I figure myself a pretty sane fellow. I have a temper, but it probably runs only a little hotter than average.
In spite of my generally angelic nature, I have found myself wanting to crush something many times during this election cycle.

It's not the tawdry democrat nominee, with his lies about Ayers, Acorn, Wright and virtually everything else. It's not his nature, and his supporters' nature, which manifests in such ugliness as intimidating contributors, threatening radio stations, and muddying a common citizen, Joe. It's not that Obama is arguably a flat-out Marxist, and intends that my two little girls grow up in a radically different country - a much worse one in virtually every regard. It's not his radical, angry wife or his lunatic fringe friends. It's not even that I and millions of other Americans suspect - with good reason - that Obama basically hates traditional America and its values. Hates them. It's none of that. It's the fawning complicity of the press in all this.

There is no law againt a demagogue whipping up a bunch of Americans into an angry mob, bent on marxist "change". But it ought to be against the law for the press to be so unrelentingly biased.
This point was driven home as I watched the excellent "B-Cast" from Thursday, Oct. 16th. In the prior day's debate, Obama flatly said that his campaign payment to Acorn earlier this year was the extent of his involvement wtih them. It was a naked lie, as the program goes on to show, highlighting other sources. One news article they quoted noted that their research required only 30 minutes using the internet. Obama and Acorn are old and dear friends. It's him they turn to for their 'power' training sessions (yes, your country is on the verge of being taken over by a radical street agitator).
Acorn is undeniably shady, but since what they do promotes liberalism, they get a pass from the press. Were it a conservative group doing the same thing, it would lead every news story.
Obama's lies about Acorn during the debate are likewise irrelevant because it's Obama. If McCain had lied about involvement with a group that was considerably less shady than Acorn, it would again lead the news, and would be heralded as the big mistake that will 'cost McCain the election'.

The bias is so constant that it's numbing. And it's criminal because it flies under the banner of objectivity. They know about Obama and Acorn, they don't report it because he's essentially their new god. They know about his repeated gaffes and lies, but they ignore them as well. When ABC's Chris Wallace actually asked him a pointed question in a primary debate, he was savaged. This is madness, and these people are madmen. They are willing to throw away honor and integrity to see a leftist elected. In so doing, they are forfeiting the trust of millions of Americans that their colleagues built up over the generations.

TOTA

It turns out that racism is everywhere. We used to think it was obvious - contempt for another individual or group, or believing that another person is somehow deficient, because of their skin color. You don't hear or see much of that thinking anymore. But it turns out that we are just as racist as ever, we're just a lot more subtle about it. The great white mass and the racist politicians that represent us (republicans) have finally schemed long enough figure out a way to really pump out the racism, without it being quite so obvious.

The latest paragon of virtue and fairness to point to this new racism is Time magazine. Time is a news magazine that is published on a weekly basis, for people who like their news sufficiently cured and frequently irrelevant. You may remember having seen Time at supermarket checkout stands back in the early to mid 1990s. Time reports on a new McCain ad that pictures the corrupt and black ex-Fannie chief Franklin Raines, then pictures a white woman as the 'victim' of Raines malfeasance. Time evidently believes this is beyond the pale - racism. They accuse McCain of "playing the race card".
Fannie is at the center of the housing meltdown and has been a bastion of corruption, so it is news. Raines is black - sorry, McCain didn't appoint him or have anything to do with his birthing. Raines cooked the books to make Fannie look stronger than it was so that he could get big bonuses - he raked in $90 million over six years. The white woman probably is representative of the average victim of Fannie's malfeasance - many single white women and mothers bought houses during the democrat led period of insane lending, or are the ones working the finances for families in trouble. Should the ad have pictured a black person, or a white man? I can think of hit pieces Time could write about either of those scandalous choices.
So here's the math: McCain can point to malfeasance on the part of any black connected to Obama. But he can't juxtapose them next to whites in any way that makes it seem that whites may have been affected by their corruption. Or maybe picturing raines, and connecting
him to Obama would have been enough for Time to cry foul, since both are black. I guess the math is a little fuzzy.
When normal people see this ad, they think, "Gee, Obama is seeking advice from a fellow at the center of the housing mess, and it's affecting average Americans."
When the mental midgets at Time see this ad, they think, "There the racist republicans go again, here's an ad showing a black man victimizing a white lady."
When normal people see this ad, the mental midgets at Time believe that we are thinking, "Damn negroes! Damn negro Obama! Can't negroes do anything right? Negroes are all corrupt when they get into politics, where negroes don't belong. Here go the negroes again, abusing poor white people. Damn negroes. Martha, did you sticth my hood for me? Where's my rope? Are we taking the kids?" The people at Time who had anything to do with this piece should be ashamed of themselves.  The people at Time don't know any 'average' white people, they can't, or they'd know how repulsive their thinking is to the average white American.

It's not enough that Time perpetuates this lazy race-baiting, they also encourage racialist thinking by being overtly one-sided in their approach. Obama has repeatedly spoken in _explicitly_ racial terms, saying over and over that the GOP is trying to scare everyone because he is black, and because he doesn't look like the rest of the presidents on our money. This is _explicitly_ racial, but you will search in vain for an article headlined "Obama plays the race card" anywhere in Time or anywhere else in the old media. How about Michelle Obama and her scurrilously racist comments? And does Time know or care about the explicitly racist church Obama attended for 20 years? If any figure on the right spent one day in a church with white-leaning beliefs, their entire career in politics would be ruined.

It's a massive double standard, and it exists because Time and the rest of the media are racists, if you accept anything close to their definition. 
If racism is defined as racialism - a fixation on race - then Time is certainly racist.
If racism is defined as animus and preference because of skin coloring, then Time is certainly racist. Not only do they consistently give a pass to bad behavior on the part of minorities, they cheer-lead everything that gives advantages to any race.

Past aspects of Obama's life and past comments by Obama make it clear that he is fixated on race, "White man's greed runs a world in need". Those weren't his words, they were the words of his wise mentor, Jeremiah Wright. But Obama was so impressed with them that he included them in his 2nd autobiography, written at the age of 45 (after he had racked up so many more accomplishments after the publication of his first autobiography). Obama has surrounded himself with people with this same obsession, he attended a church with an explicitly racialist worldview and foundation, and the comments of his bed-mate are telling. Time encourages racism by helping the racist Obama at every turn. Did Time report on Obama's support for reparations? I didn't think so. Reparations is an explicitly racist policy. Had McCain spoken favorably of any policy benefiting whites at the explicit expense of blacks, the campaign would be over.


There is no end to this madness, so long as the insane definition of racism held by the left is allowed to prevail. Another example of how it plays out: It is considered racist to discuss crime statistics in racial terms. The government does collect data on crime in racial terms, but it is basically forbidden to discuss this data. Arguably, with the liberal definition, anything said about minorities can be considered racist if it can be considered a negative. It's fine to say that black unemployment is 12%, for instance - in that case, the unemployed blacks can easily be inferred to be victims of white racism, or the white system. But no failure of character or substance can be assumed or inferred - that would be racist. That is why it's not kosher to report crime in racial terms - most people still buy into the antiquated notion that it's the criminal's fault when he commits a crime, not the fault of society, or poverty, or racism. So the fault is one of character, thus it is taboo to discuss it publicly. One might ask what good reporting on crime in racial terms could possibly do. I can think of a slew of good reasons to report crime in racial terms, enough for another blog.

Racist currents in this country do exist, but you are more likely to find them among blacks and hispanics than among whites. This is little wonder, when you consider that Time and others have been telling minorities for decades that they inhabit a hopelessly racist country. When people are told this on a regular basis, is it surprising if they look for reasons to believe it? Thus the interaction between whites and others is poisoned. It matters not a whit how pure of heart any particular white person is toward minorities, they are automatically suspected of being deficient - morally - because of their membership in a specific race. Is that racism? It certainly fits the classic definition.

The left realizes that race is a giant lever of political power. The democrats have successfully used race for decades to insure they regularly get 90% of the black vote. And they use it shamelessly. Crime was a major issue in the 1980s, and in the 1988 election, democrat candidate Mike Dukakis was taken to task for a policy that allowed convicted violent felons weekend furloughs, unsupervised. One of these people, Willie Horton, killed a man on one of these furloughs. An organization friendly to George W. Bush ran an ad about it - a perfectly legitimate attack ad: The northeastern liberal governor is out of touch with Americans on crime. Unfortunately, the ad was also racist. It said that, "the policy was applied to all prisoners, even blacks". No, actually it said that, "a number of violent black felons had committed new violent felonies while on furlough". No, not that either. It simply said the name "Willie Horton" and showed his picture - he's black. That fact set off a firestorm. It wasn't that there were three white guys who had done the same thing, and the racist republicans chose the black one. He was the only furlough murderer. It was because they showed a picture of a murdering thug to make a point about crime, and that thug was black. That was the racism.

This mindset precludes utterly any real resolution of racial issues. When we're routinely accused of racism when we aren't even thinking about race, how is an open and honest dialogue possible?
The template now in place is rotten to its core. It makes no accounting for the fact that _almost all_ whites have no animus in their hearts toward minorities. If they are seen succeeding, we are cheered, if they fail we are discouraged. On the very rare occasion that a public figure clearly denigrates them, we are outraged (I'm trying to think of when this last happened). When black leaders speak to the higher virtues of their people (and everyone) we encourage them, and sometimes we encourage them even when they speak to envy and contempt. Most of us could care less what a person's skin color is, we truly care more about character.
It is fair to say that most of us encourage our children to think of minorities no differently than they think of anyone else, to think of them as individuals. I don't know what most black and hispanic parents are telling their children, and letting them overhear in the house, but we know what Time magazine wants the little ones to hear and think.

TOTA

If you aren't familiar with Real Clear Politics polling data, its worth looking at. CBS radio news was reporting today that CBS/NY Times had done a new poll, and that Mr. Obama was now five points ahead of Mr. McCain, as if this were a simple fact.
The only fact here is that the poll grossly over-sampled democrats. Take a look at the 2nd chart, "Generic Congressional Vote". Note that this polling sample was 14 points above the average spread - which is already skewed due to this one poll. Other charts further down the line are also skewed for this polling sample.
Obama probably doesn't take much comfort in polls like this one. Though he likes a pretty picture as much as anyone, with polling, he wants hard and accurate data. So when outside organizations such as CBS conduct polls, he hopes they will call a representative set of Americans. This time they called a bunch of really bitter, angry liberals. Obama already knows what they think, he married one. Yikes.

TOTA

Here is a link to a letter from a Palin detractor in Wasilla: http://community.adn.com/adn/node/130532
This has gotten some play, so let's look at it.

1. The writer has personal problems with Sarah and her authenticity. Consider this statement:
"...by no stretch of the imagination is fishing their
major source of income. Nor has her life-style ever been anything
like that of native Alaskans."
The next statement?
"Sarah and her whole family are avid hunters."

And her husband is a snowmobile racer. So in what regard is their life not like native Alaskans? This betrays a deeper animus - Kilkenny loves Alaska, and she considers Palin to be an outsider, inauthentic. How can this not color everything else she says?

2. The writer is a political activist. She worked for ten years with "student voting". That's probably a politically palatable synonym for something leftist. And her position problems with Palin all come from the left side. The polar bear is not endangered by any measure, this lady wants to keep it on the list so that the frozen tundra can remain undisturbed. She's in a tizzy because Palin doesn't swallow the 'global warming' bilge. I would bet a limb that she's a radical pro-abortion feminist. Any takers?

3. Palin's greatest reform victory, putting the energy companies in their place, gets about twenty words. This woman doesn't even qualify the success, she just states that Sarah did it. Does that mean it actually happened? Historians - wake up! The lady has spoken. We can officially give Gov. Palin credit for something significant. If you have any other questions of Ms. Kilkenny, Alaska's chief historian, she can be reached at 1-800-DUM-MUTT. 
If you can't reach her, there's plenty of Sarah fodder on her list. The world-threatening disaster of __________ (fill in the blank with some petty BS that this vindictive, angry harpy has on her list) is much worse than a state-wide change that improved the prospects for every Alaskan family. Let's be sure to keep all of this in perspective. 

4. The writer thinks her fellow residents are low-grade morons, and apparently they are. How else can we explain Palin's 80+% job approval rating, and widespread popularity in Wasilla? According to this lady, virtually every public action Palin has ever made has been an unmitigated disaster. How can the people of Alaska be so blind and stupid? If you didn't believe it already, this is proof that the writer is a big fat liberal.

5. Anyone can find a list of mistakes made by a public official. This wacko-nutjob finds fault with everything Palin did. She says Palin is not a fiscal conservative because she initiated a sales tax, even on food! Wait a minute - Wasilla had no sales tax? Gee, it's infrastructure must have been wonderful. And I would bet a dime to a dollar that the sales tax on food applies as it normally does - on prepared food, not on groceries. Did the writer know this and simply fail to mention it? And for the writer's edification: fiscal conservatism doesn't always mean spending less. It means spending wisely. Was the sports complex a bad idea? Perhaps, no one is perfect, except of course Ms. Kilkenny - perfectly vindictive.

6. Jealous. Jealous of Palin's many positive attributes, and jealous of her success. This lady is politically active - she's carried a bleeding grudge against Sarah into the national campaign. Why didn't she run for mayor? My guess is that we'll find out why when we talk to the other citizens of Wasilla. There's a good chance that this lady is considered bright, but nasty, and perhaps mental. Decidedly not leadership material. But you may have launched yourself into liberal prominence, Ms. Kilkenny - the left will love you for it.

7. The writer also shows her radical liberalism over the 'censorship' issue. We know that the list being circulated of "books Sarah wants to ban" is a fake - some of the books on the list were published years after the event. So let me ask Ms. Kilkenny - Does the local library subscribe to "The Advocate", the leading homosexual magazine? Why not? Are there no gays in Wasilla, and don't they deserve some support from local government? How about movies, does the library rent movies? Do they have "Greasy Truckers and Double-Wide Asses?" No? Why not? What if someone requests it? How about the series of books on assassination and bomb making? Your small town library already censors its contents, Ms. Kilkenny. You simply have liberal ideas of what pollutants ought to enter our kids' minds. Like all leftists, you laud the worst sewage vomited up as free 'speech' and never consider where it ends up Nor do you consider whether the founders ever intended bestiality and CG kiddie porn to be free speech (the left side of the Supreme Court believes they are free speech).

That's enough. This is a bitter, bitter woman. She's a hard-core leftist radical who ran up against a real woman more than a decade ago and hasn't had a good night's sleep since.

TOTA

In his Stephanopolous interview, Obama claimed to have considered military service, he said he reflected on it upon graduation from high school - there was no war on, so what caused him to sit down and give it so much thought was that he signed up for Selective Service.

But he graduated high school in 1979, and the SS was instituted by Carter in 1980.

Obviously the entire story is a contrivance. And he said it with such earnestness. Here's what this episode tells us: He is a natural born liar, and he is surrounded by idiots. No one can keep him on a leash short enough to avoid colossal blunders like this one. Clearly, he's trying to pump up his 'natural security credentials' and his patriotism. So he tells a naked lie. McCain gets his arms broken, and the closest this fake comes to military service is lying about having considered it 30 years ago.

TOTA

It matters not to the left that 80+% of Alaskans approve of Palin's work. Alaska had been considered' in play' in the election, which means it was a relatively moderate state. If it was split 50/50 Dem/Rep, that means that more than 60% of democrats are overlooking party, overlooking her 'archaic' position on abortion, and saying, "I'm man or woman enough to admit that someone from the other party is doing a damn fine job.'

Not the movement left. They are consumed with hatred for Sarah. They see in her a possible resurgence of conservatism, a possible start to turning back the decades of liberal ideas dominating government, the arts, academia, and even the press. If she is nearly as popular with Americans as she is with Alaskans, most people will just turn off the old media if it craps on her. The leftist media will have to give her a fair shake, so her message will get out. And that will be the end of leftism as a political force in America, at least for decades if not generations. Sarah can get away with saying much more, and saying it much more bluntly than a man could. We already know she is a caring person (except for the lunatic left, they think she is either stupid or cruel for birthing her child Trig after she knew about his Down's Syndrome. The people making this argument are numerous, and to a person they are mentally ill).
I've watched hours of interviews with Mrs. Palin, she is sharper than any politician I have ever seen. When she answers questions, she treats opposing arguments with the right tone, puts exactly the right emphasis where it should be, and leaves no necessary argument unvoiced. She is going to do extremely well with this week's ABC interview, and on October 2nd, before upwards of 30 million people, she is going to beat poor Joe Biden like a drum. People will pity him, with good reason. The main thing Sarah needs to worry about is beating him so badly that it evens out due to widespread sympathy for Biden. For this and so many other reasons, not the least of which is her obvious goodness, virtue, and beauty, the movement left HATES her.

HATE

The question is often asked, 'If you could go back in time and murder Hitler before he came to power, would you do so?' You can bet that many on the left view Sarah as similarly monstrous. Yes, that is how deranged they are. Consider: To countless abortion radicals, a country where women are forced to put their babies up for adoption instead of aborting them might as well be a giant concentration camp, the nexus of repressive evil in the modern world. Similarly, some view her as a monster because she would help bring millions of Americans out of dependence and to self-reliance, real pride, without the government carrying them every step of the way. The government can instill pride through educating and preparing people for life - meaningful pride is found in living it well as a free and independent person. That satisfaction is the enemy of the left, people who experience it do not desire to become clients of the state, which is all the left really has to offer, before the country turns to mush and the bombs fall.
Sarah repulses all of their plans, and their reaction is precisely what we would expect.

But these hypocrites cannot force Sarah to do anything. She is a lioness who will eat them - and their lunch. The movement left would love to lock up people like her, put them behind barbed wire. Incredibly, a sitting congressman, Dick Armey, said as much at a CPAC conference in the 1990s. He's right - this is what the left is fond of doing whenever they take uncontested power. They lock up those who would stir up dissent against the government (them), or they simply murder them.
It happened to at least 95 million individuals in the 20th century, almost all killed by leftist governments*. The pattern is always the same: Shut down alternate media, take away the guns, and start rounding up undesirables and those whose lives are 'not worth living'. It's happened so many times that the pattern is set. Leftist utopia is dystopia, and not everyone wants to cooperate, so the gutters run with blood.
Consider how closely the fondest desires of the left in recent years coincide with the pattern: For years they were eager to ban and/or register guns, registration being key to later confiscation. Then people realized that this was insanity so the left reluctantly withdrew into the shadows. Now they desire more than anything to punish their political opposition, the Bush administration, and also to silence the opposition of the new media. It's no surprise that accompanying advocacy of the 'Fairness Doctrine' crusade, already, is the concession that blogs and internet content will have to be regulated as well, to insure fairness.
We're in the early stages of their long campaign. If it's not derailed, the end is predictable.

Sarah gives us hope and drives us to work for the movement, even if only through giving our labor through direct contributions. That is another thing the left must crush, our hope.
You can be certain that this is a fact: Destroying the individual named "Sarah Palin" is now the primary and most urgent object of the left. Our lioness may require our assistance, be ready.

TOTA

*From the tome, "The Black Book of Communism", written by French leftists. They estimate 95-200 million people, so I have quoted the low figure. But what's 105 million individuals, give or take? They were standing in the way of the utopia that the brilliant governing leftists sought to create. As Lenin said, one death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic.