Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are

The Onion - The revelation that Obama's candidacy was the only thing that gave their lives any meaning has caused many supporters to wander aimlessly:

What we can learn from the UK...

Melanie Phillips writes a great piece today titled Preventing National Suicide - Tips on conserving and protecting from across the pond. Here is the closing half:

... Obama believes America has to expiate its sins: both its original, Founding sins of slavery and racism, and its latter-day sins against the world of Islam. Britain likes the sound of that. It wants America to be humbled. Nations, it thinks, cause wars. Arrogant, hubristic, imperial nations like Bush’s America cause big and horrible wars. By contrast transnational institutions — such as the sacred UN or EU — promote civilised “engagement” with the enemy to discuss grievances and reach compromises. So it is thrilled that Obama will get out of Iraq and talk to Iran and may even force wretched Israel (which Britain blames for Everything Bad in the World) to give away the disputed territories and half of Jerusalem to the Arabs.

The fact that such actions would leave Iraq in chaos, empower Iran still further, destroy Israel’s security and imperil the free world doesn’t trouble it at all. And if Obama, under the responsibility of office, should change from an appeaser to a war leader in America’s national interest, then Britain’s new found love for America would revert once again into rage and disdain.

Of course. transnational progressivism, multiculturalism, victim culture, pacifism. and all the rest of it do amount to a national suicide note. The reason Britain has embraced them is because, for the past several decades, it has lost belief in itself as a nation and so has been systematically hollowing out its values and its defences.

The result is a cultural vacuum which is steadily being filled by radical Islamism. Paralyzed by its “universal” value system of multiculturalism and minority rights, Britain is failing to assert its own civilisational principles against the cultural onslaught being mounted by Islamists. Accordingly, it is permitting the spread of Muslim enclaves governed by a parallel jurisdiction of sharia law — the steady creation of a “state within a state” — encouraging the development of sharia finance, and permitting Saudi money to fund British universities and other institutions.

Millions of Britons are appalled by the implosion of British culture, identity, and values. But they find themselves politically disenfranchized, because the Conservative party does not understand that British values are under attack. And Republicans should take careful note of this in order to recognize a similar danger and dilemma facing them following their defeat.

The British Conservatives think that, to regain power, they have to show they have broken with cultural conservatism and go instead with the way society has changed — gay rights, green politics, anti-racism. What they have failed to grasp is that such change has turned values such as right and wrong, good and bad on their heads and has produced a sentimentalised, cruel, oppressive and perverse society — one where burglars go scot-free but householders are prosecuted for putting the wrong kind of garbage in the trash can, and where people are too frightened to protest at the erosion of British, Christian, or Western values because of the opprobrium that will follow.

The Conservatives don’t realize that by embracing such “change” they are endorsing a kind of enslavement. They don’t realize that the first duty of a conservative is to conserve that which is precious and protect it against attack. The result is that millions feel betrayed and abandoned by the absence of conservatism, and yet more still think the Conservative party is just a bunch of opportunists who don’t have any principles. Why vote for the progressive wannabes, after all, when you can have the real thing?

The challenge for conservatives on both sides of the pond is to find a way of conserving the essential values of Western Civilization and defend them against the onslaught being mounted against them both from within and from without — but to do so in a way that is generous and big-hearted rather than narrow and sectarian, and embraces rather than repels.

Very well-done, I think. It won't be easy, as anything conservative is often painted as hateful and mean by the U.S. media. Is a humbled, apologetic United States really a good thing for the rest of the world? I don't think so, but I guess we'll see.

A post-election letter from Mark Alexander...

Mark Alexander at the Patriot Post is fantastic. It's worth subscribing and/or donating if you're so inclined.

The quote below (in bold) is spot-on:

Fellow Patriots,

Tuesday, 4 November 2008, is a date which will live in infamy. While most presidential elections are followed with calls for unity by both candidates, Barack Obama issued no such call in his speech last night, with the possible exception of his observation, "I may not have won your vote tonight, but ... I will be your president, too."

Of course, none was expected - liberals have elected a Socialist with deep ties to cultural and ethnocentric radicalism, and his executive and legislative agenda poses a greater threat to American liberty than that of any president in the history of our great republic.

Obama has twice taken an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic" and to "bear true faith and allegiance to the same." He has never honored that oath, and, based on his policy proposals and objectives, he has no intention to honor it after again reciting that oath on 20 January 2009. Obama seeks to, in his own words, "break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution."

For that reason, this morning, the symbol of our national heritage of liberty, the American flag atop the 35-foot mast at our editorial offices, was respectfully lowered, inverted, and raised to full mast as a sign of national distress. It will remain inverted until next Tuesday, when we right it in honor of Veterans Day.

