Friday, October 31, 2008


Disagree with The Obamessiah? You shall be silenced, unbeliever! It has been his pattern the whole campaign- sending threatening letters, sending his minions to jam phone lines, and now, kicking off all of the reporters from papers endorsing McCain from his plane. Not surprising, given the lefts mantra of "free speech for me but not for thee," but still kinda heavy handed, doncha think, for a man who has yet to totally seize the reigns of power in his iron fist? This is the Glorious Revolution we can look forward too if The Great Deceiver pulls it off. Do you disagree? You're a racist! The story here and here.

The Washington Times quoting an Obama spokes-commrade:
These were "very hard decisions," she said, and have "absolutely nothing" to do with the news organizations' coverage of the race.

Meanwhile, John McCain's presidential campaign responded to the Times being kicked off the plane as "... not surprising."

"The least transparent and the least vetted candidate in history is now the least accessible — not surprising," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

Thursday, October 30, 2008



So I watched Obama's infomercial, and forgive me if, unlike Chris Mathews, I didn't soak my Depends.

As I watched, all I could be was...confused. Obama produced what can only be described as bizarro-propaganda - a dour documentary designed to undermine an eastern bloc country, circa 1974. Ten minutes into the thing, I was expecting a bunch of fat babushkas in headscarves fighting over the last loaf of stale bread. By the time it was over, I had boiled and eaten a neighbor's dog.

This was a view of our country seen, grimly, from the outside looking in: a place where everyone is sick, poor, or sickly poor. I call it Hugo porn - the kind of stuff that gives Chavez a chubby.

It's as if the most successful and selfless country in the history of the world never existed. Instead, we have east Germany without the lederhosen or the sausage. But I guess, in order to sell himself, Barack has to sell the rest of the country short.

When it was over however, I felt like I always do after ingesting a hard sell: convinced I was being sold something I didn't need. To me - Obama's gleaming valentine to himself succeeded in only reminding me of the Soloflex in the garage. Once shiny and new, it's now covered in soiled shorts.

And if you disagree with me, then you sir are worse than Hitler.


From Protein Wisdom:

McCain has “called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class,” Obama said. “I don’t know what’s next. By the end of the week he’ll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten.”

Ha ha.

Only, in this passage Obama revealed precisely why he is vulnerable to such charges: he can’t seem to tell the difference between a gift and a theft. There is nothing remotely socialistic or communistic about sharing. If you have a toy that someone else wants, you have three choices in a free society. You can offer to trade it for something you value that is owned by the other. You can give the toy freely, as a sign of friendship or compassion. Or you can choose to do neither.

Collectivism in all its forms is about taking away your choice. Whether you wish to or not, the government compels you to surrender the toy, which it then redistributes to someone that government officials deem to be a more worthy owner. It won’t even be someone you could ever know, in most cases. That’s what makes the political philosophy unjust (by stripping you of control over yourself and the fruits of your labor) as well as counterproductive (by failing to give the recipient sufficient incentive to learn and work hard so he can earn his own toys in the future).

Government is not charity. It is not persuasion, or cooperation, or sharing. Government is a fist, a shove, a gun. Obama either doesn’t understand this, or doesn’t want voters to understand it.


According an LA Times article written by Peter Wallsten in April, Obama was a "friend and frequent dinner companion" of Rashid Khalidi, who from 1976 to 1982 was reportedly a director of the official Palestinian press agency, WAFA, which was operating in exile from Beirut with the PLO.

The PLO was considered a terrorist organization at the time.

In the article -- based on the videotape obtained by the Times -- Wallsten said Obama addressed an audience during a 2003 farewell dinner for Khalidi, who was Obama's colleague at the University of Chicago, before his departure for Columbia University in New York. Obama said his many talks with Khalidi and his wife Mona stood as "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases."
Khalidi raised his consciousness and schooled him. I know I feel better now!


Not his half-brother.

Not his Aunt:
Barack Obama's aunt Zeituni Onyango is living in public housing in South Boston: Barack Obama has lived one version of the American Dream that has taken him to the steps of the White House. But a few miles from where the Democratic presidential candidate studied at Harvard, his Kenyan aunt and uncle, immigrants living in modest circumstances in Boston, have a contrasting American story. Zeituni Onyango, the aunt so affectionately described in Mr Obama's best-selling memoir Dreams from My Father, lives in a disabled-access flat on a rundown public housing estate in South Boston.
Not his Uncle:

His "Uncle Omar" faired even worse:

A second relative believed to be the long-lost "Uncle Omar" described in the book was beaten by armed robbers with a "sawed-off rifle" while working in a corner shop in the Dorchester area of the city. He was later evicted from his one-bedroom flat for failing to pay $2,324.20 (£1,488) arrears, according to the Boston Housing Court.

Info from Confederate Yankee.


During this election I have often wondered that no one points out the frightening parallels between America now and Germany in the 30's. I understand that history is rarely taught anymore but still, the lessons are there. The Virginian has posted the words of Lori Kalner, an old woman who actually went through the change in Germany and God bless her for saying it. Part of what she has to say:
In Germany, when Hitler came to power, it was a time of terrible financial depression. Money was worth nothing. In Germany people lost homes and jobs, just like in the American Depression in the 1930s, which we have read about in Thoene's Shiloh books. In those days, in my homeland, Adolph Hitler was elected to power by promising 'Change.' He blamed the 'Zionists' around the world for all our problems. He told everyone it was greedy Zionist Bankers who had caused every problem we had. He promised when he was leader, the greedy Zionist bankers would be punished. The Zionists, he promised, would be wiped off the face of the earth. So Hitler was elected to power by only 1/3 the popular vote. A coalition of other political parties in parliament made him supreme leader. Then, when he was leader, he disgraced and expelled everyone in parliament who did not go along with him. Yes. Change came to my homeland as the new leader promised it would.

The teachers in German schools began to teach the children to sing songs in praise of Hitler. This was the beginning of the Hitler Youth movement. It began with praise of the Fuhrer's programs on the lips of innocent children. Hymns in praise of Hitler and his programs were being sung in the schoolrooms and in the play yard. Little girls and boys joined hands and sang these songs as they walked home from school.

My brother came home and told Papa what was happening at school. The political hymns of children proclaimed Change was coming to our homeland and the Fuhrer was a leader we could trust. I will never forget my father's face. Grief and fear. He knew that the best propaganda of the Nazis was song on the lips of little children....

Soon the children's songs praising the Fuhrer were heard everywhere on the streets and over the radio. 'With our Fuhrer to lead us, we can do it! We can change the world!' Soon after that Papa, a pastor, was turned away from visiting elderly parishioners in hospitals. The people he had come to bring comfort of God's Word, were 'no longer there.' Where had they vanished to while under nationalized health care?

It became an open secret. The elderly and sick began to disappear from hospitals feet first as 'mercy killing' became the policy. Children with disabilities and those who had Down syndrome were euthanized. People whispered, 'Maybe it is better for them now. Put them out of misery. They are no longer suffering. And, of course, their death is better for the treasury of our nation. Our taxes no longer must be spent to care for such a burden.' And so murder was called mercy.

The government took over private business. Industry and health care were 'nationalized.' (NA-ZI means National Socialist Party) The businesses of all Jews were seized. (Perhaps you remember our story in Berlin on Krystalnacht in the book Munich Signature)...

I trembled last night when I heard the voices of American children raised in song, praising the name of Obama, the charismatic fellow who claims he is the American Messiah....

There are so few of us left to warn you.


John Hawkins had this heartwarming lil' story passed on to him and I'm passing it on to you.

Today on my way to lunch I passed a homeless guy with a sign that read "Vote Obama, I need the money." I laughed.

Once in the restaurant my server had on a "Obama 08" tie, again I laughed as he had given away his political preference--just imagine the coincidence.

When the bill came I decided not to tip the server and explained to him that I was exploring the Obama redistribution of wealth concept. He stood there in disbelief while I told him that I was going to redistribute his tip to someone who I deemed more in need--the homeless guy outside. The server angrily stormed from my sight.

I went outside, gave the homeless guy $10 and told him to thank the server inside as I've decided he could use the money more. The homeless guy was grateful.

At the end of my rather unscientific redistribution experiment I realized the homeless guy was grateful for the money he did not earn, but the waiter was pretty angry that I gave away the money he did earn even though the actual recipient deserved money more.

I guess redistribution of wealth is an easier thing to swallow in concept than in practical application (ask the waiter) "

What a great way to get the "pixie dust" out of people's eyes! It speaks to where they actually are in the real world, where they live, and it cuts right through what they "learned" from Perfesser Krapotkin in any of the infinite varieties of Socialism 101 they attended in what used to be called college (you know, like English, Sociology, History, Art..etc...etc.).


I sure hope others come to this inescapable realization. Dr. Slogan's Prescriptions:
How about close relationships with people involved in international terror? Or laser sharp focus on indoctrinating children? Or a laundry list of every modern-day tyrant openly expressing support? Or persistent suppression of free speech? Or going for twenty years (and bringing children) into a church that openly promotes hate of white people, just as [it] openly supports Hamas and condemns our country on regular basis? Or campaigning for a radical with Islamic ties who threw a stable country into a bloody mess? Or close ties with people who led an organization that unapologetically bombed the U.S. Capitol, the Pentagon and a police station and who were on the FBI Ten Most Wanted List? Or vote fraud of monstrous proportions? Or accepting a flow of donations from unidentified foreign sources?
[…T]his election is no longer about choosing between Republicans and Democrats. It's about choosing between our democratic system as we know it and a totally different state. In that state — which Sen. Obama and people behind him have been working hard to create, free speech will be not so free. In that state, tolerance will not be so tolerant. And in that state many things you've been taking for granted will slowly but steadily cease to exist.
And lest you think, "ah well, it can be reversed," think again. They are going to change the rules and change the constitution.

There's clamor for a "second bill of rights."

Obama will appoint 2 or 3 supreme court justices and has said he will pick people who take into account one's race, sex and sexuality in deciding cases. You will be treated differently based on who you are. Is there anything more un-american than that?

And the first thing that they will do is bring back the "fairness doctrine." That will be the end of talk radio and Fox.

Obama has made no secret of his desire to see us as subservient to the U.N. - we are "citizens of the world," as he constantly points out.

He has plans to start a Civilian National Security Force. You know, kinda like the Brownshirts.

Need I continue? But this stuff should be self evident. The Anchoress has said it well:

Obama has effectively shown us who he is; all that is needed is for the twinkle-dust to be rubbed out from the eyes, to see it.

You are voting for the continuation or the end of our Nation. THAT is what this election is about.


INDOCTRINATED CHILD LEARNS NOT TO STEAL...not from his parents, of course.

Oh Lord this is rich. From Ace:

Shocker: 9 Year Old Caught Stealing McCain Signs

The "shocker" in the headline is
The guy got sick of miscreants stealing his sign so he juiced it up
with electricity.
The kids' father says the little scamp just grabbed it to
"see how it was put together."
It's a sign. It's a stick with a fucking piece
of cardboard stapled to it.
But this curious little Future Engineers of
America Chapter President wanted to see how this gizmo called a "sign"
That's the Obama Effect -- children taking great interest in
educating themselves. Look at this budding young Nicolai Tesla, so curious about
the complex aeronautics of a yard-sign.
Now that's he's figured out the inner
workings of the staple, he's moving on fulfill Barack Obama's campaign pledge of
building a car that runs on love.


