McCain Palin [video]

McCain picks Sarah Palin.


The best indicator of the effectiveness of the pick was the Obama Team’s first response:

OMG! We should have picked Hillary!!!!

Yeah – duh… No – actually it was this:

“Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain’s commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush’s failed economic policies — that’s not the change we need, it’s just more of the same.”

Ouch. I must have hit her them pretty close to the mark to get her them all riled up like that, huh, kid? – Solo 

Later they realized that probably seemed a little knee-jerk and issued the damage control reaction:

“We send our congratulations to Governor Sarah Palin and her family on her designation as the republican nominee for Vice President. It is yet another encouraging sign that old barriers are falling in our politics. While we obviously have differences over how best to lead this country forward Governor Palin is an admirable person and will add a compelling new voice to this campaign.”

Like I said above, interesting choice – certainly mixes things up with many pros and cons. Ed has a great rundown here. This is no doubt, one crazy election year!

Absolutely Amazing Video

Under Obama – I’m a filthy evil Phatty McRicherson

The best part about this ad is that the left doesn’t even deny it’s true. Here is a little segment from the HuffPo. Note the lack of denial cloaked behind, ‘well…technically speaking…’ bullcrap:

“The claim that Obama voted to raise taxes on people making more than $42,000 comes with a caveat. The Budget Resolution that Obama voted for and McCain now highlights was a provision to allow portions of the 2001 And 2003 Tax Cuts to expire. Taxes would have gone up. But it was not a vote to raise taxes.”

The simple question is – will Obama raise taxes? The answer is yes. And don’t try the ‘only on the rich’ because that is total subjective class based crap. Who gets to decide that, and how is that fair? 

“Oh – we’re sorry. We’ve decided that you’ve become too successful. We are now going to steal force you to pay more than other less successful people on the assumption that the only reason you are wealthy is because you somehow exploited people to get there. But don’t get upset, we are doing it for the good of ________________(insert glittering generality: i.e. ‘the children,’ ‘the elderly,’ ‘to save the planet’)”

-you’re friendly governmental tyranny

I know that the ‘Robin Hood’ approach sounds all justified and appeals to some people – but realize that it wasn’t simply ‘the rich’ whom Robin Hood was stealing from to give back to the poor. It was the corrupt government who was taxing the crap out of it’s people, and Robin Hood fought against that tyranny, or so the story goes.

Don’t be fooled. Taxing ‘the rich’ for the benefit of the poor, is bold faced, class based Marxism.

My wife and I worked our freaking rears off to get to where we are today (with some loving help from our parents who also worked their own rears off…). We went to college so that we could get decent paying jobs, and are now paying off our own educations. The idea that the state should have the right to force us to pay more for other people who have not chosen to work as hard, in my opinion, is totally unethical.

What say you? Would you like your taxes raised when you reach a certain level of prosperity defined by politicians?

I’m no Mathematician, but…

…something here just doesn’t quite add up (from Politico):


The three main components of Obama’s [energy] plan are:

— Get 1 million 150 mile-per-gallon plug-in hybrids on U.S. roads within six years.

— Require that 10 percent of U.S. energy comes from renewable sources by the end of his first term – more than double the current level.

Reduce U.S. demand for electricity 15 percent by 2020.

Obama’s New Ad: Marxism

Windfall Profits Tax = The State decides how much profit a business can make. If they are making ‘too much’ – the State then gets to take that profit away and redistribute it. That’s abject big government Socialism/Marxism wealth redistribution.

Obama conveniently failed to mention oil companies profit margin. Also, he neglected the fact that companies like Exxon Mobil already paid 3 times as much in taxes in 2007 as they made in profits.  And finally, these sort of ads seems to be assuming that oil companies only make money for a few sleazy suit-clad men sitting around at a board meeting. What they don’t point out is how many thousands and thousands average joe worker jobs there are in the oil industry.

Speaking of Windfall Profit Taxes, here’s what happened when President Carter tried them:

The Congressional Research Service called it total failure. I guess none of that matters though, because it sure feels really good to tax those evil oil bastards. Here’s a little more on this crap from the WSJ:

The “windfall profits” tax is back, with Barack Obama stumping again to apply it to a handful of big oil companies. Which raises a few questions: What is a “windfall” profit anyway? How does it differ from your everyday, run of the mill profit? Is it some absolute number, a matter of return on equity or sales — or does it merely depend on who earns it? 

If Senator Obama is as exercised about “outrageous” profits as he says he is, he might also have to turn on a few liberal darlings. Oh, say, Berkshire Hathaway. Warren Buffett’s outfit pulled in $11 billion last year, up 29% from 2006. Its profit margin — if that’s the relevant figure — was 11.47%, which beats out the American oil majors.

….consider Google, which earned a mere $4.2 billion but at a whopping 25.3% margin. Google earns far more from each of its sales dollars than does Exxon, but why doesn’t Mr. Obama consider its advertising-search windfall worthy of special taxation?

…..The point is that what constitutes an abnormal profit is entirely arbitrary. It is in the eye of the political beholder, who is usually looking to soak some unpopular business. In other words, a windfall is nothing more than a profit earned by a business that some politician dislikes. And a tax on that profit is merely a form of politically motivated expropriation.

It’s what politicians do in Venezuela, not in a free country.

Here’s our good ole’ buddy Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi babbling on about why she won’t allow a vote on drilling:

Gotta love her plan: We will release the Strategic Oil Reserve which will make prices go down…and then what? Not to mention – what happens if we need that oil, for you know – strategeries or something. (Isn’t she basically admitting that it’s a supply problem anyway?) Also – force the oil companies to drill where it won’t be profitable. Like I said before, why not open a tanning salon in the middle of the Sahara while you’re at it and see how that works out? Plus, somehow opening up drilling around the US won’t make price go down in a more lasting fashion than opening up a little reserve tank that we have here in the states?

Like I said before, I don’t think ONLY DRILLING will solve the problem. But I do think we need to do everything possible to fix the problem.

Obama should campaign on ‘Focus’ amidst all the ‘Distractions’

I mentioned this story last night about the uncontrollable glee of our wonderful and totally non-biased media to meet with Obama in Iraq. He is guaranteeing to bring ‘hope’ and ‘change,’ after all. If that’s the case, why is he such a total downer on America? Listen to him talk about our need to ‘redeploy’ in Iraq, where we are finally (again) finally starting to hear some good news (no thanks to our media). Remember – this speech was given just the other day BEFORE his trip to Iraq:

Exactly! Redeploy to what?!? That’s exactly what the surge was – a redeployment.

More Obama (the host, Marl Levin is pretty harsh in this clip, but he’s making a great point):

Oh, again with the ‘Distractions.’ I’m surprised Obama is campaigning on ‘Change’ rather than something like ‘Focus’. Everything Obama has opposed or disliked he has called a ‘distraction.’

The fact that people were concerned about his 20 years hanging out with Jeremiah Wright who he described as, ‘like a father’… Distraction.

Launching his campaign at unrepentant domestic terrorist William Ayers house:

"...led a violent rampaging protest in Chicago, and took credit for numerous bombings around the United States. ... Ayers insists he has no regrets. "I acted appropriately in the context of those times,""

"...led a violent rampaging protest in Chicago, and took credit for numerous bombings around the United States. ... Ayers insists he has no regrets. "I acted appropriately in the context of those times,""

Just a distraction….

I don’t think it’s a distraction to ask questions about legitimate concerns. John McCain has years and years on the record serving this country. Obama does not. Thus, it is important to learn what the guy really believes. I don’t think that’s a ‘distraction’ from anything.

Here’s audio of an Obama voter who trusts that Obama will cause change.

Not to mention, Is Obama’s plan for withdrawal even possible? ABC doesn’t think so:

Facts on the ground…also Distractions?

My point is, ‘Change’ and ‘Hope’ are the real distractions from what Obama actual policy suggestions. What do you think? The presidential race is basically just one huge job interview. What qualities does Obama have that qualify him to be your president?

“She wasn’t the only one crying…There was a whole lot of white people crying.”

Another white racist jack-hole pops up at Obama’s former church.

Do I believe that Sen. Obama agrees with this idiot? No. But I bet I can write the press release:

Obama had no idea about this guy’s positions either, and it doesn’t matter anyway because any concern about this at all is a ‘distraction’ from his campaign.

And let me try to explain one other thing. I’ve attended two churches regularly throughout my life. In about 25 years of attendance, there is one thing that I can guarantee: It only takes about two years of regular attendance to get a pretty clear understanding of what the church is like, and what the pastor’s and leadership’s stance on issues are.