Today, at least 55,805,197 Americans are concerned for the future of our nation's great tradition of liberty. Some 63,007,791 Americans have been lulled, under the aegis of "hope and change," into a state of what is best described as "cult worship" and all its attendant deception.

One of our editors, a Marine now working in the private sector, summed up our circumstances with this situation report. It aptly captured the sentiments around our office:

"It's been tough, fellow Patriots; tough to stomach the idea that more than half of my fellow citizens who vote, have booted a genuine American hero to the curb for a rudderless charlatan. What a sad indictment on our citizenry that some are so eager to overlook his myriad flaws - his radical roots, his extreme liberalism, his utter lack of experience or achievement. Barack Obama is the antithesis of King's dream: He's a man judged by the color of his skin rather than the content of his character. If it's God's will that Barack Obama is our next president, then so be it. We Patriots will pick ourselves up, dust ourselves off, and wade back to the war front, intent on liberty or death."

This battle is lost, but the war is not. Let's roll.

Mark Alexander,
Publisher

Indeed. Yes we can.

The End of Journalism

Victor Davis Hanson nails it:

There have always been media biases and prejudices. Everyone knew that Walter Cronkite, from his gilded throne at CBS news, helped to alter the course of the Vietnam War, when, in the post-Tet depression, he prematurely declared the war unwinnible. Dan Rather’s career imploded when he knowingly promulgated a forged document that impugned the service record of George W. Bush. We’ve known for a long time — from various polling, and records of political donations of journalists themselves, as well as surveys of public perceptions — that the vast majority of journalists identify themselves as Democratic, and liberal in particular.

Yet we have never quite seen anything like the current media infatuation with Barack Obama, and its collective desire not to raise key issues of concern to the American people. Here were four areas of national interest that were largely ignored. ...

... The media has succeeded in shielding Barack Obama from journalistic scrutiny. It thereby irrevocably destroyed its own reputation and forfeited the trust that generations of others had so carefully acquired. And it will never again be trusted to offer candid and nonpartisan coverage of presidential candidates.

Worse still, the suicide of both print and electronic journalism has ensured that, should Barack Obama be elected president, the public will only then learn what they should have known far earlier about their commander-in-chief — but in circumstances and from sources they may well regret.

Read it all.

Point of No Return

Mark Steyn speaks for me:

...To govern is to choose. And sometimes the choices are tough ones. When has Barack Obama chosen to take a stand? When he got along to get along with the Chicago machine? When he sat for 20 years in the pews of an ugly neo-segregationist race-baiting grievance-monger? When he voted to deny the surviving “fetuses” of botched abortions medical treatment? When in his short time in national politics he racked up the most liberal – ie, the most doctrinaire, the most orthodox, the most reflex — voting record in the Senate? Or when, on those many occasions the questions got complex and required a choice, he dodged it and voted merely “present”?

The world rarely stands as one. You can, as Reagan and Thatcher did, stand up. Or, like Obama voting “present”, you can stand down.

Nobody denies that, in promoting himself from “community organizer” to the world’s President-designate in nothing flat, he has shown an amazing and impressively ruthless single-mindedness. But the path of personal glory has been, in terms of policy and philosophy, the path of least resistance.

Peggy Noonan thinks a President Obama will be like the dog who chases the car and finally catches it: Now what? I think Obama will be content to be King Barack the Benign, Spreader of Wealth and Healer of Planets. His rise is, in many ways, testament to the persistence of the monarchical urge even in a two-century old republic. So the “Now what?” questions will be answered by others, beginning with the liberal supermajority in Congress. And as he has done all his life he will take the path of least resistance. An Obama Administration will pitch America toward EU domestic policy and UN foreign policy. Thomas Sowell is right: It would be a “point of no return”, the most explicit repudiation of the animating principles of America. For a vigilant republic of limited government and self-reliant citizens, it would be a Declaration of Dependence.

If a majority of Americans want that, we holdouts must respect their choice. But, if you don’t want it, vote accordingly.

Here's the whole article on NRO.

Top Ten Reasons to Vote for McCain/Palin

Mona Charen:

10.) John McCain is much, much funnier than Barack Obama. But then, almost everyone is.

9.) John McCain is a passionate patriot who has always been, and will always be, guided by what he thinks is best for America. He can trace his ancestry back to an officer on Gen. George Washington's staff and his family has served the nation nobly in war and peace ever since. McCain believes in winning wars.

8.) McCain's intimate familiarity with military matters also makes him less biddable by the armed services. He was able, when most others (most notably his opponent) were not, to see that a change of strategy in Iraq -- not a retreat -- was needed. He brings an informed skepticism to military procurement requests as well.

7.) As he told Rick Warren, McCain believes that there is evil in the world and that it must be confronted. While Mrs. Obama and many others seem to think that our enemies will purr like kittens once we inaugurate a black man with an Islamic middle name, that is dangerous fantasy. When asked for an example of evil, McCain mentioned al-Qaida putting explosive vests on two mentally impaired girls and blowing them up by remote control in an Iraqi marketplace. Obama, whose turn of mind is different, cautioned that the problem is sometimes us: " a lot of evil has been perpetrated based on the claim that we were trying to confront evil."

6.) McCain may not be a Ph.D. economist, but he understands that raising taxes and adopting protectionist trade policies will deepen and prolong this recession. Nor would he permit Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid to push through the "card check" law -- a union-backed measure that would reverse 73 years of labor law in this country by scuttling the secret ballot in union elections. Even George McGovern has denounced this job-killing, freedom-smothering law that Obama supports. Greater unionization will translate into lost productivity, inflationary pressure, and fewer jobs.

5.) John McCain will try to protect the unborn. Barack Obama is the most radical pro-abortion candidate ever to win a presidential nomination. Obama has promised to back the Freedom of Choice Act as his first presidential act, which would invalidate all restrictions on abortion at any stage of gestation -- and even in cases where babies are born alive after an attempted abortion.

4.) McCain will employ diplomacy, not worship it. Obama is deluded about the power of "talks." In 2007, he proposed, regarding Iran's nuclear program: "if we are meeting with them, talking to them, and offering them both carrots and sticks, they are more likely to change their behavior."

3.) John McCain has said that his models for good judicial picks are John Roberts and Samuel Alito. Senator Obama will pick Ralph Nader and Dennis Kucinich (just kidding, but his choices won't be far off).

2.) McCain's health care proposal will improve the world's best health care delivery system. He proposes to reform the most distorting aspect of our current system (the tax break for employers) and give the tax break to individuals instead. It is McCain's proposal, not Obama's, that will give individuals the choice to stay with the plan they have or take the tax credit and shop around (in a market enlarged by permitting interstate insurance). Obama's plan, by contrast, is a key first step to achieving his oft-repeated preference for a single-payer system like Canada's. By forcing employers to provide certain (as yet unspecified) benefits or pay a tax ("play or pay"), Obama's plan will encourage employers to dump more and more people into a government-run health insurance system like Medicare. Word to the wise: In Canada, they are seeking to reduce wait times for care. One province reported waits of 26 weeks for hip replacements, and others are trying to ensure (without success) that cancer patients are treated within 4 weeks of diagnosis.

1.) The financial crisis and looming recession, combined with President Bush's low approval ratings, have set the stage for this election to be a pivot point in American history. If Barack Obama is elected president and Democrats control large majorities in the House and Senate, the Obama/Pelosi/Reid triumvirate will move the country decisively in the direction of dying Europe -- low productivity, high joblessness, low birth rates, high taxes, and limp foreign policies. The triumvirate will do this at a time when a vibrant America is more necessary than ever -- with Iran seeking nuclear weapons, Pakistan teetering, al-Qaida regrouping, China and Russia telegraphing hostility, and Iraq just barely emerging into the sunshine. This election has become about far more than John McCain versus Barack Obama; it has become about whether the United States will remain the champion of freedom -- economic and political -- or whether we will join the queue of formerly great nations now struggling to pay for all the social welfare "benefits" their aging and lazy populations demand.

And if you need some more help, read the always-insightful Charles Krauthammer's latest:

...This is not socialism. This is not the end of the world. It would, however, be a decidedly leftward move on the order of Lyndon Johnson's Great Society. The alternative is a McCain administration with a moderate conservative presiding over a divided government and generally inclined to resist a European social-democratic model of economic and social regulation featuring, for example, wealth-distributing growth-killing marginal tax rates.

The national security choice in this election is no contest. The domestic policy choice is more equivocal because it is ideological. McCain is the quintessential center-right candidate. Yet the quintessential center-right country is poised to reject him. The hunger for anti-Republican catharsis and the blinding promise of Obamian hope are simply too strong. The reckoning comes in the morning.

You may also want to read a fantastic Digest at the Patriot Post... The Audacity of Deception, by Mark Alexander.

Unless, of course, you don't want to worry about paying your mortgage anymore. In that case, vote for Obama:

A Random Rant from "Zo"

Posting has been on hold for some time, but this seemed too good not to share!

This guy is now officially one of my conservative heroes:


While you're at it, check out The comprehensive argument against Barack Obama.

...and for a little comedy, Palin breaks the tie in the dance-off:


And Fred Thompson chimes in too:

Mac Johnson talks straight...

Since you're reading this blog, you're probably a political junkie like me and are well-aware of the recent snubbing that McCain received from the NY Times. As usual, Mac Johnson gets straight to the point in his latest effort:

To: Senator John McCain
Evil Republican Standard Bearer
Washington, D.C.

From: Pinch Ahmadinejad Sulzberger
Editor-in-Chief-for-Life, New York Times
New York, NY

Re: Submission (yours)

Dear Senator McCain,

Thank you for your recent unsolicited editorial submission to the New York Times. While we appreciate your desire to have your piece published in America’s newspaper of record, we regret that we cannot use it at this time.

We understand that you have had many thoughts published in the New York Times in the past, and that you have enjoyed fawning coverage by both our editors and reporters for years. However, it has recently come to our attention that you are, in fact, a Republican. We therefore cannot publish any more of your work until after you have lost the upcoming Presidential election. We encourage you to submit bitter critiques of conservative figures after that time.

We hope that you do not take this rejection personally, as you have been very useful to us in the past, and -- like all good manipulable politicians -- you care deeply about how you are described in our venerable and uppity pages. But you must understand that our past praise of you was conducted only with the hope of damaging other leading Republican figures with whom you disagreed. Now that you are the leading Republican figure, our only hope is to damage you, the Anti-Barack. May you cease to threaten the coming 1000-year peace of the Dalai Obama’s reign. (Hock, Patooie!)

Oo, that reminds me, please (for old Time’s sake) post the following classified employment advertisement in the Senate break room. We suddenly have a position available.

Wanted: Republican or near-Republican Senator to serve as “iconoclastic maverick” in the eyes of the World’s Most Important Newspaper. Must be willing to criticize own leaders, comrades, underlings and especially the Party’s base. Must love pets and illegal aliens. Veteran status a plus. Only non-smokers, please.

Again, thank you for all your many past services, sucker.

Peace out,

Pinch

P.S. We would, of course, be willing to reconsider your article if you are willing to submit a revised “second draft” of the work. Please change “victory” to “American withdrawal and apology” wherever it appears, and offer to serve (if asked) in the upcoming Obama administration. Also, please try to work in a reference to speculators contributing to Global Warming. Thanks.

P.P.S. The newsroom says “Hi.”

Perfect. The straight-talk express just got hoisted by it's own petard.

Wright vs. Right... has America really been so terrible to black folks?

I've been meaning to post this for some time. It was forwarded to me from a friend, and at the very least it's a much-needed counterpoint to the white-guilt narrative that is so pervasive in our society.

Pat Buchanan wrote A Brief for Whitey back in March. It's part of a politically incorrect dialog that is long overdue in this country. Let me know what you think:

... Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.

Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to.

This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:

First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known.

Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.

Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.

Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.

Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.

We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude?

Barack talks about new “ladders of opportunity” for blacks.

Let him go to Altoona and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for “deserving” white kids.

Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?

Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?

As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?

Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?

We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.

Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.

I'm not always with Pat, but I am here. He's an impressive individual, whatever you think about him. Frankly, I'd vote for him before McCain at this point... easy. I guess I'm a racist for even posting this!

On a much lighter note... "My Dad's not a racist, he's just stupid":

Happy Mothers Day from Planned Parenthood

Sorry to post this on Mother's Day, but this is too disgusting not to share. Celebrate Mother's Day by killing babies... beautiful. (hat tip HotAir)

Update: Star Parker discusses Obama's beliefs on abortion and wonders Is Obama Really the Man Blacks Need?

... Shortly after the Supreme Court's decision last year upholding the constitutionality of the ban on partial birth abortions, Obama spoke at a Planned Parenthood conference in Washington, D.C. Condemning the court's decision, he said that it was part of "a concerted effort to steadily roll back" legal abortions.

Criticizing Justice Anthony Kennedy, who wrote the majority opinion in the case, Obama said, "Justice Kennedy knows many things, but my understanding is that he does not know how to be a doctor."

Of course, Kennedy's job is not to be a doctor, but to be a judge. And in doing so, he included in his opinion testimony of a nurse who participated in a partial birth abortion procedure:

"The baby's little fingers were clasping and unclasping, and his little feet were kicking. Then the doctor stuck the scissors in the back of his head, and the baby's arms jerked out ...The doctor opened up the scissors, stuck a high powered suction tube into the opening, and sucked the baby's brains out ... Now the baby went completely limp. He threw the baby in a pan, along with the placenta, and the instruments he had just used."

Thus the end of what, for Obama, was "potential life."

Nat Hentoff, no conservative, but a libertarian who writes for the "Village Voice,'' calls Obama the "infanticide candidate."

In a recent column, Hentoff noted that, while in the Illinois State Senate, Obama voted against the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. This Act addressed cases where, during an abortion procedure, the live infant was actually born. The Act would have banned killing the living child.

Responding to John McCain's remarks delivered the other day at Wake Forest University about law and judges, Obama contrasted McCain's pledge of "judicial constraint" with his own concept of legal activism.

Obama said he'd seek out judges "who are sympathetic to those who are on the outside, those who are vulnerable, those who are powerless."

Aside from this bizarre idea about the role of law, what irony there is in hearing this from a man with zero empathy for our most vulnerable -- the helpless infant in the womb.

For the 90 percent of blacks who are casting votes for Obama, know that almost 50 million children have been aborted since Roe V. Wade in 1973, a third of which were black babies. Is this really the man whom our community needs?

Answer: No.

And here's Dinesh D'Souza wondering if this barbaric road is where secularism is leading us?

Newsflash: Obama is an all-too-typical politician...

... and that's not a good thing for someone whose campaign is based on change and hope. Barack Obama lies like a Clinton:


David Axelrod, Obama's chief strategist, also lies like a Clinton:

Lies, lies, lies:

John Kerry: Obama will be a great President because we're all bad people... and he's black

I've caught as much of Rush possible lately, and at the end of today's show he played some clips of 'the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam' talking about how great President Obama will be for this country... because of, well, the color of his skin. Keep helping John!

Here's the transcript with El Rushbo's comments:

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: Here's how difficult it's going to be for Barack Obama to keep race out of his campaign. When you've got idiots like the haughty John Kerry (who served in Vietnam) out campaigning for you, you're rolling the dice. (laughing) Last Monday, Kerry did an interview with the New Bedford Standard Times. It's in Massachusetts, the New Bedford Standard Times editorial board, and of course they taped him. An unidentified reporter said, "Why would you say that? What gives Obama credibility on that score?" Kerry had said that Obama's blackness and Muslim background is his main qualification for office, and would help him with American foreign policy, and the reporter said, "What gives him credibility on that score, particularly?"

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: It would be such an affirmation of who we say we are as a people, if we can elect an African-American president, a young leader who is obviously visionary and got an ability to inspire people. It would give us an ability to talk to those countries, to, in some cases, go around their dictator leaders to the people and inspire the people in ways that we can't otherwise. I think in the end, um, he has an ability to help us bridge the divide of religious extremism, to maybe even give power to moderate Islam to be able to stand up against this radical misinterpretation of a legitimate religion.

RUSH: Man, this is what I mean. When you got guys like this speaking for you, you have no control over. Do you realize what you just heard? This is the former Democrat presidential nominee, and he has just encapsulated here the liberal Democrat view of this country where it comes to race: "We are guilty!" Whatever anybody, particularly our enemies - whatever radical Islam thinks of us - they're right. We are guilty, because we are racist, sexist, bigot, homophobes and all that. And we need to elect an African-American president, a young leader, obviously visionary, to show the rest of the world that we are who we say we are as a people. To bridge the divide of religious extremism? (laughing) Kerry said this on Monday. I don't think Jeremiah Wright was a common household name at that time. (laughing) Bridge the divide.? He has created the divide! He's widening the divide! He's dredging the divide! He's dumping the sand of the divide on both sides of the shore. But Kerry wasn't through. The reporter said, "Why would you say that? What gives him credibility on that score, again?"

VIETNAM VETERAN JOHN KERRY: Because he's African-American! Because he's a black man who has come from a place of oppression and repression through the years in our own country. His life story, you know, a Kenyan father who abandoned him and he was raised by a single parent and -- and -- and found the purpose and values to go to college and make something of himself. That's an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, and other places in the world where disenfranchised people don't get anything.

RUSH: Folks, I'm sitting here laughing because it's Friday, it's the end of the show, but this is outrageous, though. This is just... What must John Kerry think of his own country in order to say these kind of things? That only Obama, because he has a Kenyan father, his life story...? He hasn't had any oppression in his life. He wasn't raised as an African-American. He wasn't down for the civil rights struggle. He has no ties to that. That's what the black community was worried about when Obama first announced. That's what "Magic Negro" is all about. That's what "Is he black enough?" was all about. He found the purpose and values to go to college, make something of himself? That's an important lesson for America to show Egypt, Jordan? What? He went to college? It's an important lesson to show Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia? This is ass backwards. This is 180 degrees out of phase. What ought to be happening here is that we ought to be telling some of these other places what's wrong with them and because if they don't fix it they keep attacking it, they are in peril. Did you see, by the way, the story that the Saudi Arabian government is going to start training 40,000 new imams to try to deal with this Wahhabi sect that's causing all the grief? So anyway, there you heard it: John Kerry (the haughty John Kerry who served in Vietnam), speaking Monday to the New Bedford Massachusetts Standard Times editorial board.

END TRANSCRIPT

I'm not proud to say this, but I truly despise the elitist, socialist Senators from MA... right up there with Al Gore, lefty Hollywood boneheads and Code Pinko.

Related, from the great Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters.

Also related (only because it further exposes Kerry) is this HotAir video of YAF's Jason Mattera catching up with Sen. John Kerry and confronting him about his unsubstantiated, troop-smearing testimony:


Link: sevenload.com

And here's Glenn Beck on Black Liberation Theology... terrifying.

The Audacity of Hope Hollywood...

Saw this on Fox & Friends this morning:


Life immitates art, or art influences life?

Update 3/5: Speaking of audacity... saw this eye-opening (for those who might not already see the audacity, shallowness and arrogance of Obama-hype) clip on HotAir this morning:


From one of the HotAir commenters: “There is nothing the American Left seeks more than the approval of the International Left.”

And then there's the other side of the coin... can you imagine that NBC would feature a plot line in which an Arizona senator and former POW is discovered to be a two-time murderer and a cannibal? Of course you can.

Quote of the day...

"...then voters need to understand that the supposed “new politics” of Obama smells very similar to that of the same old lies and empty rhetoric we have heard from the Beltway for decades. And without that “new politics”, Obama is nothing more than an empty suit with a pleasant voice. "

The Audacity of Obama

Just words...

I thought I'd post a roundup of recent Obama items that I found interesting. I know I'm missing some things, so look for the post to grow in the next few days. Let me know in the comments if you have something worth adding.

This columm from Charles Krauthammer last week nails it:

There's no better path to success than getting people to buy a free commodity. Like the genius who figured out how to get people to pay for water: bottle it (Aquafina was revealed to be nothing more than reprocessed tap water) and charge more than they pay for gasoline. Or consider how Google found a way to sell dictionary nouns - boat, shoe, clock - by charging advertisers zillions to be listed whenever the word is searched.

And now, in the most amazing trick of all, a silver-tongued freshman senator has found a way to sell hope. To get it, you need only give him your vote. Barack Obama is getting millions.

A platitude salesman indeed. But you know the veneer is wearing thin when the Washington Post points it out.

I haven't read Robert Samuelson before, but Rush read his must-read piece yesterday aptly titled The Obama Delusion:

It's hard not to be dazzled by Barack Obama. At the 2004 Democratic convention, he visited with Newsweek reporters and editors, including me. I came away deeply impressed by his intelligence, his forceful language and his apparent willingness to take positions that seemed to rise above narrow partisanship. Obama has become the Democratic presidential front-runner precisely because countless millions have formed a similar opinion. It is, I now think, mistaken.

...

The contrast between his broad rhetoric and his narrow agenda is stark, and yet the media - preoccupied with the political "horse race" - have treated his invocation of "change" as a serious idea rather than a shallow campaign slogan. He seems to have hypnotized much of the media and the public with his eloquence and the symbolism of his life story. The result is a mass delusion that Obama is forthrightly engaging the nation's major problems when, so far, he isn't.

The last week has certainly been a different one for the Obama campaign. He's now the clear front-runner. McCain and Hillary are on the attack. The platitudes are becoming more transparent, and Michelle Obama certainly hasn't helped.

Karl Rove goes into more detail with Obama's new vulnerability:

... Perhaps in response to criticisms that have been building in recent days, Mr. Obama pivoted Tuesday from his usual incantations. He dropped the pretense of being a candidate of inspiring but undescribed "post-partisan" change. Until now, Mr. Obama has been making appeals to the center, saying, for example, that we are not red or blue states, but the United States. But in his Houston speech, (video part I, part II) he used the opportunity of 45 (long) minutes on national TV to advocate a distinctly non-centrist, even proudly left-wing, agenda. By doing so, he opened himself to new and damaging contrasts and lines of criticism.

...

He cannot proclaim his goal is the end of influence for lobbies if the only influences he seeks to end are lobbies of the center and the right.

Unlike Bill Clinton in 1992, Mr. Obama is completely unwilling to confront the left wing of the Democratic Party, no matter how outrageous its demands, no matter how out of touch it might be with the American people. And Tuesday night, in a key moment in this race, he dropped the pretense that his was a centrist agenda. His agenda is the agenda of the Democratic left. ...

We're being Obamboozled! Here's a video worth watching from Debbie Schlussel:

And here's Michelle Malkin's take on Michelle Obama:

...I believe it was Michael Kinsley who quipped that a gaffe is when a politician tells the truth. In this case, it’s what happens when an elite Democrat politician’s wife says what a significant portion of the party’s base really believes to be the truth: That America is more a source of shame than pride. ...

And here is a reaction from an Obama supporter... how's that for hope and pride!

Update 2/25 - Bill Kristol writes today that it's all about him: (funny SNL video of the last debate to the right)

...Barack Obama is an awfully talented politician. But could the American people, by November, decide that for all his impressive qualities, Obama tends too much toward the preening self-regard of Bill Clinton, the patronizing elitism of Al Gore and the haughty liberalism of John Kerry?

It’s fitting that the alternative to Obama will be John McCain. He makes no grand claim to fix our souls. He doesn’t think he’s the one everyone has been waiting for. He’s more proud of his country than of himself. And his patriotism has consisted of deeds more challenging than “speaking out on issues.”

Bush finally commits to securing the southern border...

... of Mexico!!!


Unbelievable. You just can't make this stuff up.

Speaking of unbelievable... how about a Che flag hanging in Obama's new campaign office in Houston?

Update 2/12: Rush is on the story today...

The 'lesser of three evils' arguement...

Danny Vice shared some good and thoughtful points in a comment on one of my recent posts. I thought it was worth sharing up here on the main board.

Conservatives are beginning to amaze me in their inability to see what's really at stake here.

This election is about more than McCain and his inability to follow conservative principals - although he has earned the angst of true conservatives.

But how is handing all three branches of our government over to far right liberals a suitable alternative to McCain?

There is a serious difference between McCain and a pure bread liberal who is bent on destroying ALL conservative values permanantly as well as our country with them.

Anti McCain commentators such as Rush Limbaugh have ventured the idea that perhaps we should sit this election out and let the Dems have a term in office, claiming it might pave the way for a future shot at a candidate he and others will like in four years.

Imagine the damage our country will endure if Democrats control all three branches of government for 4 to 8 years.

This would give liberals what they will regard as a clear sign from America that is it ready to move sharply to the left. Not slightly to the left. It will be a flamingly liberal mandate we can't play games with.

My daughters will come of age in the next 4 to 8 years, and I'd rather have 50% of McCains ear than 0% of a destruction bent liberal's ear.

Cherry picking our candidate is exactly what got us INTO this mess, and if conservatives aren’t careful, they may throw the entire country into a liberal spin that can take a decade(s) to pull back out of.

There is no such thing as a quick recovery from 4 years of liberalism unchecked. We may be facing what will take years and years of damage to undo. What’s more, there’s no guarantee that it WILL be undone. Have conservatives completely forgotten Roe v. Wade and other extremely important issues? We need some sort of conservative edge on every core issue we can get.

Questioning McCain was right and highly useful for a time and a season. Many of us wish we had acted sooner to support Romney or Huck....

But staying home on election day allows liberals a pass to capture all THREE branches of Government.

We do not have the same crop of liberals we had before the Bush2 presidency. They are bent and twisted in a way that makes Clinton look almost conservative (which is why she's sinking in the polls.

I'm not asking anyone to sacrifice their own belief or convictions, but we have a serious problem here, that we can't afford to fall asleep on.

Give it some thought, friends.

Principle vs. pragmatism. Listen to Ann Coulter for the other side of the arguement. We'll be talking about this a lot for the next 8 months, I'm sure.

John Bolton, speaking at CPAC, agrees with Danny:

Christmas Ads...

Huck kicked 'em off with the now-famous "floating cross" that was really just a well-positioned and well-lit bookcase:


Very strong, but we now expect nothing less from Mike. Don't know what the big deal about the cross in the background is. Some people are surprised to find that Christmas has something to do with... Christ. It's a well-done ad. He's clearly got a good marketing team doing the video. Very strong.

Now let's go to Rudy with a little less Christmas (although that sweater is about as Christmas as you can get), and a little more ass-kick...


Sticking with the strength. Not bad. Could he look any more odd in that sweater though?

McCain skips Christmas altogether and promises it won't be easy:

Update... the McCain Christmas ad is here:


(sigh) Sorry John, but it's (still) over.

Silky Edwards goes for what will possibily go down as the all-time worst Christmas ad/message:


Wasn't that awful? On message, just pathetic though.

Obama invites the whole family... what, no O?


Happy Happy!

Now if this ad from Chillary doesn't terrify you, nothing will:


That is unbelievable. Liberalism Socialism right there for all to see... giving us big government gifts we don't want, but yet are forced to pay for. Isn't she wonderful horrifying?

Mitt? Fred?

Update: Fred adds his holiday ad to the mix... my favorite:


Well done Fred. That was great!

Merry Christmas everyone!

Update: Nathan Tabor writes a column titled Culture, Character and Christmas Ads where he concludes:

Now, it would be extrapolating a bit much from these ads to determine on their basis alone who is and is not fit for higher office. However, in the midst of the scripted world of presidential campaigns, it is often the little moments which betray flashes of a candidate’s character or innermost thoughts.

When it comes to selecting one from among ourselves for the office of President of the United States, other qualities are subordinate to the content of the candidate’s character. It is character which allows men and women in high office to face difficult decisions without buckling, and where the future of our nation is concerned, nothing less than the best will do.

Right on.

Inhaling the truth...

Doug Giles with a surprising take on Obama's confession that he used to smoke dope:

Sir Winston Churchill used to suck down cigars and scotch like there was no tomorrow while dictating to his female secretary whilst butt naked. Would you vote for a dude now who did that? Of course you would. You voted for Bill Clinton.

Were this week’s confessions by Obama motivated by some supposed dirt Hillary has on him? Who knows, and who cares? If that’s the worst she has on him I say Obama can exhale because the Clintons are dirtier than Howard Stern sitting in the Mojave desert eating a mud pie and chasing it down with a cup of dust. You can relax, BO.

Now, obviously, because I’m a conservative I would never vote for the young senator—but I do appreciate Barack and even Rudy for being honest and owning their checkered pasts. It’s refreshing to hear the truth every now and then in a milieu that’s ripe with bull such as “I didn’t inhale; it wasn’t my fault; I did not have sex with that woman; and I never flip flopped.”

He likely won't be at the top of the Dem ticket this time, but Oprack Winframa is here to stay.

Mac Johnson on Obama's 'audacity of hype'... (Updated)

(Click the image to the right and check out WHYGRR's "Oprack Winframa")

Mac Johnson discusses Barack Obama... The Human Rorschach Blot:

... He's a moderate. He's a third way. He's demographic fusion cuisine. He's a floor wax. He's a desert topping. He’s everything you'd hoped for and whatever you need. That's the beauty of being unknown. ...

... If any of the fawning were asked to name his greatest accomplishment, could they name an accomplishment? Other than being elected to the Senate just two and a half years ago, and being simultaneously black and yet likeable to white folks, I mean.

For emphasis, let's examine a list of Obama’s major accomplishments (so far):

Simultaneously black and yet likeable to white folks

Made the initials "B.O." cool again

Good oral hygiene

That's it. He's the Wayne Brady of politics - everything white folks had been hoping for in at least one black person, the big payoff for all that tolerance and diversity babble. That may not be the politically correct thing to say, but it is an honest assessment of exactly what pent-up desire is fueling Obamamania among his white, liberal fan base. ...

For a related read, try John Hawkins on Racist Democrats vs. Colorblind Republicans:

Here's the reality: there are racists in both parties. But, there are a lot more of them in the Democratic Party and there always have been. But ironically, Democrats have managed to use the GOP's belief in a colorblind America against us. Because so many Democrats have no problem with using racial discrimination for political purposes, they'll support policies like reparations, Affirmative Action, and racial quotas that Republicans simply won't. Then they deftly distort and exploit incidents like the Katrina rescue efforts and Bill Bennett's condemnation of the idea that black babies could be aborted to reduce the crime rate to convince black Americans that the GOP hates black Americans.

This is all despite the fact that for a large number of black Americans, the GOP is a much better fit than the Democratic Party. The GOP is the party that's friendly to religion, anti-abortion, against gay marriage, tough on crime, and for low taxes and school vouchers. Yet, so many black Americans have been deceived into sticking with the Democrats even though the Dems do so many things that are harmful to our country as a whole and to black Americans in particular.

That's why if you're a black American who thinks the GOP better represents your views than the Democratic Party, then it's time to join the Republican Party. Don't let the Democrats lie to you and tell you that the GOP is full of racists, especially when there are so many distinguished black Americans out there who can tell you otherwise. Look to Condi Rice, Colin Powell, Rod Paige, Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams, Larry Elder, J.C. Watts, Michael Steele, Ken Blackwell, Lynn Swann -- and you'll see that the GOP judges people not "by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

Finally, take the latest (8th) GOP Straw Poll from GOP Bloggers.

Update: SNL - Reverend Al and Jessie J. rate Obama on the blackness scale...



Update: Ann Coulter...

If Obama's biggest asset is his inexperience, then if by the slightest chance he were elected and were to run for a second term, he will have to claim he didn't learn anything the first four years.

Beautiful.