You're still a racist. According to Harvard professor Charles Ogletree. From Open Market:

Even if you vote for Obama, you’re still probably a racist, according to Harvard law professor Charles Ogletree, in his remarks at a recent panel discussion at my alma mater. Ogletree, Obama’s top advisor on race issues, explains that since Obama is “biracial,” his election won’t prove that racism has receded. White America won’t vote for blacks, Ogletree argues, and Obama’s election is possible only because he’s partly white. The ABA Journal predicts that Ogletree, who has long advocated race-based reparations, will be the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the Civil Rights Division during the Obama administration.

Legal commentator Walter Olson notes that Ogletree has attracted controversy over his association with Al Sharpton and history of plagiarism.

And according to Michelle Malkin, "Ogletree is rumored to be Obama’s pick for Assistant AG in charge of civil rights."

You didn't think an Obama presidency would actually bring about the transcending of race, did you? I mean, I know he said that and all but really, why would the left give up such a wonderful, muli-purpose victimhood bludgeon? Stupid crackers.


I am feeling some "Sweeeet Emo-tion!" Joe Perry of Aerosmith has come out as a Republican! The whole world changed for me when I bought the album "Rocks." One of the greatest bands ever. From the Boston Herald:
“I’ve been a hardcore Republican my whole life,” he told the Herald. “My mother and father drilled into me from the very start that if you work hard and be positive, you’ll get what you’re working for. I guess I’m living proof of that.”
And living proof that you can rock the hell out without being an idiot. Right on.

(of course this makes guessed it! racist!) From Townhall:

Some elections are routine, some are important and some are historic. If Senator John McCain wins this election, it will probably go down in history as routine. But if Senator Barack Obama wins, it is more likely to be historic-- and catastrophic.

Once the election is over, the glittering generalities of rhetoric and style will mean nothing. Everything will depend on performance in facing huge challenges, domestic and foreign.

Performance is where Barack Obama has nothing to show for his political career, either in Illinois or in Washington.

Policies that he proposes under the banner of "change" are almost all policies that have been tried repeatedly in other countries-- and failed repeatedly in other countries.

Politicians telling businesses how to operate? That's been tried in countries around the world, especially during the second half of the 20th century. It has failed so often and so badly that even socialist and communist governments were freeing up their markets by the end of the century.

The economies of China and India began their take-off into high rates of growth when they got rid of precisely the kinds of policies that Obama is advocating for the United States under the magic mantra of "change."

Putting restrictions on international trade in order to save jobs at home? That was tried here with the Hawley-Smoot tariff during the Great Depression.

Unemployment was 9 percent when that tariff was passed to save jobs, but unemployment went up instead of down, and reached 25 percent before the decade was over.

Higher taxes to "spread the well around," as Obama puts it? The idea of redistributing wealth has turned into the reality of redistributing poverty, in countries where wealth has fled and the production of new wealth has been stifled by a lack of incentives.

Economic disasters, however, may pale by comparison with the catastrophe of Iran with nuclear weapons. Glib rhetoric about Iran being "a small country," as Obama called it, will be a bitter irony for Americans who will have to live in the shadow of a nuclear threat that cannot be deterred, as that of the Soviet Union could be, by the threat of a nuclear counter-attack.

Suicidal fanatics cannot be deterred. If they are willing to die and we are not, then we are at their mercy-- and they have no mercy. Moreover, once they get nuclear weapons, that is a situation which cannot be reversed, either in this generation or in generations to come.

Is this the legacy we wish to leave our children and grandchildren, by voting on the basis of style and symbolism, rather than substance?

If Barack Obama thinks that such a catastrophe can be avoided by sitting down and talking with the leaders of Iran, then he is repeating a fallacy that helped bring on World War II.

In a nuclear age, one country does not have to send troops to occupy another country in order to conquer it. A country is conquered if another country can dictate who rules it, as the Mongols once did with Russia, and as Osama bin Laden tried to do when he threatened retaliation against places in the United States that voted for George W. Bush. But he didn't have nuclear weapons to back up that threat-- yet.

America has never been a conquered country, so it may be very hard for most Americans even to conceive what that can mean. After France was conquered in 1940, it was reduced to turning over some of its own innocent citizens to the Nazis to kill, just because those citizens were Jewish.

Do you think our leaders wouldn't do that? Not even if the alternative was to see New York and Los Angeles go up in mushroom clouds? If I were Jewish, I wouldn't bet my life on that.

What the Middle East fanatics want is not just our resources or even our lives, but our humiliation first, in whatever sadistic ways they can think of. Their lust for humiliation has already been repeatedly demonstrated in their videotaped beheadings that find such an eager market in the Middle East.

None of this can be prevented by glib talk, but only by character, courage and decisive actions-- none of which Barack Obama has ever demonstrated.


John McCain criticized Barney Frank for wanting to increase spending and raise taxes.

Barney Frank said that means he's being attacked for being gay.

No really.

Victimhood has become the identity that is most aspired to by many in this country. Think about it. You can do and say anything that you want, and when you're criticized, you can just say that you're being discriminated against. Things don't go your way? It's because you're being discriminated against, not because of any decisions you yourself have made. It's a responsibility- free ride. It's the number one goal of anyone on the left and like heroin, is an almost irresistible seduction to those that try it. It ties right into the narcissistic obsession with one's feelings over logic and a clear perception of the imperfectibility of the world at large. The world isn't a perfect utopia? It's because we are being oppressed! It's not because the human heart contains both good and evil. We are all victims and The Obamessiah is gonna save us!

Wednesday, October 29, 2008


Tito "the Builder" made news (well, on Fox anyway) by getting in the face of the media and calling them OUT on their treatment of Joe "the Plumber." He went on about how he was so proud to become an American, to be a part of a country that gives people like himself opportunity through hard work and dedication. Here's his introducing Sarah Palin:

Of course the left snickers at men like him. He's not "sophisticated" enough to be a socialist and know that he's a victim. Wonder if he knows the price of Arugula these days?


I posted earlier on an experiment done at both the McCain and Obama sites. They put in phony info with a real credit card number to see what would happen. The Obama site accepted the donation. The McCain site did not. The normal, accepted practice is to only take info that matches the info connected with the card number. The Obama campaign purposely disabled this verification. Could there be any other reason to do this than to allow people to give over the limit and allow fraudulent and overseas money to pour in? If there is, I would be curious to know what that reason might be. This verification system is called AVS and it is up to the the merchant to use this system to protect himself from fraudulent charges or not. From Hot Air:
The value of the AVS system is to deny Card Not Present transactions (CNP) which are suspicious. This protects the merchant against charge backs for bad transactions. What is interesting to me is that the merchant acquirer has knowingly violated a basic CNP fraud prevention technique to accommodate a merchant (Obama Campaign). I think that both the Associations (VISA & MasterCard) would be highly interested in looking at the merchant acquirer that was processing these transactions. The value of ignoring the AVS responses is that multiple invalid transactions may be made without fear of being rejected by the authorization systems. This means that the real owner of the credit card account is willing to allow multiple transactions to be made on the account using different names and addresses that under normal conditions would be denied.
Let's make a list, shall we?
  • Allied with an unrepentant domestic terrorist
  • "Spiritually mentored" by a racist Marxist "reverend" for 20 years
  • Allied with a PLO operative when they were labeled terrorist
  • Welded to ACORN, the voter and voter registration fraud experts
  • Encouraging illegal and fraudulent donations to his campaign
Patterns, people, patterns.


Seems the dirt is coming fast and furious now and it looks like Sarah Palin has been cut loose finally to say exactly what she wants. She talked today about how nice it must be having the MSM looking out for your best interests. She was referring to a tape of a meeting Obama attended with Ayers honoring Khalidi, the PLO terrorist, that the LA Times is refusing to release. Its reported that it even includes the recitation of a cute little anti-semitic poem in the midst of the orgy of Israel bashing going on at the event. The LA Times says they can't release it because its confidential. How high-minded of them. Its unfortunate that they weren't so high-minded when it came to releasing a tape of comments made by Schwartzenegger. But then he's a republican, and what's more, not a living God on earth. Guess that's the difference.

But no matter. Today a former ACORN employee has come out and testified that the Obama campaign gave ACORN their donor list to use to get more money. Is ACORN part of the Obama campaign? Its harder and harder to even take a question like that seriously. Is Tweedle Dum related to Tweedle Dee? Does it fit his long pattern of sleeze? Of course it does, and to avoid being called racist, I'll use a phrase referencing the African continent: can a leopard change his spots? From The Pittsburg Tribune-Review:
A former staffer for an affiliate of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now testified today that the organization was provided a "donor list" from the presidential campaign of Barack Obama in late 2007 for fundraising efforts.

Anita Moncrief, a former Washington, D.C. staffer for Project Vote, which she described as a sister organization of ACORN, said her supervisor told her the list of campaign contributors came from the Obama campaign. Moncrief said she has a copy of a "development plan" that outlines how Obama contributors who had "maxed out" under federal contribution limits would be targeted to give to Project Vote, and that it was her job to identify such contributors.

Moncrief testified that ACORN and Project Vote were virtually identical....

An Obama campaign spokeswoman last week had said the campaign has "no ties" to ACORN.

Moncrief, 29, who now lives in Virginia, also said that she had taken a call from an Obama campaign worker inquiring whether it was the same organization Obama had worked with in the 1990's.

Moncrief said she had received repeated warnings to "back off" from testifying today by people she knows at ACORN.

"I thought it was powerful testimony. She took a great personal risk," said Heather Heidelbaugh, an attorney representing the state GOP.

Well God bless her. It takes a lot of guts to stand up when the Obama campaign has made examples of everyone else that dares to defy His Holiness. Hell, it takes guts just to stand up to the crazy kool-aid swillin' cult members that worship him.

Tuesday, October 28, 2008


In the audio that surfaced last week with Obama bemoaning the courts inability to "redistribute" the wealth, he also went on about how the constitution was screwed up because it gave us negative rights, not positive. It says what the government can't do to you, not what the government can do for you. Wise men, those constitutional convention guys! But unfortunately, The Messiah doesn't feel that way and thinks that the constitution needs to be fundamentally changed. Yet another instance of his patriotic love of country being so strong that he needs to destroy it to make it better. Thomas Sowell:

One of the biggest and most long-lasting "change" to expect if Barack Obama becomes President of the United States is in the kinds of federal judges he appoints. These include Supreme Court justices, as well as other federal justices all across the country, all of whom will have lifetime tenure.

Senator Obama has stated very clearly what kinds of Supreme Court justices he wants-- those with "the empathy to understand what it's like to be poor, or African-American, or gay, or disabled, or old."

Like so many things that Obama says, it may sound nice if you don't stop and think-- and chilling if you do stop and think. Do we really want judges who decide cases based on who you are, rather than on the facts and the law?

If the case involves a white man versus a black woman, should the judge decide that case differently than if both litigants are of the same race or sex?

The kind of criteria that Barack Obama promotes could have gotten three young men at Duke University sent to prison for a crime that neither they nor anybody else committed.

Didn't we spend decades in America, and centuries in Western civilization, trying to get away from the idea that who you are determines what your legal rights are?

What kind of judges are we talking about?

A classic example is federal Judge H. Lee Sarokin, who could have bankrupted a small New Jersey town because they decided to stop putting up with belligerent homeless men who kept disrupting their local public library. Judge Sarokin's rulings threatened the town with heavy damage awards, and the town settled the case by paying $150,000 to the leading disrupter of its public library.

