. What's wrong with answering your hotel room door in a bathrobe? Not like she did it nude (not that there's anything wrong with that!)
    5. Come on, Carl, you really expect her (or anyone) to know that "American Exceptionalism" was a Wilsonian concept (maybe embodied by Wilson, but not created by him)? Now, I admit that I know what it means, but, without Wikipedia, I wouldn't know that American Exceptionalism goes back to the Revolution (and Jefferson). I was skeptical that this concept originated with Wilson. So, Carl, get YOUR facts straight.
    6. Africa isn't a country?

    My bottom line on this is until these unnamed staffers come out of the woodwork and publicly say this stuff, it's all B.S.

    You can see the video here:



    No more...
    end..

    Wednesday, November 5, 2008

    Tuesday, November 4, 2008

    Obama Wins!

    Ha! Not yet, but let's be honest, the data in Ohio doesn't look good(update - NBC calls Ohio for Obama, so start saying, President-elect Obama), nor does NC and VA, but perhaps McCain can pull a miracle in those states. Without Ohio, it doesn't matter, and I think that will be the end (Update, the end).

    Additionally, I expect Obama to take Colorado and perhaps Nevada.

    Republicans did their part in Georgia, though, giving the state to McCain and re-electing Saxby Chambliss. A filibuster proof (until the D's change the rule) majority now rests on the D's taking all the remaining seats. Wicker in MS is going to be a tough one for the Dems, and perhaps Norm Coleman can keep the joke of a jokester, Al Franken, at bay. I swear, a senate with Al Franken is going to be entertaining. Maybe he can replace Joe Biden as the laughingstock of the Senate (if he wins).

    So, a rotten night for the GOP, but, we deep down knew it would be that way.

    Later, an homage to Obama.

    end..

    Industries Dems want to kill

    This election season, the Democrats have made it clear they want to redistribute wealth. And, they will get plenty of chances, since they are targeting a few industries for extinction, among them:
    • The coal industry
    • Oil and gas companies
    • Talk Radio
    • Medical Insurers
    • The 25% of defense companies not in John Murtha's district
    • Wal-mart (and any other non-union big box stores)
    • The mainstream media (ok, these guys did it to themselves)
    • Investment Banks (with an assist from G.W. Bush)

    If you can think of any more, please let me know!

    end..

    Fairness Doctrine, here we come!

    If the Dems win control of Congress with a filibuster proof majority, and the Presidency, expect a comback of the Fairness Doctrine, and the decline of talk radio.

    However, in this piece, Chuckie Schumer leaves an out. If we're ok with pornography on the radio, perhaps we can keep conservative talk radio.

    Ok, Chuckie, I'll take the bait. I'm willing to accept the radio porno for the entertaining (and profitable) talk radio.

    See Chuckie speak:

    Voters intimidated (physically) in Philly

    Voter intimidation in Philadelphia:



    UPDATE: 2:33PM

    A little more video on our Philly situation. Maybe these guys intend to reassure voters that they will provide security. As for me, I'd feel more secure with a uniformed National Guardsman than these gentlemen.

    Election Day Thoughts

    Sitting around The Varsity last night watching the Redskins get pummelled, I was in the midst of a raft of Obama voters (black men) and it was interesting hearing them talk.

    You had the old sage discussing the days when black people couldn't get loans (because of their skin color), the young Obama advertisement getting more stories out of him and making sure everyone was aware of how "caucasions" had kept them down (note to this guy - you can call us "white"), and then their court.

    I felt that, for these folks, this election is truly historic. An Obama victory also carries a high price for Obama. He is absolutely, if he wins in big numbers and carries a couple of Southern states (GA, NC, VA), he is going to owe it to black turnout. Black voters have a lot invested in Obama, a lot more even than the Kos-led left. While Obama has spent much of the general election campaign running away from the Kossacks, he hasn't done the same to the black community. Other than throwing Jeremiah Wright under the bus, his populist message and redistributionist policies are right up this group's alley. I sense a huge desire and emotion pent up in this bloc to not extract revenge, but to finally get what they feel is their due from the Federal government, and that will be embodied by Obama, should he win.

    I'm not going to crown Obama the victor until I see something significant - like two of those three states going to him. If that happens, the election is his, and we will have to worry about the downticket candidates and whether Republicans can prevent a 60 seat majority in the Senate.

    If that doesn't happen, and, if Virginia remains too close to call, we may be in for a long night.

    This is a turnout election. There is definite energy on the Left. It must be matched on the right if there is any hope for McCain.

    If you care about:
    • Energy Prices staying low and energy independence
    • Victory in Iraq and Afghanistan
    • Staying on the offense in the War on Terror
    • Jobs in the energy industry - particularly in coal, gas, and nuclear
    • A strong and vibrant and committed military
    • Economic growth
    • Some measure of fiscal responsibility

    Get out and vote Republican. You won't get any of those things from Barack Obama. You'll get retread Leftist Democratic policies that haven't been successful anywhere they have been tried. You'll get a weaker, more France-like United States, and you'll end up with a smaller, lower morale military, and much greater public debt. If you like those things, Barack is your guy.

    end..

    Monday, November 3, 2008

    Andrew Sullivan, Yes He Can

    In an entirely unsurprising move, Andrew Sullivan endorses Obama.

    He could have saved about 2600 words by just writing, Not Bush.

    Sunday, November 2, 2008

    Barack wants to wreck coal industry

    You know what's "unbelievable?"

    That we're on the verge of electing a guy who says this kind of crap, wants to bankrupt an industry (coal) that supplies 50% of our electricity to the altar of environmentalism, and actually believes it.

    The press loves Obama. They may succeed in their mission to elect the most unqualified, dangerous, and radical man in American history.

    YOU can stop them.

    end...

    Saturday, November 1, 2008

    State of the race...

    This election season, because Barack's got more money than God, and because of a "righteous wind at their back" here in Georgia, we are getting to see ads this season like never before.

    I haven't seen too many Obama ads, but I saw the first one tonight. The blatant dishonesty and misrepresentations in this ad make me wish someone would just use that race card, if it's so damn effective (it must be, as scared of it as they are).

    But, it's not really Barack's ads that have me angry. There's enough truth in those to make them acceptable, and we're doing it to him, too. No, what really makes me mad are the ads the Dems are running for their Senate candidate, the completely empty (and probably plaid) suited Jim Martin. Most of these are DSCC ads, and they are blatantly false, for example, accusing Saxby Chambliss of wanting to add a 23% sales tax to everyone's taxes. This is a misrepresentation of Chambliss's support of the Fair Tax (which would replace the income tax). Of course, Chambliss may learn that no good deed goes unpunished, like his participation in the energy gang of 10, or his vote for the bailout, which he is also being battered about.

    As I said at the time (though, apparently not here), the GOP should have called Reid/Pelosi/Obama's bluff, and made the Dems pass the bailout without a single GOP vote (I expect the RINO's could have safely supported it, but no red state rep should have been asked to vote for this monstrosity) then we would be bashing them about the hands and face with it.

    Finally, if Chambliss is defeated,or barely survives, red state congressmen need to understand that they play with Democrats at their own risk. I hate to be the bearer of bad news to these idiots, but, the Dems play bipartisanship one way - their way.

    I don't understand why we continue to fail to learn that. Maybe a few years in the wilderness will drive that message home.

    Steyn on Auntie Z

    Mark Steyn says it all about Auntie Z:

    "One thing you can say for certain is that Aunt Zeituni's deportation order will never be enforced. Demanding proof of identity at polling stations, requiring address verification for credit-card contributions, getting hung up on foreigners donating to candidates, enforcing deportation orders ... To raise such footling technicalities as "the law" is racist and so, in a squeamish politically correct culture, we let it slide, even as it corrupts the integrity of the democratic process and the defining act of a free society."


    end..

    Obama and his Aunt

    Barack Obama is a guy who thinks we're all "selfish" for not wanting to pay higher taxes, who thinks the government is the solution to every problem, and who thinks amnesty for illegal immigrants is part of a solution to the immigration problem.

    His running mate made $2.5M the last ten years and gave $3.6k to charity. He and Michelle made over $4M last year and found a way to give $240k to charities ( about 5%) - none of it at home.

    So, maybe his treatment of his half-aunt ("Barack Obama's aunt, a Kenyan woman who has been quietly living in public housing in Boston, is in the United States illegally after an immigration judge rejected her request for asylum four years ago, The Associated Press has learned.") is just what we should expect.

    After all, she's apparently not receiving any "charity" from the Obama, she's here illegally, and she's taking advantage (illegally) of one of those government programs that the left so adores.

    So, if you want to know what kind of an America Obama wants for YOU, just look at how he treats his own relations.

    end..

    Barack Tells Objectivists Where to Stick it...

    In a not-so-thinly-veiled remark today, Barack Obama told Objectivists where to stick their philosophy:

    "The point is, though, that -- and it’s not just charity, it’s not just that I want to help the middle class and working people who are trying to get in the middle class -- it’s that when we actually make sure that everybody’s got a shot – when young people can all go to college, when everybody’s got decent health care, when everybody’s got a little more money at the end of the month"

    "John McCain and Sarah Palin they call this socialistic. You know I don’t know when, when they decided they wanted to make a virtue out of selfishness."

    Take that, you crazy Randians!

    Still want to vote for Bob Barr or sit it out and elect this tool?

    end..

    Friday, October 31, 2008

    Investing and the GOP vs. Dems

    A (liberal) co-worker forwarded this analysis from the NY Times to me - ostensibly to show how the Democrats are better for investors.I thought about it and wondered what the Times might be tying to prove.

    So, I figured, if you were studying such trends, why would you choose the S&P Index, and not the Dow? The Dow would seem obvious. It's an old, established index and something all people relate to. Why the S&P? Could it be because, for some reason, the S&P doesn't tell the same story as the Dow?

    I decided to pull the historical data for the Dow and do the same analysis, using the Dow. Also, for fun, I decided to add the Coolidge administration. I mean, if we're going to lambast Hoover, let's at least give Coolidge his due. In doing so, I wonder if you'll notice a strange correlation between the Coolidge/Hoover numbers and the Clinton/Bush2 years.

    It's kind of interesting the crash after a long, big orgy.Anyway, I used yesterday's (Oct 30) close for Bush 2. And, to make the analysis easier, I chose to average the percentage increase or decrease across the president's time in office (imperfect, but good enough for comparison purposes):

    Republicans:
    Bush 2 = -1.91% per year (what a difference a couple of weeks make in this market, by January, he could be a net positive (though I don't expect that).
    Bush 1 = +11.26% per year
    Reagan = +16.9% per year
    Nixon/Ford = +2.98% per year (figured Ford's admin was too short)
    Ike = +15% per year
    Hoover = -20.75% per year
    Coolidge = +42.6% per year

    Democrats
    Clinton = +28.39% per year
    Carter = -.3% per year
    Johnson = +5.15% per year
    JFK = +6.1% per year (broke up LBJ and JFK because I wanted to see if there was any early or later effect from the JFK tax cuts)
    Truman = +10.2% per year
    FDR = +16.2% per year

    Without Hoover and Coolidge, the average per year increase for Republican administrations is 8.34% per year. For Democrat administrations, it is 10.94% per year. If we include both Hoover and Coolidge in the GOP numbers, it goes up to 9.08% per year. There's a difference, sure, but, not as much as the S&P analysis indicated, and right around 9-10% which is pretty much
    what we're conditioned to expect from stocks, irrespective of who is president. For fun, remove Clinton, and the D average is 7.47%.

    Some things jump out at me from this analysis:
    1. The Coolidge and Clinton years were the absolute best for stocks. Both these periods were marked by tremendous innovation and speculation, and both were followed by down periods.
    2. The New Deal years are interesting. In March 1937, stocks peaked at 194, from their starting point for FDR of 53.84. From July 1937, they tumbled downward, bottoming at 92 in April 1942 - a 50% decline in 5 years! Imagine if W had the same performance (he's down 13% in 8 years). But FDR was a wartime president (oops, same for W). They didn't start a steady climb upward until that summer, after the tide had turned in the Pacific War, and the American war machine kicked in. Without WW2, that FDR 16.2% does not happen. In fact, many consider it was only the threat of War that ensured FDR's 1940 victory and 3rd term. The New Deal programs weren't proving so capable of turning the economy around, but a World War was.
    3. Clinton's numbers are amazingly good. However, having just lived through the '90's I think we can agree a lot of the wealth and stock market run up was not entirely real. Plus, Clinton, unlike the current Democrat nominee,was a proponent of free trade and cut the capital gains tax. Those two policies alone probably had more impact on investment than any other factors during his 8 years. I give at least half the credit for Clinton's success to Newt Gingrich. In fact, I wonder what this analysis would show us if we did it based on Congressional control????
    4. I'm really surprised by the mediocrity of the other D's numbers. I wonder what JFK's would have been had he remained president. He passed the supply-side tax cut that was Reagan's model, and I wonder if his New Society would have been very much different from LBJ's.
    5. The analysis you sent showed Carter as a success, economically. This analysis confirms his ineptitude, as well as that of Nixon and Ford (and of the '70's in general)
    6. Most of all, I think these number show the economy to be much more cyclical. They also show that the controls put into place during/after the Depression, are working, and have worked, to ease the business cycle and provide a softer landing. I think better understanding and application of monetary policy has helped, too. Lots of Libertarians like to rail at the Federal Reserve, but I think they're largely wrong.

    I did check one other thing I had been led to believe, and that was that you could take any 20 year period and stocks would outperform social security (when you use the historical growth rate of SS as 2%). That's true if you qualify the years as after the depression, or, you forswear investing from about 1927-1931. I don't always get to fact check these kinds of things, but just thought this was interesting. The bottom line, to me, is really that the stock market is immune to presidential meddling, which I had been taught in economics class, but, I think it's pretty much true, and a testimony to the solidity of our system. And, it's also a reason why investing part of our social security money in the market is not a bad thing - as long as we avoid another Depression.

    End...

    Wednesday, October 29, 2008

    More Reading

    Over at The Corner (on National Review Online), they are less than impressed with Obama's infomercial.

    Rush Limbaugh puts the election in stark relief.

    Meanwhile, the LA Times refuses to release the videotape of Obama's appearance at the farewell party for Professor Rashid Khalidi, a former spokesman for the PLO and anti-semite.

    end...

    Voting and the Obamamercial

    Ok, so I got to the advance voting site at 6pm and was out by 7:30. No too shabby and a vast improvement from Monday.

    As for the Obamamercial, which is airing now - this is so boring, and Obama's narration so sleep-inducing, that it is unwatchable. His resume is so thin, getting 30 minutes out of this is tough. I think this hurts him more than it helps. But, I expect he wants to spend every penny he's raised, both legal and illegal.

    As I was standing in line to vote, the library had an exhibit on Anne Frank, and that also detailed the rise of Nazism. Seeing that, it is interesting the parallel between the cult of personality that is Obama and was Hitler, with the Hitler Youth, the personal flags, the economic populism and blame game. How long til CEO's and their minions (their management teams) are driven off to whatever the modern day equivalent of concentration camps are.....

    Anyway, that's designed to scare you. I don't really think that's possible in Amerikkka.

    end..

    Nuclear Power - Why We Need a Real Energy Policy that Includes It

    In response to this, I posted this (h/t The Sub Report), thought you might like to read:

    "Thank you all for the reasoned comments, many obviously coming from people who have worked in the industry (Navy or civilian). Clearly, when McCain points to the Navy's record, it is a pretty impressive one.

    "To dismiss nuclear power or delay it indefinitely, is tantamount to telling the American people that you don't care about the single most green, and readily available source of power today. When a candidate does that, we need to question his motives, and, in Obama's case, that means following the money, which will lead you to groups whose motives are not always about safe, clean energy, but something else. These range from Greenpeace on the radical left side (who want to end the Western way of life) to farmers on another side (who want to see corn-based, government-subsidized ethanol).

    "Nuclear power is a threat to these groups, as it doesn't fit their agenda. Same for drilling for more oil and natural gas in this country. These technologies, which are available TODAY, will not be pursued by an Obama administration. Instead, we will get more years and years of research into (unlikely to help much) technologies like solar power, electric cars, and, of course, those same ethanol subsidies. Meanwhile, energy costs will rise and our dependence on foreign oil will increase (yes, it could).

    "Meanwhile, we could be switching transportation to a natural gas-based infrastructure, switching our electric grid to something more like 60% nuclear, 25% hydro/wind, and the rest natural gas/coal, and we could do this all with native resources, and probably make a good dent in 10 years, and be done in 25.

    "But, if we never start, it won't happen. With Obama, it will never start. Mark my words (to quote a famous VP nominee)."

    end..

    Polls and Advance Voting Thoughts

    Polls
    Today, according to Drudge, Rassmussen will release a new poll showing a 3 point Obama lead.

    Gallup has it at 2.

    Despite this being from the Washington Post, it's a good read on why the polls all differ widely.

    Remember when you read these "margin of error" numbers in these polls, these do not mean that the national race could be anywhere from x to y, it means, within that sampling of people, the margin of error for when they vote could actually be from x to y. In other words, if a particular poll has it O -52, M- 42 with a 4 pt MOE, that means that when that group of people go to vote, they could end up with a tally of O-48 and M-46, giving the MOE that way, or O-56, M-38 going the other. That MOE is specific to that polling group. That's why we see these wide variations. It's all based on who answers the phone. That's whay another poll can have it O-49, M-47 with a 3pt MOE. This is why pollsters get paid big bucks by campaigns, to choose polling groups that most closely resemble the electorate and to apply their voting models to those samples. It's an art, not a science. Remember that.

    Advance Voting
    If my experience with advance voting is any indication, people are energized about this election and it will be a record turnout. But, will it also be a record turnout in traditionally Republican quarters? Hard to say, but, again, in my community, the advance voters were out, and these are pretty staunch conservatives. But, hard to say. I tend to think advance/early voters fall into 2 categories - those who follow politics and would vote anyway, and those committing fraud.

    So, my guess is the early/advance voting numbers are no indication of new voters, but of the energy of those who are voting. I'd say both sides seem pretty energized.

    With Obiden slowly lowering the definition of rich (now, according to Joe, it's $150k, will it be $100k by Monday, and $50k by Wednesday????), and with new revelations each day of some whacky socialist idea Obama holds, we could see swing voters starting to swing back right, as they realize their pocketbooks will be the first thing socialized in an Obamanation. Then, it will be their guns, then their land, and eventually, their thoughts will be captives to the Dear Leader.

    I don't really believe that, but, can you trust this guy?

    end..

    Tuesday, October 28, 2008

    Fred Thompson Speaks. Why couldn't this guy catch fire?

    Over at FredPac, Sen. Thompson provides an eloquent and compelling case for McCain and against The OneTM. (h/t Brandon).
    Listen to it.

    It's too bad Thompson didn't have enough fire to run in the campaign as he should have. It's too bad Romney couldn't get past people's lingering doubts about him as a conservative and Mormon. And, it's too bad Huckabee's populism too closely mirrors the Democrats.

    But, we got an honorable man as a nominee, and one who deserves to win, if only because the alternative is so horribly wrong for the country.

    So, get out to vote and take a couple dead friends with you.

    Monday, October 27, 2008

    Newspapers are dying

    The latest circulation numbers for major daily papers are in, and I am happy to see that the Atlanta Journal-Constitution has lost the most (by percentage) subscribers of the top 25 major dailies. We can hope that soon, Cynthia Tucker will be able to sample Barack Obama's welfare programs!

    Only the Wall Street Journal (that right-wing bastion of capitalism) and USA Today (the hated McPaper) saw increases in circulation, though so slight as to be nearly unmeasurable (0.01% increases).

    end..

    Obama: Warren Court Not Radical Enough!

    So Barack Obama was thinking about redistribution as far back as 2001. Who would've known:





    Anyway, the McCain campaign is seizing on this and it elicited this response from McCain senior policy adviser Douglas Holtz-Eakin:


    "No wonder he wants to appoint judges that legislate from the bench – as insurance in case a unified Democratic government under his control fails to meet his basic goal: taking money away from people who work for it and giving it to people who Barack Obama believes deserve it. Europeans call it socialism, Americans call it welfare, and Barack Obama calls it change,"

    How long til the Obama campaign calls that statement racist?

    Advance voting in Georgia

    Like many states, Georgia offers advance voting and early voting. While the early voting period has passed, today marks the advance voting period (this week).

    Based on the line I am in, I'd call the demo pretty standard fare for this area. And, it's the first hour of the first day, so I am guessing this is the high water point.

    So, we probably can't save McCain, but maybe that apostate, Saxby Chambliss, can be saved from his incompetent opponent.

    UPDATE:

    Unable to advance vote this morning. At 0930 (an hour after voting was supposed to start), poll workers informed those waiting in line that someone had failed to deliver "the key" they needed to get the voting machines rolling. So, I stuck it out another 30 minutes, and when I crammed into the library polling place and saw the line inside, figured another 2 hours, at least.

    Is this a form of voter suppression against the mostly affluent suburban white voters at this polling place? I don't know, but given who runs Fulton County, I would not be surprised if it was an orchestrated effort.

    We were told the polls will stay open until 8 tonight. I'll try after work and let you know.

    End.

    Che, go away!

    So, my neighbor's out mowing his grass yesterday in his Obama t-shirt, and it got me thinking...

    If Obama wins this thing, and people all over the world trade their Che Guevara t-shirts and handbags for Obamachotske's, is that a good thing or a bad thing?

    I mean, really, if we can put a likeness of an American president on the chests of European fashionistas and immigrant lawn mowers, rather than a murdering terrorist psychopath, isn't that really an improvement and something to be celebrated, if it doesn't inspire one to vote for Him?

    end..

    Sunday, October 26, 2008

    What Can we do to prevent becoming an Obamanation?

    At this point, the polls are decidely anti-Republican, and, the way the party behaved since 2000, with Congressional excess and Bush's missteps (had he governed as a conservative, instead of as a country club Republican, he might have been able to check Congress and wouldn't have felt compelled to foist liberal policies on the country), it is clear the GOP deserves a decent flogging - and the flogging that began in 2006 is not yet over.

    However, the country as a whole does not deserve the consequences.

    Obama is going to govern as a committed leftist (see the Levin column I reference below). If anyone believes the Bush tax cuts will survive in any meaningful form once Obama, Pelosi, Frank, and Reid have at them, you are fooling yourself. That 95% of Americans for whom he is promising to cut taxes will soon evaporate and it'll become the 40% of Americans who pay no income taxes, who will benefit from a redistribution scheme targeted at the top 50% of tax payers. Want to be reminded what you paid under Clinton, check out this Tax Foundation chart.

    The single most important thing we can do to get this economy moving is to reduce the capital gains tax (as McCain promises). Instead, Obama has promised variously to raise it, lower it, and only raise it on some. Which Obama do you believe? He's a committed leftist, folks. Does this question really require an answer???

    Abortion will not become more rare. In fact, Obama will do the opposite, making abortion more legal and thwarting attempts everywhere to impose reasonable restrictions on abortions. He will reverse all previous precedent and use your tax dollars to federally fund abortions. The black pianist, Huntley Brown, sums it up (in a rare, true, internet email,), "There's a reason Planned Parenthood gives him a 100% rating." Obama will appoint judges to solidify this view for generations.

    Property rights will continue their march towards obsolescence. Those same judges who disdain the right of the unborn to life are also much more likely to ignore the Constitution's clear protections on property rights. A government that sees itself the way Obamacons see it is much more likely to use whatever means to confiscate private property for whatever "public" use they can conjure.

    Illegal immigration will not be stopped. In fact, it will increase and likely border security will be ignored in an Obama administration. Unless the economy completely tanks (possible under Obama's philosophies), with the offering of free/reduced health care, college benefits, and all the other enticements of the Obama welfare state, we are only going to become more appealing to immigrants from South of the Border. Of course, if freedom is important to them, maybe they'll wise up and stay away from this place under Obama.

    Anyway, if I point a scary picture, good. You should be scared. If you live in a state where there's a competitive Senate race, go out, hold your nose, and vote for your GOP senatorial candidate. They might be the only thing that can hold the line until the GOP gets it act together, and Democrats over reach (which they will) and the ship can be righted.

    But, we need to make sure we don't get so far aground we can't get off the rocks without abandoning the ship.

    end..

    Levin on Obama: Required Reading

    Mark Levin discusses how Obama got where he is, and what his ultimate plans are.

    Some of his points, with which I strongly agree:

    "I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places."

    "There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated."

    "My greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue."

    " The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual. "

    I completely agree with Levin's close:

    "Unlike past Democrat presidential candidates, Obama is a hardened ideologue. He's not interested in playing around the edges. He seeks "fundamental change," i.e., to remake society. And if the Democrats control Congress with super-majorities led by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid, he will get much of what he demands."

    And, we will all be much worse off because of it.

    end..

    Wednesday, October 22, 2008

    CNN Joins MSNBC in Politicking for Obama

    Hopefully, by now, many of my readers have seen this clip, or heard about it, and just how horribly CNN and their reporter (I mean, Obama press agent) Drew Wilson, took a quote from a Byron York article in National Review completely out of context.

    Here's the transcript from CNN:

    "CNN: Yeah. Governor, you've been mocked in the press. The press has been pretty hard on you, the Democrats have been pretty hard on you, but also some conservatives have been pretty hard on you as well. The National Review had a story saying that, you know, I can't tell if Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt or all of the above.

    "Palin: Who wrote that one?

    "CNN: That was in the National Review, I don't, have the author.

    "Palin: I'd like to talk to that person.

    "CNN: But they were talking about the fact that your experience as governor is not getting out. Do you feel trapped in this campaign, that your message is not getting out, and if so who do you blame?"

    The actual quote was:

    "Watching press coverage of the Republican candidate for vice president, it's sometimes hard to decide whether Sarah Palin is incompetent, stupid, unqualified, corrupt, backward, or — or, well, all of the above."

    Brent Bozell over at the Media Research Center has demanded that CNN apologize for this, as has Greta Van Susteren, and Rush Limbaugh riffed on this today, and O'Reilly made it his "Talking Points" theme.

    You can leave a little feedback over at CNN, but, don't expect anything from the new Obama News Network.

    As far as I am concerned, CNN will no longer be watched in my house, nor will their web site be permitted either (I can block these things).

    I advise all of you to do the same.

    end..

    Monday, October 20, 2008

    Drive-By Media Runs Out of Hit Pieces on John McCain

    Since the Drive-by Media has run out of bad things to say about John McCain, they have decided to focus, instead, on two people who will have little, or nothing, to do about the governance of this nation, Joe the Plumber and Cindy McCain.

    Because Joe dared to ask Barack Obama a question the media refuses to ask, the Drive-by's decided to pillory him and Cindy McCain was the victim of a hit piece in the New York Times this weekend.

    So, while the Obamamessiah tries to run out the clock on the election, the MSM has decided they don't want to have anything to do with tough questions of their annointed one, and have instead chosen to attack anyone who dares to get in the way. They ignore Obama's running mate, who suggests that due to Obama's weakness, he will be tested in the first 6 months in some way (Iran, perhaps?), and instead, choose to divert attention from the real issues.

    Well, I hope Joe (the plumber, not the senator) helps to focus the public on the issue that is actually the most important at this time in our nation, and that is what are we going to do to turn this economy around, and what the future of this country going to be. Is it going to be a quasi-socialist, European-style nation? Or, are we going to remain a capitalist republic, where individualism, and the strength of our entrepreneurial spirit drive us to greater things?

    We'll see.

    end...

    Friday, October 17, 2008

    Obama Nation

    Want to know how bad it's going to be if Obama is elected (and, I'm not talking Black Helicopter stuff here), then you need to read today's lead editorial in the Wall Street Journal.

    If we hand the White House to Barack Obama and 60 Democrat Senators to Harry Reid, we are going to see a massive expansion in the Welfare State, increased government regulation (it won't stop with the financial industry - telecom, the Internet, pharmaceuticals are next on their list), government-run health care, an the end of conservative talk radio by reimposing the Fairness doctrine, and the loss of two wars.

    This election will have far reaching consequences. Regardless of how you feel about John McCain, unless you want to live in a socialistic, European-style, welfare state, if you have an opportunity to vote for a Republican senator (regardless of whether he was part of a gang), do so. They may be the only people standing between us and the decline of our unique American way of life.

    end...

    Does it matter, Dems will just steal the election anyway...

    If you're not an Obama supporter, despite McCain's recent uptick in the polls, and the insertion of Joe the Plumber into the debate, one has to wonder if it matters, that the Dems aren't just going to do what they always do, and try to steal the election via voter fraud.

    Unless all you watch is the drive-by media (CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, PBS), and all you read is the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, or AP and UPI news stories, you probably know all about the "community organizing" group, ACORN, and their efforts to register and get to vote, people who are:
    1. Dead
    2. Non residents of the states they are registering in
    3. Make-believe
    4. Drunk or on drugs (i.e. homeless), or willing to register and vote for a cigarette
    If you don't know about this group, for whom Barack Obama worked as a trainer, and later as a lawyer, and later still, as a funneler of money through his association with Bill Ayers at the Woods Fund, you should learn about them, and you should be very, very angry that these people are diluting the value of your vote by massive voter fraud.

    Of course, if you're a liberal or socialist, you probably think any measures are acceptable, as the ends (Obama as President), justify the means (cheating).

    Thursday, October 16, 2008

    Plumbers of the World! Unite!

    People like to accuse Republicans, and especially John McCain, of being out of touch.

    I just saw Barack Obama at a rally today (on TV, I wasn't there) and he said "How many plumbers do you know who make $250,00??

    Well, I don't know when the last time Obama or Michelle called a plumber (probably never), but they charge a lot of money, Barack.

    And, the plumbers who run those companies who send the individual plumbers to your house almost certainly make over $250,000. Those guys, once their income is confiscated to redistribute to those who still are behind, will stop hiring those guys.

    So, poor plumbers, you'll have a nice little middle class tax cut, but you won't have a job.

    At least you can take solace in the fact that Obama will extend your unemployment benefits for a longer time and that minimum wage job you're forced to take at McDonalds pays a few pennies more than it does now.

    Monday, October 13, 2008

    Two notes to the McCain Campaign

    With some of the polls coming back to McCain, the McCain campaign needs to attack Barack Obama on several fronts, and get serious about it. Now is the time John McCain needs to really ask himself - "Do I want to be president?" and "Can America afford the risk of Barack Obama as President?"

    Unfortunately, politics is a contact sport. The Democrats know this, and, they want everyone to think the GOP knows it. Some Republicans do know it, but, unfortunately, I don't think McCain is one of them. He needs to get down and dirty with Barack Obama, and, thanks to Obama's past, and his insane Liberalism, he can do it and be honest about it.

    Two things he needs to do:
    1. The Dems have already accused the GOP and McCain of playing the race card. So, since we are getting accused of it anyway, let's go ahead and do the things that they accuse us of anyway. McCain needs to blanket certain media outlets with an ad that ties Obama to Jeremiah Wright and Louis Farrakhan. These two radicals are anti-semites, white-loathing, America-hating, race baiters - and the American people need to see clips of them interspersed with Obama praising them.
    2. In the debate Wednesday, McCain needs to take Obama up on his challenge, and say it to his face, "Senator Obama, I will say it to your face, you are one of the most liberal members of the United States Senate. That wouldn't be the most awful part, except that your recent liberalism is a move to the center for you, based on your past radical associations with Jeremiah Wright and William Ayers.
    These things are having an effect on him, and McCain needs to get with Palin on this and get with the program.

    Thursday, October 9, 2008

    Health Care Debate

    My co-worker and liberal foil and I have had a back and forth via email over health care. Here's some if it.

    Me:

    I was very bothered the other night in the debate to hear Obama, the champion of “change” try to scare voters by saying that McCain wants to do away with the tax break that employers get for providing health care. IF ONE IS EVEN A PASSING STUDENT OF OUR CURRENT SYSTEM, ONE MUST ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE CURRENT METHOD OF EMPLOYER-FUNDING IS THE REASON WE ARE IN THE MESS WE’RE IN. I write that in all caps, because, if you don’t agree with that, there is no point in reading further.

    I have to start with first principles. These are mine, not someone else's, though I am sure others believe them as well. They are not the only first principles I could list, but they are the most apt to this problem:

    1. I believe that a free and open marketplace provides the best odds for distribution of resources in a market/economy.
    2. I believe that individuals, given enough information, will make decisions that are in their best personal interest (this would include health care decisions, as well as financial decisions, among others).

    I will stipulate these facts vis a vis the health care situation in the United States, and agree that addressing these issues would go a long way towards solving the problems many people see in the health care industry:

    1. Health care costs are rising out of control, outpacing increases in wages, and even the inflation rate, and that this is a decades-long trend that any solution must reverse.
    2. There are far too many people (who are not in transitory situations), who are without health insurance, and this number must be reduced, to zero as a goal.
    3. A pure free market insurance solution will seek to apply higher costs to the sick.

    Looking at the range of solutions, they are bracketed by a purely consumer based solution, where we all pay what the services actually cost, out of our pocket, and a completely government-run entitlement system, where we pay nothing at the time of service, but the system is funded by the government (through our tax dollars, deficit-spending, whatever schemes the government needs to devise to pay the providers). The answer lies somewhere in between these two extremes.

    For me, in evaluating the health care position of a candidate, I care whether the plan adheres to first principles, as well as how well it will address the realities stated above.

    Neither John McCain, nor I, are advocating turning each individual loose to handle health care costs on their own, negotiating with doctors separately. Obviously, insurance companies bring the power of a collective to bear, and use that power to influence the prices they pay to doctors, hospitals, drug companies, etc. I don't think anybody with a serious proposal is suggesting anything other than using the insurance model for health care. I advocate having a system that encourages a national market for health insurance among many insurers, while at the other extreme are those who advocate a single insurer, the US Government.

    My core disagreement with Obama's plan, is that the ultimate result is government will put itself in competition with private insurers, and due to its size, continuing demands from constituents, and Congress's insatiable appetite to buy votes, we will find ourselves with a single payer system. I realize "government run healthcare" is an invective to some, but, recall, I started this thread after Obama said that John McCain wanted to raise his taxes via the elimination of the employer health care tax credit, a statement that is arguably untrue.

    Where the government is making decisions for us, we lose freedom. Since this is ultimately about freedom, the question voters should be asking themselves is, "Who do I trust to make decisions about my health care? Government bureaucrats, or myself?" You might say, how is that different from today, with the role of government bureaucrat played by a private insurance company?

    The difference is, in the government case, you have no alternatives to choose from and decisions will be made by a government who is prepared to enforce its decisions at the point of a gun. In a thriving, free-market system, the disgruntled consumer would switch to another insurer. In a government-run system, are you going to throw the bums out? That doesn’t seem to have worked with most of the crises of our time.

    I responded to his specific comments:

    [Him] I think we can agree that the current system for health insurance and health care is broken. The discussion is how best to address it. Also note that I'm not convinced the Obama plan is the best plan.

    [Jay] The current system of employer-funded health care is, indeed, if not broken, seriously flawed, and has been since its inception. Growing out of the Blue Cross days of the 20’s and 30’s, it was developed and expanded during WW2, in an environment of wage controls; offering health insurance as a way for employers to attract employees and retain them was later encouraged by the government through tax policy. Thus, we have our problem today. It was interesting to hear Obama praise this system in debate 2, and attempt to scare people that McCain wants to change this system. Some change there.

    [Him]The first thing to point out is that "government run health care" is often thrown about like an invective.

    [Jay] If everyone agreed the government ran things great, we wouldn't see it as an invective? I point it out and will continuously point it out, because I believe this is absolutely NOT the path I, nor the majority of Americans want to follow. As much as we know what caused this current mess, we do not want to replace it with what will ultimately be another, equally bad for the consumer, and really, really, really bad for the taxpayer, mess – which is what a single-payer, government-administered, system will be.

    [Him]Since McCain has benefited from government run health care for just about all his life, it must not be all bad.

    [Jay] Whoa! Do you think McCain went into the military and then public service because of the quality of the health care? I can tell you, having experienced the military health system firsthand, that most assuredly is not why he did it (maybe it had more to do with two generations of sailors before him?). Maybe he did go into politics for the health care. Having lived in DC, and been part of the DoD complex, I know what the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program (FEHBP) is, and, actually, as a model for the solution, it may be close to what we actually want. The interesting thing about that, is during the Hillary-Care fiasco, at one point the Republicans were proposing (I think it was Phil Gramm, that wascally McCain advisor) that we extend the FEHBP to all Americans, under the guise that if it were good enough for Congress, it ought to be good enough for the rest of America. Of course, that is ancient history, and we still would have had to figure out the funding issues.

    [Him]Furthermore, many other countries have found ways to improve the health care of their citizens through some sort of government intervention.

    [Jay] And many have ended up with rationing (ending up with long waits for services) and price controls, and a two tiered system that sees the wealthiest either going off-shore, or paying doctors (in some cases illegally) under the table. I'm curious to hear the good examples.

    [Him]So we need to stop using that phrase like some kind of scare tactic.

    [Jay] I am resisting the temptation to launch into a tirade that “government-run health care” has now entered the lexicon as verboten. How about not scaring them about McCain’s plan?

    [Him]One problem with free-market health insurance is you lose the bulk buying benefits of a group policy like you get with an employer (be it private or the government).

    [Jay] I think you are confused by what I (and others) mean. No serious person is suggesting we do away with private insurance. We’re suggesting that the United States government not become the primary insurer of most Americans (it already is for seniors, military retirees, and the poor).

    As Barney Frank might say, this is a shibboleth. You seem to assume we're all going to negotiate directly with our doctors. There are obviously still going to be insurers. They'll be private insurers, not the single payer that many government-sponsored (how's that sound) proponents favor. One of the changes McCain wants to make is to allow consumers to be able to cross state lines and buy health insurance. This would allow us all to seek the insurer who's plan most closely matches our needs and pocketbook, without being tied to some of the cost-creating legislation that some states like to add. Just as states like SD and DE make it easier for credit card companies to operate in their states, other states would become clearinghouses for health insurers. Ultimately, you’d see rationalization in these plans as consumers settle on the minimums acceptable to them. This would go a ways towards introducing free-market forces into a system largely devoid of them.

    [Him]My recent MRI would have cost me $1200 out of pocket, but my health insurance company had negotiated a rate of only $630. The same is true for a private (or COBRA) insurance plan, it would cost me thousands of dollars more than the one with AT&T.

    [Jay] The point is that bulk creates negotiating ability. Sure, I agree, but, without competition, don't we just create the New AT&T, only this time run by bureaucrats. I think we can all agree the consumer is much better off after telcom deregulation. Much the same would be true if we allowed the free market a greater hand in health care.

    [Him]I personally hate the effects of the whole "Consumer Driven Health Care" movement. What it does is cause you to sometimes avoid a procedure or medical action if the cost is too high. And I'm not talking about elective surgery. Awareness is good. Choosing to avoid medical care because of cost is not.

    [Jay] Perhaps the devil is in the details here. And, you need to recall that CDHP’s are a relatively new invention, and still limited by regulation. Democrats in Congress have successfully fought to place limits on what qualifies as CDHP’s and when you can use an HSA. Conservatives have long proposed that those very large deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses that it takes to today qualify as a CDHP/HSA be reduced, making them more attractive to consumers. This is another free-market reform we could achieve today. Regardless of WHO has thwarted this (Democrats), Conservatives and Libertarians want to see these plans made more available and more attractive, by decreasing those deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums, and increasing the amount of money people can put into HSA’s.

    Part of the reason I don't use the AT&T HSA plan is really the reason you cite here. The out-of-pocket expenses are too high for me, joining it with two kids and a wife. If I was 23, it would be a no brainer though. However, because HSA's are limited in number, they are also limited in what kinds of plans qualify for them. A more friendly Congress to consumer choice could help alleviate the problem you mention, by lowering the amounts on the plan to qualify for HSA, and increasing the amount of money you can put into an HSA. These are reforms and things conservatives have pushed for. However, in that these plans force the consumer to think twice about going to the DR for the sniffles, going to the emergency room for a little cut, or deferring care for items they shouldn't be wasting expensive doctor’s or ER time on, I think that's a good thing. I know when we were growing up, we didn't go to the Dr. for everything. People are conditioned to do that now, because the cost is shielded from them.

    Do you have firsthand knowledge of someone who has avoided a medical care because of their participation in a CDHP? Or, is this theory?

    [Him]No I do not agree with you that competition is the key to solving this problem.

    [Jay] I know. I believe in the free market, and you may not. The fact that a purely free market would surely charge the sick more for insurance is a problem that we have to come to grips with when applying purely free market solutions to health care. That is the largest problem to purely free market solutions and is why this is such a difficult problem. But, I think we can design a system that maintains as many free market principles as possible and address the cost issue for higher-risk people, the portability problem, and the coverage problem. I’m not arguing as a Libertarian, who might just say – “let them eat cake.”

    [Him]Here's a nice (and fair) analysis of their two proposals:

    [Jay] I looked at the site. It seems a reasonable analysis of the plans as they stand today. I like the voting, obviously this site is hit by those on the left much more than those on the right. Even on the funding issue, where there is NOTHING good said about the Obama plan, the "voters" still give it an overall passing grade. Either the site is hit by partisans, or, people are willing to pay ANYTHING for what Obama is offering. At any rate, the analysis doesn't go far enough to suggest the ultimate result of Obama-care, which will be a government run single payer system.

    [Him]Universal coverage is critical to any plan I would support, but I am concerned about what the Obama plan would cost.

    [Jay] It would cost a lot. It would eclipse Medicare and Medicaid immediately and would rival social security. Plus, it would ultimately put the government in charge. You may trust your government to do the right thing, I don't. I see Obama's plan as a step towards socialism. The United States is not England, Canada, France, or Cuba. I will reject arguments that we should be more like them. We are the greatest country on earth precisely because we are not like them.

    [Him]I would like to see the best of both plans, and other ideas, combined - but the likelihood of the country coming together is pretty slim.

    [Jay] It won’t happen as long as Obama continues to scare people by telling them lies about McCain’s plan, as he dis in the debate and does on his stump speeches (I watched one yesterday, it was maddening listening to the misrepresentations).

    More References for you:

    Some Submarine News

    The Supreme Court has heard the Navy's case for using sonar off the California coast.

    If you don't think submarines are impacted by the Court, just wait to see which justices side with the whales.

    Wednesday, October 8, 2008

    Others are with me

    This letter writer to National Review sums up the elections season for me.

    I'm almost spent gang. McCain can't make the sale, and it's a down year for Republicans anyway. The public hates Bush, and they're going to get what they want, someone as far removed from Republican/Conservative politics as possible.

    We all know how potentially disastrous for the country that could be. We also know and can see how McCain feels the same way. He can't bring himself, for whatever reasons, to hammer it home.

    Like the letter writer, I think Sarah Palin or Mitt Romney could and would; and would be happy to do so. I will continue to hammer Obama and leftists on this blog, up to and past the election, at least until they enact the Fairness Doctrine, and use it to not just stamp out free talk radio (hopefully it'll move to satellite and make that industry profitable), but opposition on the Internet.

    Then, I guess we'll all go underground.

    But, I exagerate (I hope).

    Tuesday, October 7, 2008

    Welcome Dear Leader Obama

    Reading the comments over at the Corner (on National Review Online) tonight, there are some that echo my thoughts. I'm with Andy McCarthy on this one. If some 527 doesn't come along and save the McCain campaign, we're looking at a loss like 1996. The arguments against Obama are that he is a complete unknown, and what we DO know about him, isn't good, to wit:
    1. His associations and friendships with people like William Ayers and Jeremiah Wright and ACORN have to call into question not just his judgement and integrity in his explanations, but, does he share these people's views?
    2. He has never voted against a tax increase
    3. His health care plan would likely force private insurers out of the market and end up with a government single payer system
    4. He has yet to reach across the aisle to work with GOP senators on any significant legislation
    5. He believes our troops were "air raiding villages" in Afghanistan
    6. He is part of the Fannie Mae problem
    Although tonight's debate was civil and real people got to pose questions, since a lib (Tom Brokaw) got to filter the questions, all we got was the same old stuff. Nothing terribly interesting, and no McCain going off on Obama for being a terrorist-loving socialist.

    So, I think we're pretty much looking at an Obama victory and all us conservatives are wishing we had a Romney/Palin ticket instead of McCain. Don't get me wrong, I love the guy, I love what he did for our country, and I think he'd be a great president, and a rock in a time of economic disasters and war.

    Instead, we're going to get a neophyte, potentially radical, certainly leftist, potentially crooked Obama as president.