In fact – I would even say that it’s dangerous and irresponsible to sit through more than a couple sermons without knowing where the church and pastor stands. Unless, of course, your view of church is just blindly accepting whatever they tell you (another commonly believed myth about Christians).

Either way, what I’m getting at here is that I find it totally unbelievable that Sen. Obama went to a church for 20 years that allows this sort of absolute garbage from the pulpit and never knew it. I recall one time that a guest was invited to our church who turned out to be a raving apocalyptic crazy (He talked about these absurd conspiracies with the Pres. Bush Senior trying to instigate a one world government, and how him and his wife weren’t having children because the end was near, and how we should buy his book so that we could be prepared for the end. It was all bullcrap.). If I remember correctly, our head pastor was pretty much horrified and devoted the entire next service to apologizing and taking questions, even though the nut-job guy didn’t even preach (he just had a table set up in the church lobby).

In sharp contrast, it would appear that Sen. Obama’s former church doesn’t seem to be all that offended by these white racist types. Note the introduction and outro the new Trinity pastor gives this idiot:

And you are going to tell me with a straight face that Barack Obama attended this church for 20 years and knew nothing, heard nothing, had no concept of this filth that Trinity seems to cheer about?


UPDATE: I guess Obama was cool with earmarking 100 Grand to this baffoon:

“Typical of Mr. Obama’s earmarks was a $100,000 grant for a youth center at a Catholic church run by the Rev. Michael Pfleger, a controversial priest who was one of the few South Side clergymen to back Mr. Obama against Mr. Rush.

Father Pfleger has long worked with South Side political leaders to reduce crime and improve the community. But he has drawn fire from some quarters for defending theNation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan and inviting him to speak at his church.”

File this under: Great displays of Judgement.

Sen. McCain Understands Iraq

I hate to say it, but Sen. Obama does not. McCain continues to make efforts to get closer to situation in Iraq so he can broaden his understanding – Sen. Obama basically repeats talking points (You might as well listen to a speech by Harry “the war is lost” Reid).

This is the question you should be asking about the situation in Iraq: Who do you think understands more clearly what is actually going on there: The troops on the ground, or a bunch of policy makers back in Washington?

The one thing Sen. McCain understands is that if we really want to figure out what’s going on, we have to talk to the men directly involved.

You can get this perspective too. Read this book by Michael Yon:
Moment of Truth in Iraq: How a New ‘Greatest Generation’ of American Soldiers is Turning Defeat and Disaster into Victory and Hope

Moment of Truth in Iraq - Michael Yon

Michael Yon, who is self supported, has spent months amongst the troops (more time than any other journalist) on the ground in Iraq. His book is what I like to call, the no Bull-S*** assessment of the situation. It’s a great read and you can get a clear picture of what General Petraeus’ strategy is for Iraq. I read half the book in one sitting cause I just couldn’t put it down.

Then you can congratulate yourself. In reading this book you will know more about the War in Iraq than most of the senators in Congress, sadly, including Sen. Obama.

As a voter, you owe it to yourself.

Also recommended: The Looming Tower.

Definition of A Precondition

Precondition: “An expression that has to be met before the task can be executed.

Sen. Obama apparently doesn’t agree with that definition. He is now simultaneously claiming that he would meet with Iran without preconditions, but that he would only do it if they met certain…uh…preconditions.

If he wants to talk about “guiding principals of diplomacy – Essentially, here is Sen. Obama’s new plan:

No talks with Iran until they end their nuclear-weapons programs, progressively tougher sanctions until they comply with international non-proliferation regulations and UN Security Council resolutions.

Note that this is exactly what the Bush administration has done since 2003.

Sen. Obama’s grasp of foreign policy is very odd to me. The more I hear, the more it appears to me that he simply doesn’t have a plan. Consider this next clip from a speech in Oregon the other day where he claims that Iran, Syria, etc do not pose a serious threat to the US:

That’s a messed up grasp of history. The reason we could talk with the Soviet Union was because they already had loads of nuclear weapons and they were a rational state that understood the implications of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranian Mullocracy is nothing like the government of Russia. The governments of Iran and Syria simply do not negotiate in good faith. Ed Morrisey expands on these thought in better words (I’ve added emphasis for skimmers):

Let’s start with the Soviet Union. We talked with the Soviet Union because they also had nuclear weapons. Obama seems to forget that the entire point of our Iran policy is to prevent being put in the position of having to cut deals with a terrorist-supporting, radical Islamist non-rational state. When the enemy already has the capability of destroying you several times over, negotiations are needed to keep one side from initiating a war. Only an idiot would think that the negotiations intended on disarming the Soviets, or they us. The same dynamic applies to our engagement with Mao Zedong and Red China; Mao was smart enough to hold himself out as a potential partner in a power balance against the Soviets.

The Soviet Union collapsed economically; they did not just decide to capitulate. The Berlin Wall did not fall as a result of negotiations, but because the regime propping it up ceased to exist. Why did the Soviet Union collapse? Because Ronald Reagan won an economic war with Moscow, forcing it to spend more and more and falling further and further behind. The Strategic Defense Initiative provided the coup de grace to the Soviets, who knew they could never match us in missile defense, and tried negotiating an end to the economic war instead, with disastrous results.

That would be the same SDI that Democrats staunchly opposed, sneeringly called “Star Wars” and proclaiming it a threat to peaceful coexistence. They wanted a decades-long series of summits instead of the end of communism, which sounds strikingly familiar in Obama’s speech. Reagan had to fight the Democrats to beat the Soviets, not through presidential-level diplomacy but through economic isolation and military strength.

Listen to Obama talk about the “common interests” supposedly shared between the US and the Iranian mullahcracy. What interests would those be? The destruction of Israel, the denial of the Holocaust, the financial and military support of Hamas and Hezbollah, or the killing of American soldiers in Iraq? And please point out the presidential-level, unconditional contacts that brought down the Berlin Wall. Our “common interests” didn’t exist between the East German and American governments; they existed between the people of East Germany and America in the promise of real freedom. When the Soviet power structure imploded, it was the people of East Germany who tore down the wall, not Mikhail Gorbachev, who watched it happen impotently.

Furthermore, the danger in Iranian nuclear weapons has nothing to do with the capacity of its Shahab-3 ballistic missiles. Iran’s sponsorship of terrorist organizations will allow them to partner with any small group of lunatics who want to smuggle a nuclear weapon into any Western city — London, Rome, Washington DC, Los Angeles, take your pick. That’s the problem with nuclear proliferation; it doesn’t take a large army to threaten annihilation any longer, which is why we work so hard to keep those weapons out of the hands of non-rational actors like Iran. The Soviets may have been evil, but they were rational, and we could count on their desire to survive to rely on the doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction. The Iranians believe that a worldwide conflagration will have Allah deliver the world to Islam, so a nuclear exchange may fall within their policy, and that’s assuming we could establish their culpability for a sneak nuclear attack to the extent where a President Obama would order a nuclear reprisal.

This speech reveals Obama to have no grasp of history, no grasp of strategic implications of a nuclear Iran, and no clue how to secure the nation and handle foreign policy.

It is clear to me that when it comes to foreign policy, Sen. Obama fails to grasp some crucial elements. Even worse – he has a very strange reading of history that leave out many crucial facts. I’m reminded of the opening quotation from The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich:

Those who do not know history are condemned to repeat it.” – George Santayana

Furthermore – Sen. Obama’s fervor over Pres. Bush’s remarks the other day in Israel (Note that the president didn’t make any reference to Sen. Obama, the Democrats, or even Americans…) were very revealing. It could have been his one chance to agree with the president and say, ‘No, we cannot talk without preconditions,’ but instead he decided to take the remarks as a personal attack. What the crap? If Obama doesn’t believe in appeasement (which is what President Bush was talking about) then why take his comments so personally?

I think the reason is because Sen. Obama doesn’t really have a clear stance on foreign policy. (Also, admitting that President Bush has done anything right is clearly off the table). Early on, he was criticizing the Bush Administration for not talking with Iran – and now he is pulling a 180 and basically mirroring the policy that he described as such a total failure.

So what is the plan then? Talk to them – but only if they stop their nuclear program? That’s what’s known as a precondition.

Read the remarkable Part TwoWhere Obama both hypes, contradicts, and criticizes his own policy and somehow blames it all on Bush. Make sure your head it securely fashioned because it may be in danger of spinning off.

Hewitt and Hitchens, on Obama and Iraq

Christopher Hitchens explains the importance of Iraq clearly and effectively.

Hitchens, Hewitt, Obama & Iraq



Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.