Archive for October, 2008


The Drudge Report this morning led off with a link to audio of Barack Obama on WBEZ, A Chicago Public Radio station. And this time, candidate Obama was not eight years old when the bomb went off.

Speaking at a call-in radio show in 2001, you can hear Senator Obama say things that should profoundly shock any American – or at least those who have not taken the time to dig deeply enough into this man’s beliefs and affiliations.

Abandon all Hope, Ye Who Enter Here:

Barack Obama, in 2001:

“You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the Civil Rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of re-distribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

“And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution – at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [it] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

“And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the Civil Rights movement was because the Civil Rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.”

A caller then helpfully asks:

“The gentleman made the point that the Warren Court wasn’t terribly radical. My question is (with economic changes)… my question is, is it too late for that kind of reparative work, economically, and is that the appropriate place for reparative economic work to change place?”

Obama replies:

“You know, I’m not optimistic about bringing about major redistributive change through the courts. The institution just isn’t structured that way. [snip] You start getting into all sorts of separation of powers issues, you know, in terms of the court monitoring or engaging in a process that essentially is administrative and takes a lot of time. You know, the court is just not very good at it, and politically, it’s just very hard to legitimize opinions from the court in that regard.

So I think that, although you can craft theoretical justifications for it, legally, you know, I think any three of us sitting here could come up with a rationale for bringing about economic change through the courts.”


I am at a complete loss as to how 50% of America can fall for this guy’s bullshit. There can be only one explanation. Half of America, the left half, has a mental disorder. You morons deserve what he does to you, but I sure as fuck don’t. I’m smart enough to see through this man’s lying ass and can see the writing on the wall. I shouldn’t have to suffer because half of you are morons with a mental disorder.

Here’s an interesting tidbit:

A speechwriter for Obama, Edwards, and Clinton on why she’s voting McCain.

Since I started writing speeches more than ten years ago, I have always believed in the Democratic Party. Not anymore. Not after the election of 2008. This transformation has been swift and complete and since I’m a woman writing in the election of 2008, “very emotional.”

When I entered this campaign, it was at the 2006 Edwards staff Christmas party. My nametag read “Millie Worker.” When former Senator John Edwards read it, he laughed and said, “That makes you like my parent.” He went on to say, “Would you please come down to Chapel Hill so we can talk about what’s coming up.” I sat in John and Elizabeth’s living room for two and half hours. I left North Carolina, energized about politics for the first time in months.

I didn’t hear from anyone for three weeks.

She has a lot more to say about it. Go read it over at The Daily Beast.

And from FOX, this nice little gem:

The Barack Obama We Hardly Know

Monday , October 27, 2008

By John R. Lott Jr.

Is Barack Obama a socialist? A Marxist? It is hard to believe that question could even be seriously asked of a major party political candidate.

Nevertheless, there have been a few times that voters have gotten a glimpse of Obama in unguarded moments. Glimmers that remind me of the left-wing academic whom I ran into a number of times while we were both at the University of Chicago Law School.

— When Charlie Gibson asked Obama in April why he supported higher capital gains taxes, even if that meant less government revenue and thus less money to give to those Obama wants to help, Obama didn’t challenge Gibson’s claim. Instead he said: “I would look at raising the capital gains tax for purposes of fairness.”

— In the middle of October, when speaking to “Joe the Plumber,” Obama justified higher taxes this way:

“It is not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everyone who is behind you, that they have a chance for success too. I think that when you spread the wealth around, it is good for everyone.”

— A bombshell was released this weekend when a copy of an interview by Obama on WBEZ-FM, Chicago Public Radio, from 2001 was found (bold italics added):

“The Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society … and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused, I think there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that. … I think that you can craft legal theoretical justifications for it legally, any three of us here could come up with a rational for bringing about economic change through the courts.”

Class warfare rhetoric is one thing. But as Obama’s comments to Charlie Gibson indicate, Obama disapproves of the very notion that people should be successful. Why is making the wealthy poorer “fairness,” even when the poor also get less money? The goal is not to help the poor, it’s to keep the wealthy from getting too much. It is apparently better that everyone be poorer than it is to have everyone have more money but a greater dispersion of income.


Victor Davis Hansen has a good article over at Pajamas Media:

Reflections of a Campaign Now Past (Almost)

Here are ten random thoughts on this depressing campaign that I have not see discussed much in the media.