After Bill Clinton became president, he elevated Judge Sarokin from the district court to the Circuit Court of Appeals. Would President Barack Obama elevate him-- or others like him-- to the Supreme Court? Judge Sarokin certainly fits Obama's job description for a Supreme Court justice.

A court case should not depend on who you are and who the judge is. We are supposed to be a country with "the rule of law and not of men." Like all human beings, Americans haven't always lived up to our ideals. But Obama is proposing the explicit repudiation of that ideal itself.

That is certainly "change," but is it one that most Americans believe in? Or is it something that we may end up with anyway, just because too many voters cannot be bothered to look beyond rhetoric and style?

We can vote a president out of office at the next election if we don't like him. But we can never vote out the federal judges he appoints in courts across the country, including justices of the Supreme Court.

The kind of judges that Barack Obama wants to appoint can still be siding with criminals or terrorists during the lifetime of your children and grandchildren.

The Constitution of the United States will not mean much if judges carry out Obama's vision of the Constitution as "a living document"-- that is, something that judges should feel free to change by "interpretation" to favor particular individuals, groups or causes.

We have already seen where that leads with the 2005 Kelo Supreme Court decision that allows local politicians to take people's homes or businesses and transfer that property to others. Almost invariably, these are the homes of working class people and small neighborhood businesses that are confiscated under the government's power of eminent domain. And almost invariably they are transferred to developers who will build shopping malls, hotels or other businesses that will bring in more tax revenue.

The Constitution protected private property, precisely in order to prevent such abuses of political power, leaving a small exception when property is taken for "public use," such as the government's building a reservoir or a highway.

But just by expanding "public use" to mean "public purpose"-- which can be anything-- the Supreme Court opened the floodgates.

That's not "a living Constitution." That's a dying Constitution-- and an Obama presidency can kill it off.


More pics just in time for Halloween! Creepy-as-hell photo essay at Looking at the Left. This one takes the cake as far as creepiness. I'm joining Moonbattery in calling for the Orkin man to be alerted before these events! lol.


Listen up, comrads! From Moonbattery:

Obamanomics is based on the morally repugnant class warfare principle of setting aside a group of people called "the rich," who are to be pillaged and exploited for the sake of everyone else. Under Stalin, to qualify as rich you only needed to own more than one samovar (a device for brewing tea found in most Russian homes); people were actually shot if government inspectors found a second samovar in the home of a "kulak" ("rich peasant").

Obviously imposing excessive taxation on "the rich," however they are defined, will cripple the economy as a whole, making everyone more miserable. It isn't the poor who invest and employ — it is the demonized rich.

But before we even reach that point, there is the problem that the grandiose schemes of egomaniacal socialist dictators tend to cost more than even the rich can pay. This is why the definition of "rich" slides downward until you find yourself dragged off by thugs over a samovar.

Obama has promised that he will only loot families that make more than $250,000 per year, showering their money down upon the rest of us by offering "tax cuts" even to people who don't pay any federal taxes. But what's this? The Moonbat Messiah hasn't even been elected and already the mark has been moved down to $200,000 ...

Meanwhile, Plugs Biden has lowered the mark to $150,000.


The Weather Underground. The group William Ayers, Obama's buddy, bombed and killed with. I linked to a video previously of FBI informant Larry Grathwohl recounting their planning sessions. To recap:
Grathwohl discussed what the Weathermen intended to do after overthrowing the U.S. government, including what they would do with those Americans who refused to embrace communism.

I asked, “Well what is going to happen to those people we can’t reeducate, that are diehard capitalists?” And the reply was that they’d have to be eliminated.

And when I pursued this further, they estimated they would have to eliminate 25 million people in these reeducation centers.

And when I say “eliminate,” I mean “kill.”

Twenty-five million people.

I want you to imagine sitting in a room with 25 people, most of which have graduate degrees, from Columbia and other well-known educational centers, and hear them figuring out the logistics for the elimination of 25 million people.

And they were dead serious.

Now Bob Owens has interviewed Mr. Grathwohl here. Check it out and Happy Halloween!

Think about it. Would you sit in the same room as a man that advocated this and is not only not ashamed of it but felt he didn't do enough?!

He been made a professor, has hundreds of "respected" academics signing a list supporting him and has spent hundred of thousands on "educational" boards to indoctrinate children into his worldview.

His alliance with Obama so many times in so many ways over so many years is NOT an issue?!

But then I forget, its about the economy, stupid. Well think about it now people because if you become a slave to the state you won't need to think about it ever again.

Emperor Misha relates a story about one of his children at Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler:
My Heirs have been going through election stuff in 1st grade because, well, we have an election coming up, which makes it sort of relevant. All that stuff about how elections work and how your right to vote is very, very important and how you need to exercise it no matter what. I appreciate that. We’ve already taught them that, but I don’t mind the reinforcement one little bit.

So, anyway, the oldest Heir (by all of two minutes) is sitting there with me, asking me about the candidates in this election, and somehow the conversation drifts to whether they have families too. He asks me whether the Obamessiah has any siblings and I answer, truthfully, that I only know about a half-brother living in Africa on a dollar a month, relying on the kindnesses of strangers to get by.

“Doesn’t Obama have money?”, he asks me.

“Sure”, I say, “more than we’ll probably ever have.”

“Why doesn’t he give some of it to his brother, then?”

“I don’t know. I guess he doesn’t want to.”

The Heir thinks about that for a moment and then says: “Well, dad, when I grow up and make a lot of money, if I make a thousand dollars, I could send them to his brother so he could have a house and some food to eat.”

See? That’s redistributing wealth done the right way. Not at the point of a gun, but because my kid thought that he wanted to help this guy that he didn’t even know.

Yeah. I choked up alright. Great kid. Here we are, stuck in shit so far it’s creeping into our nostrils, yet he still has the heart to feel for a complete stranger. A complete stranger whose own brother doesn’t give a shit, I might add. Hearts of pure gold, both of them. If there’s anything that I might have had a hand in teaching them that I feel proud of, that would be it.

And what is it that the children of liberals learn? To worhip at the alter of a cult of personality, lead by a man who will do "good" with other people's money, giving them the glorious freedom to always be thinking about only themselves and their feeeeeelings.

Virtue can only come through freedom. Enforced virtue is no virtue at all.

And you know another thing? A focus on the results of your good intentions in the real world, on real people is what goodness and love really is. A focus on the good feelings you yourself get from your good intentions, regardless of their results, is nothing but narcissistic self-love. Its just another drug. Not love. You're just getting yourself off and calling it "being spiritual, not religious."


“Elect us, hold us accountable, and make a judgment and then go from there. But I do tell you that if the Democrats win and have substantial majorities, Congress of the United States will be more bipartisan,” said Pelosi.

In other news today, left is right, up is down and black is white.


Of course the left has been slowly moving from education to indoctrination in our schools for decades and have largely succeeded. This is what has paved the road for the demogogue that will show his "patriotism" by destroying his country so that he can love it, if we are foolish enough to give him the power. But it is another thing altogether when children are indoctrinated into a cult of personality. This is what Kim Jong Ill does, what Mao did and hosts of other totalitarian marxists. Now Obama's website is encouraging what is already being spontaneously done by his devotees.

Dr. Slogan's Prescriptions has the story and concludes by saying:

Now let’s wrap up the tour and put this into perspective. Is this all so bad? Is it bad at all? Shouldn’t kids be involved? Aren’t they entitled to their opinions? Is it wrong to reach out to them to open their eyes, so that they could change opinions of their parents? There are two way to answer these questions. One is simple ethics. Make no mistake: this is not about reaching out to the supporters. Sen. Obama openly goes after the kids of people who don’t plan to vote for him. He and his staff see the minds of children as a backdoor to get to the voting parents and grandparents. So, yes, it is bad. It is wrong. It is despicable. And there’s no excuse for this.

There’s another way to answer the question. What does our government think about this? Are they ok with targeting children with propaganda? As it turns out, they are not. When it comes to commercial advertisement, government bodies such as FDC and FDA have been going after marketers who target children age 12 and under. Yes, it’s exactly the same age group that Sen. Obama targets so explicitly. Just last year FDC along with its European counterpart pushed Masterfoods to stop marketing of its products (e.g. Snickers, Milky Way and Twix) to kids. Apparently, from the government’s perspective, kids age 12 and under are not mature enough to figure out whether Snickers are good or bad for their health, and thus can be misled by advertising. But of course, figuring out where a presidential candidate stands on taxes, abortion, education and national security is much easier. So why would the government have any problem with that?

I don’t know whether our government has a problem with that, but I sure do. Neither voting fraud nor accepting donations from untraceable foreign donors is as low as using kids to get to their parents. And the obsession that’s been sweeping the nation has gone too far if most adults in America don’t see it this way. But then again, these days adults in America proudly form groups called “Babies for Obama” where they exchange photos of infants wearing shirts covered with Obama propaganda.

The future is here. But with our votes and by sharing this information with others we can still prevent it from becoming a long-lasting dark reality, where kids are made into “very yung suportars” by pragmatic adults.

A totalitarian marxist saying America is just like Nazi Germany. Completely. Deranged.
From Little Green Footballs:

The audio recording of Barack Obama espousing his socialist philosophy of “redistribution of wealth” is all over the Internet and Fox News today (although most other media outlets are ignoring it), but there’s another disturbing section on that tape that has so far escaped notice.

The link to the audio is here: Chicago Public Radio - Audio Library: Odyssey.

At about 15:30, Obama compares what was going on in the United States during the time of Brown vs. the Board of Education to ... Nazi Germany. Yes, really. Here’s the quote:

“...just to take a, sort of a realist perspective...there’s a lot of change going on outside of the Court, um, that, that judges essentially have to take judicial notice of. I mean you’ve got World War II, you’ve got uh, uh, uh, the doctrines of Nazism, that, that we are fighting against, that start looking uncomfortably similar to what we have going on, back here at home.”

There you have it. America is close to electing a President who compares his own country to Nazi Germany.

Monday, October 27, 2008


From Neal Boortz:

If Barack Obama was applying for a security clearance as a government employee, these associations would disqualify him. We are, my friends, about to have a president who doesn’t qualify for a security clearance. Pretty pathetic. If Barack Obama becomes president, he would not even qualify to be his own bodyguard.


No really. And we might elect a man sworn to uphold a document he sees as an impediment to his plans to redistribute the wealth. Too incredible to be true? Here's the video from Michelle Malkin:

Michelle Malkin:

It’s Barack Obama musing about how best to redistribute wealth in America in a Chicago Public Radio interview in 2001.

Not whether, but how: Through the courts or through legislation?

A caller asks The One to explain how he would do “reparative economic work.” Obama gives the legislative route two thumbs up as his preferred method of “breaking free of the constraints” placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution and then burbles about cobbling together the “actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change.”

The bottom line from Jeff Goldstein:

In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”

Well, then. Fine .

But this is not the America I knew…

Sunday, October 26, 2008


Take just a minute and think about how Hitler, Mussolini and Lenin came to power and then read this
from NRO:

The Obama Temptation [Mark R. Levin]

I've been thinking this for a while so I might as well air it here. 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. I can't help but observe that even some conservatives are caught in the moment as their attempts at explaining their support for Barack Obama are unpersuasive and even illogical. And the pull appears to be rather strong. Ken Adelman, Doug Kmiec, and others, reach for the usual platitudes in explaining themselves but are utterly incoherent. Even non-conservatives with significant public policy and real world experiences, such as Colin Powell and Charles Fried, find Obama alluring but can't explain themselves in an intelligent way.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

Even the media are drawn to the allure that is Obama. Yes, the media are liberal. Even so, it is obvious that this election is different. The media are open and brazen in their attempts to influence the outcome of this election. I've never seen anything like it. Virtually all evidence of Obama's past influences and radicalism — from Jeremiah Wright to William Ayers — have been raised by non-traditional news sources. The media's role has been to ignore it as long as possible, then mention it if they must, and finally dismiss it and those who raise it in the first place. It's as if the media use the Obama campaign's talking points — its preposterous assertions that Obama didn't hear Wright from the pulpit railing about black liberation, whites, Jews, etc., that Obama had no idea Ayers was a domestic terrorist despite their close political, social, and working relationship, etc. — to protect Obama from legitimate and routine scrutiny. And because journalists have also become commentators, it is hard to miss their almost uniform admiration for Obama and excitement about an Obama presidency. So in the tank are the media for Obama that for months we've read news stories and opinion pieces insisting that if Obama is not elected president it will be due to white racism. And, of course, while experience is crucial in assessing Sarah Palin's qualifications for vice president, no such standard is applied to Obama's qualifications for president. (No longer is it acceptable to minimize the work of a community organizer.) Charles Gibson and Katie Couric sought to humiliate Palin. They would never and have never tried such an approach with Obama.

But beyond the elites and the media, my greatest concern is whether this election will show a majority of the voters susceptible to the appeal of a charismatic demagogue. This may seem a harsh term to some, and no doubt will to Obama supporters, but it is a perfectly appropriate characterization. Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

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.

The question is whether enough Americans understand what's at stake in this election and, if they do, whether they care. Is the allure of a charismatic demagogue so strong that the usually sober American people are willing to risk an Obama presidency? After all, it ensnared Adelman, Kmiec, Powell, Fried, and numerous others. And while America will certainly survive, it will do so, in many respects, as a different place.

Thank God for men like this telling it like it really IS:

Of course, as we have learned, this makes this man a racist.


Decepticon Obama hasn't waited until being elected to start shutting down free speech. Of course that has always been the case on the left with their protests and purging of dissenting opinion on campuses, but Obama is taking it to a new level. He has sent his troops to jam phone lines for interviews he doesn't like, He's filed legal papers against people he doesn't like and threatened IRS investigations against donors to people he doesn't like. A private citizen had the gall to ask him a question and the guy has his background gone through looking for something to destroy him. Do you see maybe a little bit of a pattern here?

Now he's cancelled all contact with a station he doesn't like. Their sin? Asking Joe Biden tough questions. You can see the interview here. Joe is just incredulous- he can't believe that questions are being asked of the campaign that should have been asked months ago. How dare they! They must be crushed. They are already going through the interviewers past trying to destroy her.

She asked about ACORN and Biden lied through his teeth saying Obama never gave them a dime. He gave 800 million to one of their subsidiary groups and hid it by labeling it for lighting and events. When this was pointed out they said it was just an error. Uh huh. Obama's ties to ACORN are extensive, but Biden is outraged by having to face real questions about this with a real reporter doing her job instead of being part of the Obama campaign like the rest of the MSM.

In reference to Obama's answer to the impertinent Joe the Plumber's question, that he wants to spread the wealth around, the interviewer quoted Marx: "from each according to his ability to each according to his need." She asked how this is any different. Good question. It isn't. Obama is a Marxist. He has been allied with them his whole career. But this kind of question is not allowed and not properly deferential to His Majesty's Regime.

So how would an Obama socialist revolution proceed in what was once America? The same way it has everywhere else. The state will control the media. Free speech will be shut down. They are already talking about bringing back the fairness doctrine to shut down talk radio- they are even talking about extending it to the Internet. (of course Obama denies he would do that. we can trust him, right? cough cough) .

What is even more frightening is that the left will be happy to see this done and will be willingly complicit in this. I went to a bar last night with a McCain-Palin ball cap on and was told by the owner that I was not to discuss politics. This as I listened to Obama cult members going on and on about him all night.

Lets just hope that the mass murder all other socialist revolutions have resulted in won't happen here if we are foolish enough to elect our own destruction. It was seen as necessary by Ayer's Weather Underground. They stated that they would need to “eliminate” an estimated 25 million that would not be able to be re-educated. Ayers, Obama's long time ally and friend.

From Gateway Pundit:
Introduction: The LA Times is holding a video that shows Barack Obama celebrating with a group of Palestinians who are openly hostile towards Israel. Barack Obama even gives a toast to a former PLO operative at this celebration. If the American public saw this side of Barack Obama he would never be elected president.
But, the media refuses to release this video.

LA Times writer Peter Wallsten wrote about Barack Obama's close association with former Palestinian operative Rashid Khalidi back in April.
Wallsten discussed a dinner held back in 2003 in honor of Khalidi, a critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights.
Barack Obama has denied his close association with Khalidi, too.

According to Wallsten the evening not surprisingly turned into a classic Jew-bash:

"During the dinner a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."
Barack Obama also praised the former PLO operative during the event.
And, Obama confessed that his family often shared dinner with the Khalidis:

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases... It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation -- a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."

...The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.
Khalidi and the Obamas were great friends in Chicago and often shared meals together.
By the way, Khalidi was also best friends with Bill Ayers.

Why won't this reporter release the video? Michelle Malkin:

Jim Hoft has the story on the damning video of Barack Obama that the L.A. Times refuses to release.

Writes Jim: “It’s hard to imagine that the LA Times would hold onto a video of Sarah Palin praising an anti-Semitic radical and former PLO operative…”

Exactly. Guess the reporter doesn’t want to open himself up to the Joe the Plumber treatment.

The Obamessiah is already having success at clamping down on disent and he hasn't even been elected yet. Just imagine......then pray.

Friday, October 24, 2008




The New York Post has printed an article about markets being worried about Obama winning the election. No kidding. There will be no stability until after November, and if His Royal Messiahship wins, start stocking up on bullets and canned goods. And in case there's any question of his having "mis-spoke" about "spreading the wealth around", he's here to clear that up for you.

FOR REAL ( uh....language warning here)

Kim Crawford (via Protein Wisdom):

There have been any variety of temperaments and personalities to hold the office of President. They range from heroes to rapscallions. I fervently believe, however, that not one person to hold that office has ever hated his opposition. There have been the churlish and disdainful, for sure. Carter presumed a moral vanity against his foes, which grievance he nurtures to this day. Nixon was consumed by paranoia and fear, to the point of ridiculous capers in the cause of an aforetold landslide victory.

I mention this because I firmly believe Barack Obama absolutely loathes my kind. This man will not be content to win the presidency. He will spend his waking hours thereafter not pursuing the legitimate goals of state, but punishing those who would dare to oppose him. The man is devoid of humility, or any sense of humor. He cannot humbly accept his incredibly lucky break in the crapshoot of American politics. The absolute lack of any pushback or intercessions on the part of the journalist class has rendered him peckish and intolerant of any dissention, if indeed he was not born that way.

This man truly hates. As only someone who is quite aware of his great shortcomings can hate. And like the second monkey he can hear, or tolerate, no evil.

The inevitability of Barack Obama has rendered the sane lycanthropic, the skeptical bemused, the disputatious fearful. It is no coincidence that formerly reliable conservative pundits are jumping the McCain ship like bilge rats in a galley fire. Most people attribute this craven capitulation to elitism. Noonan, Frum, Chris Buckley, that dithering Converse finishing school twit Kathleen Parker, they’re elitists! No, they’re not. Or that’s not what is compelling them. They are fucking afraid. Afraid to be the last dissenting voice in the face of the Hope and Change juggernaut. The Chinese kid versus the tanks in Tiannamen they are not. They are elitists, but they are cowards first and foremost. We don’t need them. And, unfortunately for them, Obama doesn’t need them. Therefore I will speak their names no more.


I am not a reactionary person by nature, but trust me when I say the first 100 days of a Barack Obama presidency will bring holy hell upon those who adhere to a classical liberal philosophy. This man is a radical of the first stripe, and he has left no stone unturned in his quest. He has not committed voter fraud in the good old fashioned way. He has a vast network of ACORN operatives stealing votes through fraudulent means by the hundreds of thousands. This man has not committed campaign finance fraud in the good old fashioned way, squirrelling away Chinese monies like Bill Clinton. This cocksucker actually disabled his credit card verification system to allow tens of millions of illegal dollars to flow into his coffers from any number of enemies of the state. The droid army of the legacy press is aware of this, of course, but who wants to be the whistleblower once this man assumes power? No one. No fucking body. Wouldn’t be prudent at this fucking juncture, as 41 might say.

Did I mention this man hates me? You and me? Yes he does. Why? Because he can. Yes He Can. Beneath that cool persona is a megalomaniac. Cool? Like Stalin after a purge, emotionally and sexually spent. Like Saddam after a torture session, dozing in his chair with someone’s genitals curled in his fist. Like Pol Pot after a petit mal seizure, mumbling a litany of the dead. Cool that way.


From Powerline:

We noted here and elsewhere the astonishing degree of fraud that has fueled Barack Obama's record fundraising. The ultimate instance of Obama-fraud was achieved by a reader of The Corner:

So I went to the Obama website this afternoon and clicked on the "Donate" button.

I used my real MasterCard number (but was not asked for the 3 digit security code).

Used the following information and it was accepted...

First name: Fake
Last Name: Donor
Address: 1 Dollar To Prove A Point
City: Fraudulent
State: AL
Zip / Post: 33333
Email Address:
Phone Number: 2125551212
Employer: Mainstream Media
Occupation: Being in the Tank

And incredibly, my $5 donation was ACCEPTED!!!

I then went to the McCain site and used the exact same information (and WAS asked for the 3 digit security code for my MasterCard). There, my contribution was rejected with the following message: "Your transaction was not approved for the following reason(s): Invalid data", and then: "We have found errors in the information that you have submitted. Please review the information below and try again."

'Magine that!

Barney Frank's plans will certainly turn an economic crisis into a full scale depression. This, of course, is not too troubling to the left, as crisis is what they need to get otherwise sensible people to buy their snake oil. When there isn't one, they invent one, but a real crisis is much, much better for the Glorious Revolution. Barney in South Coast Florida Today:

After the November election, Democrats will push for a second economic stimulus package that includes money for the states’ stalled infrastructure projects, along with help paying for healthcare expenses, food stamps and extended unemployment benefits, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank said Thursday.

In a meeting with the editorial board of The Standard-Times, Rep. Frank, D-Mass., also called for a 25 percent cut in military spending, saying the Pentagon has to start choosing from its many weapons programs, and that upper-income taxpayers are going to see an increase in what they are asked to pay.

The military cuts also mean getting out of Iraq sooner, he said.


…Also, he said, “we’ll increase the federal share of medical care so states won’t have to lay off people.” Unemployment insurance benefits won’t increase, he said, but the period of collecting them will, and eligibility requirements might be relaxed.

And, ultimately, there will be tax increases on the upper brackets. “We’ll have to raise taxes ultimately. Not now, but eventually,” he said.

He neglected the re-introductions of the Orwellian-named "fairness doctrine," which is sure to be a priority. Free speech can not be tolerated from those with whom the wealth-spreaders disagree.