1. Advice on McCain: stay focused on the economy; on socialism; on the effort to redistribute income by taxing some at rates (aggregate federal, state, payroll, and Medicare taxes) at 65% while half the taxpayers are to be excused from federal income taxes. Reiterate Obama’s own past support for redistribution and spreading the wealth, and why such a worldview is the touchstone that explains all the creepy associations from Chicago, the boards and foundations, and the church. What they all have in common is a belief that the United States is an unjust country and that a powerful state must intervene to take from some to give to others in a way that transcends the progressive income tax. That was the theme of Rev. Wright’s sermons on the evil on black middle-classness that won him a 10,000 sq. ft mansion and the subtext of Dreams From My Father and Audacity of Hope that likewise earned the Obamas a stately mansion. Socialism pays!

2. Throughout this campaign one has wondered why McCain did not rhetorically offer up scenarios in which he asked what would have been the media reaction had he had friends like Ayers, Khalidi, Wright, or Pfleger?

He did that yesterday in connection to Khalidi, not elegantly, but nonetheless in a way that made one think that the media would have gone ballistic—e.g., envision McCain going to a dinner honoring some right-wing anti-Semitic activist, who was an associate of Yasser Arafat, damning the United States and Israel? And imagine as well an associate of McCain, who was a former abortion clinic bomber, emailing and phoning the senator until 2005? And imagine McCain sitting in a church for twenty years, as his white racist pastor deplored the growing multiracial nature of the United States, and McCain fending off charges that he could not remember such sermons—despite being married in the church, having his children baptized there, and using such a pastor’s clichés for the title of his book—and assuring the Chicago Sun-Times that he attended services promptly at 11 AM each Sunday.


Still sick, but back to work and I may as well try the blog for a bit. Here’s a couple from the Heritage Foundation. The subject; taxes, taxes and job creation.

Obama really sucks, but you morons on the left won’t see this until it is too late.

Obama’s and McCain’s Tax Plans: A Mixed Bag

by J.D. Foster, Ph.D.

WebMemo #2101

Senators John McCain (R-AZ) and Barack Obama (D-IL) have released tax plans indicating their priorities when one of them becomes President of the United States. These plans involve significant changes to the federal tax system. While numerous blanks and vagaries remain in both plans, much of their respective plans are now clearly laid out.

As expressions of tax policy design, the two tax plans share the unfortunate attribute of adding to tax complexity. In other respects, the McCain proposal significantly advances good tax policy by emphasizing lower rates while the Obama plan raises tax rates. The Obama plan also suffers in its proliferation and expansion of refundable tax credits, further (and inappropriately) using the income tax system as an income support system.

The Heritage Foundation’s Center for Data Analysis (CDA) has a detailed overview of the two plans and an assessment of their economic effects.[1] According to CDA, by 2018 the economy would be more than $320 billion larger (after inflation), and average household income would be more than $2,600 greater under the McCain plan than under the Obama plan.


The Obama and McCain Tax Plans: How Do They Compare?

by William W. Beach, Karen Campbell, Rea S. Hederman, Jr. and Guinevere Nell

Center for Data Analysis Report #08-09

Either Republican Senator John McCain or Dem­ocratic Senator Barack Obama will have to make very important decisions on tax policy when he takes office in January 2009. First, the U.S. econ­omy will be recovering from the financial crisis and is already predicted to grow less than its usual rate of 3.3 percent over the last 50 years.[1] Second, Pres­ident George W. Bush’s tax cuts will expire in 2011, and the President must decide how to extend or make permanent some of the tax cut provisions.

Senator McCain will make the Bush tax cuts per­manent, with the exception of the estate tax. McCain credited the Bush tax cuts with helping the economy recover after the 2001 recession.

Senator Obama, on the other hand, will extend the Bush tax cuts only for those taxpayers who earn less than $250,000 a year—he has deemed the rest of the people “rich.” Senator Obama will also enact new tax increases on these rich individuals as well as a series of targeted tax credits for lower-income indi­viduals. Senator Obama believes that the current tax system is not progressive enough and that higher taxes on the rich should be used to give money to low-income individuals or those who do not work at all, such as retired people, reduce the deficit, and reduce the size of Social Security’s shortfall.


Job Creation from the Obama and McCain Tax Plans: A State-by-State Analysis

by Shanea Watkins, Ph.D.

WebMemo #2105

A recent Heritage Foundation Center for Data Analysis report[1] describes the economic outcomes that can be expected based on the presidential candidates’ proposed tax plans. The outcomes include the effects of these proposed policies on gross domestic product, disposable income, and employment growth over a 10-year period.

The analysis finds that job growth under Senator John McCain’s (R–AZ) plan at the national level is more than two times faster than job growth under Senator Barack Obama’s (D–IL) plan. Table 1 shows the average yearly employment gain that can be expected in each state as a result of McCain’s and Obama’s tax plans.[2]

Job creation grows faster in McCain’s plan because of the plan’s pro-growth provisions. The McCain proposal includes lower tax rates for businesses and allows businesses to deduct the cost of new purchases of equipment and technology in the first year. Both of these proposals lower business expenses, leaving more money for business owners to use for employment and operation purposes. Owners will use this money to hire new staff, purchase more materials, and invest more in research and development activities.


God help us all. We certainly can’t help ourselves with the current candidates for president.

Round up

Posted: 28 Oct 2008 in Axis of Idiots, Comarade Obama, Politics

I’m sick today, so I’ll just throw a few things in here and call it a day.

“There is another factor at work in this year’s election that makes polls and predictions more unreliable than usual. That factor is race. Barack Obama’s string of victories in early Democratic primaries against far better known white candidates shows that large segments of the American population have moved beyond race. It is Barack Obama and his supporters who have hyped race, after his large lead in the polls began to shrink or evaporate, as more of the facts about his checkered career came out. Almost any criticism of Obama has been equated with racism, even if there is no connection that can be seen under a microscope. Barack Obama himself started this trend when he warned that his opponents were going to try to scare the public with various charges, including a statement, ‘And did I say he was black?’ McCain said no such thing. Palin said no such thing. But those who support Obama—and this includes much of the media—are acting as if they just know that this is the underlying message. Congressman John Lewis has likened Senator McCain to George Wallace. Congressman John Murtha has condemned a whole section of the state of Pennsylvania as ‘racists’ because they seem reluctant to jump on the Obama bandwagon. Senator Harry Reid has claimed that linking Obama to deposed and disgraced Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines is racist, since they are both black—as if the financial and political connection between the two does not exist. Much is being made of the fact that, in past elections, some white voters who told pollsters that they are going to vote for a black candidate did not in fact do so, so that a black candidate with a lead in the polls ended up losing on election day. This is supposed to show how much covert racism there is. It might instead show that people don’t want to be considered racists by pollsters because they are leaning toward someone other than the black candidate. In other words, the media themselves helped create the charged atmosphere in which some people give misleading answers to pollsters to avoid being stigmatized.” —Thomas Sowell

Here’s another good quip for the day.

“Transcend means ‘to move beyond, to surpass.’ At least that’s what I always thought. But I’m beginning to wonder whether it means instead: ‘Much, much more of the same, only this time really stupid.’ Exhibit A: the incessant, relentless, click-your-ruby-red-slippers-and-say-it-until-it-comes-true mantra that Barack Obama will magically cause America to ‘transcend race.’ One hears and reads this everywhere, but less as an argument than as a prayer, an expression of faith, a ‘from my lips to The One’s ear’ sort of thing. It is, of course, total and complete nonsense. According to L.B.O. (Logic Before Obama), transcending race would involve making race less of an issue. Passengers on Spaceship Obama would see race shrink and then vanish in the rearview mirror. Instead, Obama has set off a case of full-blown race dementia among precisely the crowd that swears Obama is leading us out of the racial wilderness. Rather than shrink, the tumor of racial paranoia is metastasizing, pressing down on the medulla oblongata or whatever part of the brain that, when poked, causes one to hallucinate, conjure false memories and write astoundingly insipid things. For instance, a writer for Slate sees racism when anyone notes that Barack Obama is—wait for it—skinny. What this portends for Fat Albert is above my pay grade. We need to rewrite those old Schoolhouse Rock cartoons, because now virtually any adjective, noun, verb or adverb aimed at Barack Obama that is not obsequiously sycophantic or wantonly worshipful runs the risk of being decried as racist. Community organizer? Racist! Mentioning his middle name? Racist! Arrogant? Racist! Palling around with a (white) terrorist? Racist! Celebrity? Racist! Cosmopolitan? Racist! This? Racist! That? Racist! The other thing? Oh man, that’s really racist. The new Schoolhouse Rock cartoon: ‘Conjunction: a word that connects a racist attack and Barack Obama’.” —Jonah Goldberg

And with that, I present you all with this little nugget. It’s time to fire every last one of them in Congress, including Obama.

Back at it.

Posted: 24 Oct 2008 in Comarade Obama, Politics

Been busy lately and didn’t have much time to write.


Fighting the Media as well as Obama

…the Project for Excellence in Journalism issued a report comparing the news coverage of Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama.

According to the report, 57 percent of the news stories about McCain were deemed to be negative. Only 14 percent were considered positive, and the remainder was judged to be neutral. Obama’s coverage was a completely different story. Obama’s news stories have been 36 percent positive, 29 percent negative, and 35 percent neutral.

So, McCain gets painted in a negative light 57 percent of the time compared to only 29 percent for Obama. McCain gets portrayed positively a meager 14 percent of the time compared to 36 percent for Obama. The media are ignoring the background, associations, and policy proposals of Obama. If they aren’t going to do the digging, then who will?


It isn’t any surprise to me. I have actually stopped watching any news on the boob tube because of it.

I’d rather search out my news on the internet than listen to the obvious bias coming from the Moronic Steaming pile Media

Obama spreads wealth – to non-taxpayers
Author rips senator’s universal mortgage credit as socialist ‘welfare’

After John McCain ripped his opponent’s universal mortgage credit as “welfare” because it would give funds to non-taxpaying citizens, Barack Obama’s campaign announced a work requirement for the proposal – but “The Audacity of Deceit” author Brad O’Leary said the plan remains a form of socialist wealth redistribution.

“No matter how Barack Obama tries to dress-up his tax welfare plan, it is still a welfare plan,” O’Leary said in a statement. “Under Obama’s massive plan for wealth redistribution, 44 percent of Americans will never pay federal income taxes, and many of these folks will also receive bonus, or ‘welfare,’ checks from the government.”

According to ABC News, Obama adviser Austan Goolsbee said a work requirement was added to silence critics such as O’Leary who claim the plan takes money from working citizens and redistributes it to people who do not pay taxes.


And America is still waiting. If you really are an American born citizen, then produce the birth certificate. It’s that easy. Not responding to the lawsuit is the same as admitting to the allegation.

Obama ‘admits’ Kenyan birth?
Campaign doesn’t respond to claims in lawsuit over birth certificate

Pennsylvania Democrat Philip J. Berg, who filed a lawsuit demanding Sen. Barack Obama present proof of his American citizenship, now says that by failing to respond Obama has legally “admitted” to the lawsuit’s accusations, including the charge that the Democratic candidate was born in Mombosa, Kenya.

As WND reported, Berg filed suit in U.S. District Court in August, alleging Obama is not a natural-born citizen and is thus ineligible to serve as president of the United States. Though Obama has posted an image of a Hawaii birth certificate online, Berg demands that the court verify the original document, which the Obama campaign has not provided.

Now Berg cites Rule 36 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which states that unless the accused party provides written answer or objection to charges within 30 days, the accused legally admits the matter.


Some people are the most fucking clueless when it comes to anything of importance. I give you a statistical analysis covering the years 1981-2001: These are the same years that I served in the Army. Just a coincidence really.

In the category of gun deaths; 707,635 deaths by gun occurred for all reasons. This included accidental shootings and legal shootings of criminals.

In the category of vehicle deaths; 948,135 vehicle deaths occurred during this time. This included motorcycles

In the category of abortions; 25,840,584 abortions occurred during this same time frame. I hope you assholes on the left are proud. This is a low estimate by the way. The CDC thinks that there are many more that were not reported for various reasons. Some states, including the communist state of Kalifornia didn’t report all their numbers.

These statistics are available at the CDC website.

I think we are focused on the wrong issue.

Guns don’t kill people. People with Dr. in their name kill millions in the name of “pro-choice”. What a fucking tragedy.

They should rename pro-choice to pro-murder. That’s really what it is. Doesn’t sound so sexy when it’s put into perspective, eh?

Oh, did I mention that I support California Proposition 4, the one where a minor can’t have a medical procedure hence forth known as infant murder, without the parents’ knowledge? I already voted absentee. That’s one. Assholes.

I also voted yes on Prop 8, marriage is defined as between a man and a woman, not some fucking abomination that the homos decided was a great idea.  Nothing personal, well, maybe it is personal.

Fuck off liberals.

Obama and Taxes

Posted: 17 Oct 2008 in Comarade Obama, Politics

The Obominable One’s taxes will kill America.

Also at Castle Argghhh! This is a must read for all you knuckleheads that think Obama is the chosen one.

Out of everything said at the debate last night, the thing that kept going around and around in my mind was Senator Obama’s claim that “only 2% of small businesses” would be affected by his plan to raise taxes on incomes of 250,000 or more.  As if this had no real impact on the growth of small businesses or the number of people employed.

Small businesses are responsible for 80% of the job creation in the United States every year.  While many small businesses only employ the owner, there are literally millions of small businesses that employ 1 to 499 employees.  That’s the cut off for small businesses that Sen. Obama would like to re-define.  He wants to classify single owner, single employee businesses as “not small businesses as we invision them”.  Exactly what else should they look like if not someone working for themselves?  Isn’t that the American Dream?

Of course, Sen. Obama’s entire purpose is to whittle down this number in the Public’s mind so that when he talks about raising taxes he and we can pretend that it isn’t really that big of a deal.  Well, if it isn’t that big of a deal, why do it at all?


Talk about fucking over America.

And half this country has no fucking clue.


Time to look at some good old military stuff.

The XM-312, “Light .50”

Over at Argghhh! they are talking about the new XM-312, Light .50 machine gun.

It isn’t a replacement for the venerable Ma-Deuce, but an augment that has its place where the Ma-Deuce is rather cumbersome.

It has the same barrel life as the M2, 10,000 rounds which is a good thing, plus there is no need to do the head-space and timing, ever.

PM Soldier answered some questions regarding the weapon, check it out over at Argghhh!

NObama 08

Posted: 16 Oct 2008 in Comarade Obama, Guns, Politics

Obama’s Record On Firearms Sucks

Today’s Must Read

Posted: 15 Oct 2008 in Comarade Obama, Politics

Here’s a couple must read articles:

Obama’s Three Strikes

By J.R. Dunn

In dealing with the unexpected, the unusual, or the threatening in life, it’s good to keep in mind Goldfinger’s dictum. As explained to James Bond just prior to dumping him into the shark tank (or was it chopping him in half with a laser? I forget.), Goldfinger’s dictum goes like this: “Once is bad luck, twice is coincidence, three times is enemy action.”

Goldfinger was alluding to the mystic power of three. Three is a meaningful and potent number, for both good and evil. The good is embodied, as we all know, in the Trinity. Less attractive are such things as three-strikes-you’re-out and the “three men on a match” of the WWI trenches. In this case, three is all that is required to establish a pattern of malignant activity. Three and no more. Add another one, let it go to four, and it might well be too late.

Which brings us to Barack Obama. With the news that he belonged to the far-left New Party during the 90s, public revelations of his involvement with fringe left-wing politics have hit three, the other two being William Ayers and ACORN.


Wright 101
Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Rev. Wright’s anti-Americanism

By Stanley Kurtz

It looks like Jeremiah Wright was just the tip of the iceberg. Not only did Barack Obama savor Wright’s sermons, Obama gave legitimacy — and a whole lot of money — to education programs built around the same extremist anti-American ideology preached by Reverend Wright. And guess what? Bill Ayers is still palling around with the same bitterly anti-American Afrocentric ideologues that he and Obama were promoting a decade ago. All this is revealed by a bit of digging, combined with a careful study of documents from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, the education foundation Obama and Ayers jointly led in the late 1990s.

John McCain, take note. Obama’s tie to Wright is no longer a purely personal question (if it ever was one) about one man’s choice of his pastor. The fact that Obama funded extremist Afrocentrists who shared Wright’s anti-Americanism means that this is now a matter of public policy, and therefore an entirely legitimate issue in this campaign.


The BS with Freddie and Fannie

Posted: 15 Oct 2008 in Politics

This BS lies squarely on the Democrats. Watch this shit: