In Ayn Rand's remarkable book, Atlas Shrugged, the most ingenious and productive members of society flee to their own Shangril La, a refuge from the statists who are busy dismantling the country and persecuting the prosperous.
We have no such refuge.

It is impossible for Americans to go anywhere else to find freedom. This is our Shangri La, and it always has been. That it is now under assault is no surprise. The movement against American traditionalism has been well underway for decades.

Long ago, the left foresaw the difficulty of inculcating Americans with the necessary dependency or contempt required to dismantle the country. They undertook to remake America's consciousness in a number of ways.
First, they specifically targeted for takeover America's consciousness forming institutions: media, Hollywood, academia, foundations, and local community organizations.

Second, they changed America's immigration laws to insure that the bulk of people arriving here would not be well educated, and would not be required to show any particular fidelity to America or American traditions (for instance, we allow dual citizenship and do not require proficiency in the national language).

Third, they recognized that the key to long-term power in a democracy is to hold the purse strings, and to make the populace dependent upon government for support. Part of this is making sure voters believe that the left's enemies will take away their benefits. This is not problematic for a democracy, so long as only a small minority are affected, but Social Security and Medicare reach right into every home, and sure enough, every election we hear that Republicans will destroy or cut these programs. It's gotten, already, to the point where something close to half of all American voters are receptive to giving lavish government benefits to middle class citizens who have always been free and independent.

Fourth, they have relentlessly pounded the 'racism' and 'classism' drum, so much so that things like naked voter fraud are excused, and citizens cannot be expected to be able to identify themselves when voting. The left has diminished our most sacred right and responsibility.

Fifth, by relentlessly proposing government action in response to every problem, the left encourages people to think in these terms. Insidiously, they create crises through government action - things like the credit crisis and soaring health insurance costs - and propose more government as the solution. Some problems are so large now that many think only a massive solution of some sort will solve them.

Sixth, they talk down every tradition, institution, and success that make America great: When Americans work hard and want to keep the bulk of the money they earned, they are greedy. When America liberates 25 million men, women, and children from the rule of a genocidal madman, we are imperialists. When America is attacked, we deserved it, when we are at war we will lose, when the rest of the world is against us, they are right. When we find the poor and downtrodden amongst us, as Obama has said over and again, we do "nothing" for them. The existence of free talk radio is the result of ______, and it ought to be controlled by government regulations and censors because it is so biased and unfair. The visceral reaction to all of this thinking is, "You people are literally insane", but there are some fairly intelligent people making these arguments, and some, like Obama, are hypnotic demagogues. Many are listening.

Finally, they quietly undermine or dismantle every other institution in society upon which individuals have always relied, and which have traditionally been at the center of their existence - family, marriage, child-rearing, work, the military, education, religion, local government, and free associations. They want to drive wedges between the individual and every other element of support in society, so that individuals are left standing 'naked before the state'.

It's clear how these forces have combined, at this particular juncture in history. Forty seven years ago, when the democrats' hero JFK was leading this country, these radicals had scarcely reared their heads. JFK was, by modern standards, a relatively conservative president. He would almost certainly have been a republican were he running today. His running mate, however, was not a traditional democrat, and he proved it by opening wide the door to radicalism. The radicals are now in charge of the democrat party, and there is no sign that the sane democrats who are left are capable of dislodging them.

The only reason we are now a weakened nation is that we have allowed America and its constitution to be undermined from within by radicals. We'd never have allowed a foreign power to damage us in this way.

This makes things crystal clear for conservatives: No matter what the outcome of this election, we are literally fighting for the existence of a free country, and possibly, a free world. If America goes the way of Europe, our light will wane, and the darkness will advance. It's not merely a matter of whether our children will grow up in a free country. Now, as we seriously contemplate the ascendancy of radical leftists to the highest levels of world power, the question literally becomes whether, a generation from now, any children, anywhere, will be born into freedom.
The left and unchecked power are not a good mixture, they are like fire and gasoline. Whatever they control is consumed, or left burnt-out and dessicated. If they are stopped in this election, they will be back in four years. They will never go away, so we must make them powerless.

No matter what the outcome is on election day, our future as active conservatives is clear: These people must be thoroughly discredited, and if possible, their policies must be made illegal. The constitution must be changed to place explicit limits on taxation and federal spending. A separate Amendment may be justified later to re-affirm basic freedoms and address judicial activism. The debate, even if it is ultimately lost, will help to re-affirm the centrality of the constitution, and will engage the nation in a long-overdue discussion about its foundation and its future.

The alternative, as we will all admit if we can bring ourselves to face it, is to watch our country slowly deteriorate under the rule of increasingly radical political demagogues.

It is said that no democracy can endure for long. Thankfully, we do not live in a pure democracy. It is also said that no civilization can endure for long, regardless of its basic structure. But there has never been an America before, and there has never been an American Constitution before. America has long been the exception to many rules, and if we are still a serious people, we can prove these rules wrong as well.

____________________

John Kerry is a classy guy. These people will say anything, and their leftist supporters will forgive it, because none of them has a shred of class or genuine dignity. Let's see who comes out and condemns Kerry's rudeness. Don't hold your breath. If a significant republican had said something equally stereoptypical about Obama - say, that his favorite meal is chicken and ribs - the election would be over. Kerry was their nominee last time, next to Obama, Pelosi, and Reid, he's about as big as they come. Such a witty, clever man.

Does anyone recall the 1996 GOP primaries during which Buchanan made a serious run at the nomination? Some liberal republicans denounced him, thinking themselves the conscience of the party. Right or wrong, they saw in Buchanan a dangerous man who might permanently send their party into the wilderness.

Obama is further to the left than Buchanan is to the right. But the sum total of democrat conscience is one senator from CT, Joe Lieberman. Not a single additional democrat has come forward to question the potential threat that Obama poses to democracy, to America, and to the democrat party. He is by far the most liberal man to ever seek the white house, and not a single conservative democrat aside from Joe Lieberman has a problem with it?

I still maintain that Obama cannot win. By election day, the chaos on wall street will be a month in the past, in all likelihood. If it flares up again, it's hard to see it benefitting Obama any more than it already has. And with any luck, the GOP will clarify their message: Obama means a permanent change to a dependent middle class. He wants working Americans on a firm leash.
Millions of Americans, perhaps ten million or more, will go into the voting booth without a firm commitment to either candidate, and Obama's radicalism and life-long associations with radicals will loom large for many of them. Meanwhile, I can't imagine more than a handful of conservatives sitting this one out. Some may have a literally visceral hatred for McCain, but will vote for him anyway to save their kids and grandkids from the enslavement of socialism.

TOTA

WHAT IT'S REALLY ALL ABOUT

The Overlord seeks to tie the middle class to government. He wants to make them dependent upon regular checks from the government for this or that, so that in every election, the left can say, "The Republicans will take away ________________."

They've done it with social security for the last 75 years. Chile instituted a private system years ago and the median Chilean has much greater wealth than the median American, but we're too stupid to do it effectively here, if you listen to The Overlord. In reality, he will oppose anything that takes power out of the hands of government and puts it directly in the hands of individuals.
The Overlord wants dependency - they want you to be dependent upon government and to turn away from self-reliance and private associations for support.
On every level, the left seeks to drive wedges between humans and every other source of support and succor: family, community, state, employer, house of worship. The federal government interjects itself in all of these relationships, and seeks to draw every person into the orbit of the state.
They see in society - as it is - great injustice. Some have much, some have little. When The Overlord and his wife speak of America as it is and America as it ought to be, this is what they are talking about - the unequal distribution of wealth. The unequal distribution of effort is irrelevant to them, a side note that is way down on the list of reasons for unequal wealth. And since there is no God and this world is all we will ever experience, the unequal distribution of material security and goods and pleasures is intolerable. Get it? This is all about philosophy, all about fairness. It's not about growing the economy so that a greater and cheaper abundance is available to all. It's not about maximizing the effort of all. It's about the end result, because that's all there is.

That's also why things like voter fraud do not trouble the left, and why they refuse every effort to control it - people have to produce ID to buy a beer, approach the state, cash a check, and often to use a credit card. But it is an undue burden on the poor to require people to have photo ID when voting. Rampant voter fraud is fine with the left because _the entire system is so unfair_ that any means are justified to change it. A little cheating is nothing.

Think twice before surrendering your independence. With dependence comes self-loathing, then self-justification, then a feeling of entitlement and hatred of the hand that feeds you. It's not good for your soul, for your pride, or for your future.

The Overlord speaks as if we presently do nothing for anyone who is hurting. The federal government budget amounts to over $3 trillion of a $14 trillion economy - that doesn't count state and local government, nor future obligations for which we are putting away nothing. Of that $3 trillion, well over half is direct payments to citizens to address various needs. The list of human needs and wants is endless.
You can tax all the millionaires and billionaires at 80% and not get enough to fund The Overlord's plans for larger government. The idea that the 'rich' avoid taxes through loopholes was once true, but is no longer true, the top 5% of earners pay more than 53% of all income taxes. Most in that category pay a combined 50% plus of their income to federal, state, and local taxes. That's not 'progressive' enough for The Overlord. How much of a person's workday can the government lay claim to before the taxpayer starts to wonder if they can afford an extended vacation?
The problem is not too little government. We already have a massive government. The Overlord's scalpel will do little to trim it down, certainly not enough to cover the additional $1 trillion plus he seeks to spend on new government transfer payments to the middle class. Not tax cuts, mind you. It's all about tax credits - you get the money, but only if you behave in ways The Overlord wants to promote. Allowing an actual rate cut which would leave people free to spend the money as they see fit is outside the worldview of The Overlord.

Control and dependency.

TOTA

The three most recent polls, all of which are post VP debate, have McCain down by an average of four points, from a 6.2 deficit three days ago.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/polls/

The NBC News/WSJ poll that has Obama up by 6 also has the generic congressional up by 13, two above the average of the others. So it probably oversampled democrats.

They tried to sell the idea that the race was over when Obama went up by six. All other things being equal, we'll likely see a tie race this time next week. If any of the stink surrounding the Chosen One starts to stick, this race could turn quickly. Apparently the best Obama has to throw at McCain is the Keating 5. He and his handlers truly hope we are a nation of blithering idiots. McCain was exonerated by a Senate ethics committee. They are bringing it up because they have nothing else. Our man is truly Mr. Clean.

TOTA

Opportunities abound.

1. More government is the solution to every problem identified by Obama. Obama should be pressed to identify any exceptions, which will invariably be a very tiny part of his overall plan. In no instance does he believe that less government is the answer.

2. Obama tried to press Iraqis to delay US troop withdrawals in favor of negotiating anew with his new administration. Why?

3. If the kindergarten sex-ed issue comes up, McCain should be familiar with the language of the legislation. It does not limit K sex-ed to "warnings about strangers".

4. Only 2/3 of workers pay any income taxes. How can he cut taxes for 95% of all workers? Obama says the "rich" don't pay their fair share, yet the majority of people he wants to hit with punitive taxes are small business owners. It would not be out of line to ask him what percentage of the income tax burden the top 5% now pay, and what percentage he thinks they ought to pay. America deserves to know his idea of fairness. He can put it in such a way that he won't come across as defending "the rich" (God forbid).

5. Obama has said he'd consider postponing his tax increases until after the economy improves, so that they don't further damage the economy now. If they are damaging, why impose them at all?

6. McCain needs to clearly explain his $5000 health insurance tax credit. And he needs to flesh this issue out: If costs are going to come down, the only way to do it is to increase competition and consumer choice. Obama should be challenged to produce a single instance where more government involvement has reduced the overall cost of anything.

7. If Obama's personal associations crop up, McCain cannot say that these subjects are tawdry and off limits. What is tawdry is Obama's record of questionable associations. McCain needs to frame this as an issue of judgment, and of fundamental disconnection from the American mainstream - it is remarkable that Obama thought that normal Americans wouldn't be shocked by his company and his afro-centric church. The people in Obama's church went nuts every time Rev. Wright slammed America - are we to believe that Wright avoided generating these rapturous reactions whenever Obama was in church?

8. Focus on the human component of Iraq: First, our soldiers. They have been repeatedly betrayed by democrats, who have accused them of all manner of atrocity, have tried to deny them funding, and have said that the war is lost and can never be won. There is no parallel in American history aside from Vietnam. Both political parties have traditionally stood against America's enemies to the end whenever Americans have been in the field. Our soldiers hear what Democrat politicians say about their war - it cannot hearten them. Second, Iraqis. Iraq is a country littered with mass graves. If Iraq were the size of America, Hussein killed the equivalent of 3-4 million people, and attacked a mid-sized city with chemical weapons, killing 50000+.  Almost every American knew someone who died in Vietnam, and 70000 Americans gave their lives there. Imagine living in a country where you knew many people who ended up being killed by their own government. Countless thousands more suffered torture and repeated rape in Hussein's sons' rape rooms. When we helped the Iraqi people turn the page, we made a commitment to those 25 million individuals. Now that the surge has succeeded, political reconciliation is continuing apace.
We've made a significant commitment to Iraq; after all that our brave soldiers and our taxpayers have given, we're not going to risk failure, as Obama is willing to do. We're not going to give the enemy a drop dead date to rally around, and plan towards. It took Americans longer to get their house in order after winning freedom from tyranny than the Iraqis have taken to date. If we abandon them as Obama plans, it will be a betrayal, and a signal to all people struggling under tyranny and slavery that Americans will not stand with them to the end.

9. He must trace the mortgage crisis in broad terms. For most of America's history, the price of houses kept pace with inflation. Laws written by democrats brought millions of new buyers into the housing market, driving up prices and producing the bubble that has now burst. Lenders were forced to make loans they would not have otherwise made, and then they engaged in all kinds of shenanigans to mitigate the additional risk.

10. McCain ought to paint this housing/credit crisis as a perfect example of the need for reform, and the difficulty of reform. He needs to note that Bush attempted on 12 or more occasions to curb Fannie and Freddie, or to institute additional oversight. Anyone can make a far-reaching speech touching on potential problems facing the country, and years later say, "I warned about this years ago". It takes a leader to deliver change, which is why McCain co-sponsored, two years ago, the most far-reaching reform of F&F ever proposed. Democrats killed it in committee on a party-line vote.
Democrats are openly blaming the Bush administration for this whole mess, and people have to access alternate media to hear anything different. This affects every republican running this year, the democrats cannot be allowed to get away with it. They stubbornly refused, in the face of mounting evidence, to do anything about these problems.
This is a case where both more regulation of Washington and more regulation of wall street was required. But McCain cannot trash-talk the free market - it was government action that ultimately led to the entire crisis. Absent the Community Re-Investment Act and the subsequent changes in borrower requirements, the housing market would be placid. There was no scare in the housing markets during the 1987 and 1991 Wall Street dives. He also ought to note that more regulation is not always the answer; in general, business, particularly small businesses, needs to be freed from regulation. 75,000 additional pages of federal regulations are produced every year. Obama makes it sound like the free market is unfettered, and is to blame - McCain must deny this adamantly, and place the blame where it lies, on the round shoulders of activist government.
Clarifying this is potentially as important for the base as it is for the voters. We've been treated to three weeks of Barney Frank sniveling about Bush's recklessness ruining the economy, with no response from our leaders in Washington. The record needs to be set straight in the only place it can be - an unfiltered forum. McCain doesn't have to coddle Bush - no one did enough to prevent this. But at every step, democrats resisted change. Challenge democrats to open investigations to get to the root of the problems.

11. It makes little impact to challenge Obama's new spending plans if he's allowed to get away with the idea that closing loopholes will pay for all of it. What loopholes, exactly? McCain also ought to familiarize himself with the actual impact on the lower and middle classes of the evil Bush tax cuts.

12. If Obama lies, call him on it there and then. Challenge him directly on it. And if a subject comes up that the media has ignored, include as part of the answer that this is but one of many stories you'll hear little about if you are dependent upon old media for your news. The vultures are literally digging through Palin's garbage, but Obama's past is off limits. Make the point that millions of Americans still don't really know the man.

13. Be ready for Obama's stock answers on infanticide. His most consistent answer is that there was already a law on the books to protect these Illinois children. But the Illinois government was considering new legislation precisely because the old law was not working, as testimony clearly showed.
Obama doesn't know when human life begins, and he's said his first act as president will be to strike down all abortion limitations, including such things as parental notification. Under Obama, America would be the most abortion-friendly country in the world. And Mr. Obama talks a lot about how we're judged by how we treat the least among us.

14. A spirited defense of Sarah may be possible, if circumstances permit. Voters know more about Sarah's daughter's pregnancy than they do about Obama wasting $100 million dollars of Anenberg Challenge education money in Chicago, in his only executive experience to date.

15. When Obama invariably argues that McCain is Bush because they vote together 90% of the time, McCain needs to point out that many votes are not contentious political issues, Obama also votes with Bush frequently - few people vote against naming federal buildings, etc. And Obama votes with the left 97% of the time. Challenge him to name one time he's bucked his party. And point out that he's the most liberal member of the Senate. If Obama is not a liberal, there is no such thing.

Obama is an eggshell covered with tiny cracks. The whole appears together, but it is in fact in danger of fragmenting at any time. There's a legion of leftists who will work for and support the man regardless what he says or does. But the hard rump of democrat voters probably represents no more than 30-35% of the electorate. The rest are potential McCain voters if they can be made to understand just how radical this man is, how vapid his ideas are, and how utterly alien he is to the thinking and experience of the vast bulk of Americans. It's not that he's black, it's that he was essentially marinated in leftist theory most of his life; he has no conservative friends or associates, nor is there a shred of evidence that he ever seriously considered any points of view outside the hard left. A public figure, he's nonetheless led a cloistered life.

TOTA

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE48S8JW20080929?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=10279

Kathleen Parker wrote an article that was otherwise not worth reading except that 1. it appeared in National Review, and 2. She called on Palin to step down.
Now the old media are using Parker to bludgeon Palin. The Reuters article cites three elements that paint a troubling picture for Palin. 1. Tasergate 2. The media have piled on 3. 'Conservatives' are starting to pile on.

THAT IS IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There is no Reuters article without Kathleen Parker's stupid piece.  "Tasergate" is a left wing lynching, and old news, and no one takes seriously a media article saying a politician is in trouble because the media is piling on her. There is no article without Parker. Brooks has zero credibility with conservatives, they couldn't have done it with him alone. Parker doesn't either, especially after this, but now Reuters had two names to throw in - National Review and Brooks.

Is this what Parker pictured unfolding? How about an apology for throwing blood in the water when the old media fish were already circling? Parker owes Gov. Palin a tearful apology. It matters not a whit that she thinks she was speaking truth. NO GOOD COULD COME OF IT so it amounts to piling on a good person who has already been mercilessly abused.

Now as the media sharks are using Parker to try and destroy Palin, Parker continues to try to justify herself, but she knows now that what she did was narcissistic and destructive, not to mention incredibly stupid and ill-advised, assuming she actually wants to see a republican president.

Did she suppose that McCain might actually dump her? NO MATTER THE STATED REASON that is what people would perceive if she left. He's going to throw away all of the interest generated among women? Does he put another woman on the ticket? Anything Mac would do would look like naked voter manipulation, or would be resented, or both. Parker is THOUGHTLESS or MAD. The only winning scenario if Palin leaves is if the public loves her so much that they punish the democrats and the press for the abominable treatment of her. Not likely. It would probably be seen as a vindication of their nastiness.

The left now loves Parker, and most of the right would rather never hear another word from her, ever. If Obama wins and this Parker insanity plays any role in it, she's the new Tokyo Rose.

TOTA

Obama camp: I'll save you the trouble. Here's your next press release:

"It took the International Press to reveal the disturbing nature of Mrs. Palin's religious beliefs. She has close ties to a Mr. Thomas Muthee, an African man who is essentially a witchdoctor, a man who has been active in the brutal persecution of religious minorities, arguably something akin to religious cleansing. Mrs. Palin calls the man, 'bold'. From her other related comments, it appears that Mrs. Palin believes the man's ';powerful' prayers had no small affect on the outcome of her successful bid for governor, completed less than two years ago. It has yet to be determined if Mrs. Palin sought Mr. Muthee's 'bold' counsel during her very short stint as governor. We know from experience that religion and politics don't mix. It seems the Sarah Palin has brought us to the sad place where that iron rule must be amended to add, "Neither do politics and witchcraft mix".
Worse still, it has been revealed that Mrs. Palin is a member of what could be called a doomsday cult. The cultists are trained survivalists, and believe that Alaska will be a refuge after armageddon, which the Bible says is inevitable. Mrs. Palin's church is described as a "Bible believing" church (snicker). Do we want someone who is actively planning for armageddon just one cancer-riddled stress-blown artery away from the big red button? Rumor has it that Reagan had "Push here to eradicate evil" engraved on the button. Mrs. Palin has described herself as a Reaganite."

Drudge is great, but he links to some of the worst drivel. An example is his link today to the London Times online story connecting Palin to a charismatic African preacher. His name is Thomas Muthee, he runs a congregation in Kenya. Here are the talking points that potentially emerge for the hungry movement left:

First, it's noted that Palin spoke highly of Mr. Muthee, particularly in regard to his blessing her in 2005, prior to her gubernatorial run. In reading her account of it, one is struck by Palin's humility, "As I was mayor and Pastor Muthee was here and he was praying over me, and you know how he speaks and he’s so bold. And he was praying “Lord make a way, Lord make a way."  And I’m thinking, this guy’s really bold, he doesn’t even know what I’m going to do, he doesn’t know what my plans are. And he’s praying not “oh Lord if it be your will may she become governor,” no, he just prayed for it. He said “Lord make a way and let her do this next step." And that’s exactly what happened.”'
The article continues, quoting Palin as saying “So, again, very very powerful, coming from this church,” after the presiding pastor introduced her by commenting on the “prophetic power” of the 2005 event.
Here are the talking points.
1. Palin is a religious nut, she thinks prayer affects things.  
So do most Americans, and so does science. It's not clear how, but it is clear that prayer does affect things. Did Muthee's prayer make her governor? Probably not, but it certainly didn't hurt. Does Palin think that it was responsible? Probably not. And it goes without saying that Palin would tell her fellow worshipers that the prayers made in their church make a difference. What's the alternative? "Don't bother, no one is there, you're just talking to yourselves. I only come to this church to improve my political viability."
2. Palin thinks this guy is responsible for her being governor.
This argument will be made, but anyone making it is not a serious person.

Second, the article goes on to paint Mr. Muthee as a witch doctor. In the 1990s, crime was plaguing Mr. Muthee's community. After prayer and fasting, the church members identified a woman as the cause of the problem, which Muthee referred to as "a spirit of witchcraft resting over the place." As the article describers her, "Mama Jane ran a “divination” centre called the Emmanuel Clinic." She was eventually harassed by the police and left town. The church claims that crime then fell to zero.
One juicy talking point emanates from this:
1. Palin is connected to a witch doctor.  
Is it incredible to think that some Africans might speak of witchcraft where Americans would speak of demons? Of course no such things could actually exist, so Muthee looks like an idiot anyway. If crime did go down, these folks probably did the right thing - and they took their time doing it, six months of prayer and investigation. And the town turned against the woman en masse - but they're just a bunch of savage Africans, right Timesonline? You know more about what was happening in their community than they do. Clearly there was no foundation in truth to their claims, since prayer and other superstitious mumbo-jumbo had poisoned their minds. They are religious wackos, but 'Mama Jane' and her "divination centre" are the voices of sanity. Muthee and his witch hunting clan believe in hateful religious poison, MJ believes in something vaguely religious that is not Christianity, so she's a big hero or a big victim, depending on the narrative. She couldn't be a criminal, or a charlatan, since those arrayed against her represent everything wrong with humanity.

And are we to assume that Mrs. Palin ought to have investigated Mr. Muthee's claims before being seen in the same church with him? Fine, let's apply that argument to Obama's pastor/mentor, the incredibly pissed off "Reverand Wright", and we'll see where that leads.  Mrs. Palin heard him talk about the power of prayer eradicating crime from an otherwise peaceful neighborhood, a good thing. She had no reason to believe he had conducted his own little inquisition.

Finally, the grandaddy. Here is the last paragraph:
"Her June 8 speech was to mark the graduation of students from the Wasilla Assembly of God’s Masters’ Commission, which, as Pastor Ed Kalins explains, believes Alaska will be the refuge for American evangelicals upon the coming “End of Days”. After her speech, Mrs Palin was presented with an honorary Masters’ Commission diploma."

It just doesn't get any better than this.
1. Palin belongs to a group that thinks Alaska will be some kind of survivalist stronghold. She's basically a militia member, the ultimate freak.
We can only pray that we can actually get to Alaska if nuclear war breaks out. This sounds like old fashioned state love and pride to me, as well as common sense. In a survival at any cost situation, Alaska would be a good place to be, if you knew how to live a rugged life. But that's wacko talk, right? End of the world  - ooooh! I agree, so let's beg off with the environmental disaster garbage we've been hearing for generations. Everything is the end of the world to the left.
2. This is the only degree Palin has (add whatever punchline fits).
This is part of what the left hates about her. She hasn't been through the cookie-cutter conformity mill of highest education. How can anyone without a doctorate in leftist BS be capable of 'running' America? To the rest of us, this is appealing. She ran a successful business, then apparently brought the small town of Wasilla out of the stone age. Anyway, this degree is worth more than what some colleges pump out.
But to the left, the math is clear: Palin thinks Muthee is powerfu l + Muthee believes in witchcraft = Palin is the high priestess of witchhunts and superstitious religious gobbledygook, and it's time to sell the population on the idea that she rides a broomstick to her wacko church.

Now they have even more reason to hate her. She actually believes in a power greater than the state, she believes in a loving God. And to guide her life she follows a book that is essentially dedicated to Christ. Obama's unfolding game plan was laid down virtually point by point in the book "Rules for Radicals", which is literally dedicated to Satan. It was written by a communist who speaks admiringly of the antichrist. By the left's logic, I guess that makes Obama Satan's little helper, or something. I don't know, it's all pretty confusing.

TOTA

Dear Mr. Jacob,

Your piece on the bogus promises of the election season is precisely what most readers at Townhall like - not the rah, rah, rah for a policy or candidate, but stabs at real truth. Since the focus of the article is on the promises of politicians and what they are able actually todeliver, I assume you agree that market forces can resolve both education and health care issues if the market is actually allowed to work.
Regarding energy (specifically oil) you seem to be arguing that the US cannot meet its own needs, at least in the foreseeable future. You don't offer a timeframe, but I would guess you'd be willing to extend your prediction out at least a generation.


Two things should be stipulated going forward. First, oil is part of the energy mix, and an indespensible part. But the bulk of it is still consumed for transport, so in spite of its unique characteristics, it is to some degree replaceable. We may never be able to distill the highly explosive fuels needed for jets and other powerful engines from anything but oil. But most or all of the oil that goes into consumer gastanks can be done away with if we can find another way to turn the wheels. Second, it shouldn't require government action to insure that oil and gas produced in the US stay in the US. Oil is fungible, Europeans don't need US crude when Africa, the Middle East, and Russia are close at hand. Why pay to transport it around the world when everyone pays the same market price? Use it where it is drilled.

The basic problem is clear: We consume 20 million barrels/day (closer now, apparently, to 19 million due to conservation and the slowing economy). Demand is expected to rise to 30 million barrels/day in the next several decades. Presently, we produce 6 million barrels/day in the US. If we cannot significantly increase supply and/or significantly reduce demand, we will continue to be reliant upon overseas supplies.
But energy independence is in fact where we want to be. This issue isn't about free trade. We've been reminded of late that oil is fundamental to our economic health; we don't want to depend upon others for our lifeblood if we don't have to do so. And the longer the supply line, the greater the chance of disruption. The ideal is to buy no oil for American consumption that doesn't flow through a pipe to get here.
Pipelines are hard enough to protect; a future where oil tankers will require attack sub escorts is not inconceivable, and tankers may be obsolete if terrorists are able to secure the kind of laser guided bombs America has used against them with such success. The world is indeed becoming more interdependant, but we want to limit our interdependence on some levels, and this is one. It's fine if we eventually become a massive energy exporter, but importation of energy ought to be avoided if at all possible - it's too important to ourtsource.

Here are some options - a combination of these and others can get us where we need to be:

1. I believe McCain's approach of offering prizes for new developments makes sense. Subsidies can hinder innovation by steering work in a certain direction, or insuring that a greater percentage of research funds are used on worthless projects. A full plate of prizes ought to be offered for energy advances, for everything from maximizing ethanol/acre (hemp is a good bet) to significant advances in nuclear fusion.
Energy is the earthly holy grail - with enough power, anything is possible. Consider the extent of man's advance since combining technology with energy; if energy is abundant and cheap, human beings can continue to advance and enjoy a better way of life. That's not so clear if we are paying more and more just to stay comfortable and to get from point A to point B, and paying ever more for goods produced and transported with energy. So the value of significant advances in some areas is literally incalculable; the prizes ought to be large enough to encourage risk taking - in the billions in many cases.

2. Drill everywhere there is oil and gas. National parks, shopping malls, 1600 PA Ave. Wherever it makes sense to haul, float, or fly in the equipment, get it there and drill. America has vast natural reserves of oil and gas, and we also have vast areas that are pristine, and have no oil and gas beneath them. If drilling everywhere is too much for the country to swallow on its face, it can be done in an ecologically sensitive way. In addition to reclamation, for every square mile where drilling occurs or where drilling operations seriously upset things, a square mile can be set aside as part of a new reserve somewhere else. If the concerns of environmentalists are truly about the environment, they must realize that we inhabit it too, and wealthy countries take much better care of their environments than do poor ones. When rumbling bellies start filling, people are less concerned about smokestacks than they are that the food keep flowing - witness China and India with virtually no pollution controls and no groundswell for them. Part of drilling everywhere includes clearing the cobwebs of regulations and legal entanglements that can hold up projects.
Presently, the left is effectively hoarding American energy reserves.  We all know that all of these places will eventually be drilled, the oil value to America far exceeds the value of keeping the land above them pristine. The environmentalist fetish is making the entire world poorer by putting much of America's demand into the world marketplace. This won't stand; McCain, or Palin in 2012, will green light production on all levels.

3. The natural progression of technological advancement seems to be toward miniaturization and condensing of functions - one small machine does what many large ones used to do, and the most modern and efficient production of energy is also a case of smaller being better. With nuclear power, a tiny amount of fuel produces immense energy, and limited pollution. The fact that this country hasn't built a new nuclear power plant in a generation is testament to the power of media sabotage and environmentalist fear-mongering.
Somehow, other countries are routinely pulling off things we're assumed to be too stupid to do here. Chile has a splendid privatized social security system (thanks to Gen. Pinochet) which has produced a wealthy society - Chileans have a higher average net worth than Americans, thanks to a savings rate of 27% of GDP (ours is zero) That's with Zero payroll tax. And France produces 70% of its electricity in nuclear plants. But America is too clumsy to do either. I think not - as usual, the left stands in the way of progress.

4. Lift the prohibitions on shale-oil production. The mountain west is loaded with it, and technologies for extraction are improving. If producers know they have a green light for decades into the future, this oil will soon be flowing because they will know their investments will pay off.

5. Let T. Boone build his windmills with his own money; if it's a good idea he'll do great. If the government is going to subsidize new energy production, it ought to be on a per-megawatt basis, regardless how it is produced.

6. If Obama wins, pray, then bend over and











inflate your tires.


As in the past, it is possible that a presently unforeseen technology will make a significant difference. But even then, an energy infrastructure that can actually bring new sources to market takes some time to develop. Our best bet in the meantime is to encourage more and more of the tried and true, and investigate other options in earnest.
Meanwhile, the rest of the world will continue to advance, and more people will move out of huts and into apartments. They will trade in their bikes for a Ford, and everyone will want energy. Scientists the world over will be working the problem to death, consumers the world over will be part of a new ethic of conservation and restraint, and energy efficiency will continue to be key watchwords.

North America is and will remain an energy superpower, even if we are only able to drive our own massive economy from what we produce here. Mr. Jacob insists this won't happen, that we will always be dependent on overseas sources. But this continent is energy rich compared to the average acreage elsewhere on the planet. Canada has vast resources, much greater than its economy demands. Throw in vast and empty Alaska and our abundant shores, and we've got a fair chance of producing the energy we need, right here in North America.
If not, here's the nitty-gritty: If we can't do it with our reserves, technology, and science, then no significant fraction of the world's population can ever enjoy anything approaching an American style standard of living: There just isn't enough power to go around, no matter how fervently we pursue it. That is the inescapable conclusion that logically flows from Mr. Jacobs' argument, and it has implications for the future of all people. It insures that we will always be somewhat divided economically between the northern and southern hemispheres, and also along energy lines. And since there's literally not enough energy to go around, we will fight over it. And some portion of humanity will remain in the dark. That doesn't have to be the world's future.

And it won't be. American energy independence will in fact happen. It will be in no small part because we are laying the template down now - the next president will largely shape how we proceed from here. You can bet that McCain will produce a constitutional crisis by acting with far-reaching executive orders before he will allow the left to derail his energy plans. And in short order, the growing consensus about imminent global cooling will quash the only weak part of his plan. If for no other reason than energy policy, McCain will be our next president. Energy is a legacy-making issue, and also a majority building issue. McCain/Palin will pursue it with all ardor.
If we can eventually take America's appetite for energy out of the international equation, the future of the entire planet looks brighter, and literally will be brighter, as more and more people light their own piece of the world each night.

Kind regards,

TOTA
(please see my other blogs for thoughts on the monumental shortcomings of Obama and the 'movement left' in this election).

Oinkgate is better than the alternative. The original script of the speech had Obama calling Palin a "pork-eating white devil'. They scratched it at the last minute because (and I quote an Obama spokesman speaking on condition of anonymity), "Pork is the other white meat!"

The original version also had a different approach to McCain. My source got hold of the original (again I quote), "And the pig's running mate, the less popular member of the ticket, is like some broken down old rag doll that some ratty mongrel dog named "Bush" can't stop humping!"  (at this point Barack was to gyrate his hips for about 80 seconds, miming sex, complete with miming of hair pulling and butt slapping. Then:) "McCain is broken! Look at his wacky arms and legs! Does everyone here know that he can't lift his arms above his shoulders, or bend his knees? What a stinky old retard!"
In the end, after a raucus internal debate, and much disappointment within the campaign, they decided to instead call McCain a stinky old fish.
They knew that the original version of the old political bromide just referred to a fish. By adding, "stinky and old" - the most common perjoratives leveled at McCain by Obama's top ranks - they knew they could get their bitter, brittle comtempt for the man across to the public.

Oinkgate is the just latest flub by Obama. He either
1. Showed terrible judgment in using the remark innocently, or
2. Used it purposely in hopes of getting a giggle from his base and tarnishing Palin.

Either way, he's proven once again that he's not the slickest fish in the bucket. He cannot reliably gauge the impact of his statements and actions.

Since we cannot know his motivations for certain, let's isolate the facts that can be gleaned, facts that are indelibly true, facts as hard as diamond:

1. Mr. Obama has bad judgment, period. Intended as an insult of not, it was obviously scripted, and a terrible idea.

2. Mr. O's fans are a crude and nasty lot. The crowd, at least, was sure he was talking about Palin, and they were gleeful. They could barely contain their excitement - the man child had finally fought back against Palin in a way they could relate to, "Well, she's a pig! Neener, neener, neener!". Classy guy, classy crowd. I expect more from my four year old, and when my two year old acts this crudely I'm disappointed.
These people are the dregs of society: hangers on, angry misfits, and intolerant malcontents. And the crowd is no better.

You can be certain that if the shoes were precisely on the other feet - if the same remark were made before a conservative crowd and aimed by a conservative at a liberal - there would at least have been gasps, probably murmurs, and possibly boos. Definitely not the universal glee expressed by Obama's pathetic lot.

3. Obama never does anything wrong in Obama's mind. Here he may have insulted a woman, and his reaction is not to plead innocence and apologize nonetheless, his reaction is petulance.

4. Obama is a crude and thoughtless person. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt, and assume that he wasn't talking about Palin. How did he react to what must have seemed like a strange reaction from the audience? He could have wondered - "That's a shopworn phrase, why are these people going nuts? Have I simply been incredibly boring up until now? Oh - maybe they think I'm talking about Palin. I'd better clarify this right now, and offer an earnest apology to her. I don't agree with her about anything, but she's a lady, and an American." He didn't think this or say anything to qualify his remark, instead he plowed on to compare McCain to a stinky old fish, and talk more about Palin. He relished the reaction, because he is small-minded. And let's admit it - he is, uh, boorish, and, uh, painfully, uh, boring.

5. Obama and his advisors are terrible strategists. I'm sitting here in my underwear, and I can think of several ways Obama could have turned this to his advantage. I mentioned one earlier, the script should have included an immediate aplogy, perhaps a scolding of the crowd, uplifing words about civility, and a call for a new start to the termperament of the campaign. Another option would be to do what he never seems capable of doing - saying he is sorry. He could have said that he didn't mean it that way, but probably should have judged by the reaction of the crowd that some would misinterpret it. An appropriate line might have been, "I think it is fair to say that Gov. Palin is a beautiful woman. She resonates, and her story resonates, with millions of American women. What presidential candidates say has to be said with due respect to their opponents; our words have to be weighed with care, and I failed to do that. That I've given obvious offense has caused me considerable worry and upset, and I want every American woman across the country to know that I am truly sorry. I will speak with greater care in the future."
Something like that would actually cause people to take a second look at the guy. Too grown up, and too late now, after his "Enough is enough" tirade.

I literally disagree with Obama about everything, and I could do a better job of running his campaign than the nitwits he has handling him now. If Obama's campaign wants to hire me, they can reach me at 1-900-OLD-FISH. After listening to the 90 minute tape*, they can leave me a message (calls will be billed on your statement as, "I'm addicted to porn.com".)
*($33,600/minute - the same as the per plate charge for attendees at the recent Obama fundraiser at Jon Bon Jovi's house).

Is it too early to caution against a pity crisis? With Biden urging the lame to walk and the O-Man making one gaffe after another, this is becoming a three-ring dog and pony show. Will they end up looking so bad that millions of morons will vote for them out of pity?

_________________________________

If you haven't had enough, here are a few bad jokes:

Q: What is the difference between Obama and a giant, dry sponge?
A: 37 years of marinating in leftist drivel

Rumor has it that the combination of Obama's miraculous powers and his support for stem cell research will soon have Richard Gere strolling out of his grave.
(The original version of this 'joke' referred to Christopher Reeve. Boo! Bad taste!)

TOTA

When it's all said and done, racism will be the 'official' (i.e. old media) reason why Obama lost. Those with an ounce of sense will know the true reason: Obama's own words.

With that in mind:

TOP TEN LINES THAT COST B.O. THE ELECTION

1. He wished the rise in gas prices had been more gradual

2. Back in the days of policy nebulousness, he was specific about one thing: unilateral nuclear disarmament. He proved he's a parrot for the most radical elements of the left by trotting out specifically what he would do with regard to nukes, and it mirrored the most fervent goals of the most radical elements of the disarmament movement.

3. We visited 57 states, one more to go, that will make all 58.

4. Economically disenchanted people (he meant but did not specifically say lower middle class and lower class whites) bitterly cling to guns, religion, and dislike of others with a different skin color.

5. My grandmother is a typical white person (his own autobiography tells the true story that led to this comment, and makes his grandmother look completely rational. I don't know if it was in the first or the second, he's a prolific autobiographical writer, the most prolific in the history of national politics.)

6. We are the ones we've been waiting for. Stupid and full of hubris.

7. "That's above my pay grade." When does human life begin, Lord Obama?

8. "They're lying." Referring to pro life groups who characterized his Illinois state senate opposition to the "Born Alive Infant Protection Act" as support for infanticide.

9. Reverand Wright is my mentor. Nuff said.

10. William Ayers is a respected member of the community. This says a lot about the community.

One more for the road: 11. "Read my autobiography." Which one? When sane people realize that this piece of political and philosophical fluff has written not one but two autobiographies, there is a danger of hyperventilation from excessive laughter.

Dan Quayle misspelled potatoe and it ended him as a credible politician.

TOTA

RE the Politco story painting McCain as desperate:

Let's cut to the nitty-gritty:

DESPERATION:
Politico reporters should know the general trend of recent presidential elections. This reporter apparently does not. At this point in the game, the democrats are usually leading by double digits. Though Politico for some reason highlights the Gallup poll, the RCP average has Obama up by less than four. For a month, the media has been filled with stories wondering why Obama is doing so poorly relative to history and relative to the generic ballot polls that measure relative party strength/interest. And now, just as  the Democrats' convention has clearly not provided the bounce they hoped for, the reporting changes to make McCain appear the desperate one.
A more level headed analysis of the situation is this:
McCain sees what everyone else sees - this Obama fellow is not getting the traction many predicted, the lingering doubts about his arguably terrible judgment still loom large, and he is increasingly shrill and desperate-sounding in many of his communications (witness the lambasting of Stanley Kurtz and the reaction to the Palin pick, which Obama blamed on 'staffers' ). And Israel has yet to act against Iran, so energy may be an even bigger issue on election day if there is conflict in the Middle East. In short, McCain has enough things going his way that he felt confident enough to make a gamble. The reporter has it exactly 180 degrees wrong.

EXPERIENCE:
There is no magical number of years one must have served in office in order to be a good national leader. Nor is the talk about Palin's lack of national experience warranted - many governors have made perfectly adequate presidents. The most important qualifier is judgment, and as she is examined more closely, we'll learn more about that. We already know she has guts.
Despite the crowing from the media, this pick does not negate the experience issue, and for several good reasons.
First, Palin was selected, while Obama promoted himself. She didn't wake up last year and decide to run for President based on an admittedly thin but impressive resume - Obama did, and his resume has virtually nothing to recommend him. This speaks to his judgment and his megalomania (witness also O-Force one, the monogrammed throne on O-Force one, his convention speech set, his personal presidential seal, and his two (count them: two) autobiographies by the age of 45).
Second, experience only matters if it involves significant events or achievements. Despite his incredibly rich life that warranted two autobiographies, Obama's toughest decision was one that involved nothing more than his own conscience and his political persona: whether to oppose the war in Iraq. Mind you - not whether to vote against it, he was still in the Illinois statehouse, but whether to publicly oppose it. In this statement from his own lips we know the truth: He has never had to make a difficult decision, so his experience is pretty meaningless.

This issue will also continue to loom large for another reason: As voters learn more about how Obama has literally been marinated in political radicalism for his entire adult life, they will see that when he says change, he really means it. Does he have any experience implementing the kind of change he seeks to impose on the nation? His previous efforts have been of quite limited success, to be charitable - Chicago's schools still flounder, and the south side of Chicago is still sad and depressing. Why? With a liberal statehouse, mayor and governor, were Illinois coffers simply not deep enough to throw enough cash at the schools and South Chicago to improve things? That is after all the prescription for every ill we face: more bureaucrats spreading around more cash and making more public "investments". There is not a single issue where Obama's prescription is less government involvement, nor has he enumerated any of the programs that "don't work" that he says he will do away with to finance his ideas. In eight years, he apparently accomplished very little in Illinois aside from highlighting his radicalism on abortion.
On the one significant decision he's made that can seriously affect the future of the country and the world, whether to increase our involvement in Iraq or leave, he was wrong. Were he king, he'd long ago have abandoned 25 million Iraqis to their fate (violence and _more_ genocide on top of the hundreds of thousands Hussein murdered). In so doing, he would have permanently ruined America's ability to help any beleaguered people to overthrow tyrants. He and the rest of the left would have sent the clear message the we will run when confronted with force. He'd also have handed radical Islam it's biggest victory in history.
 
As things progress, the truth about these people will come out. Contrary to popular opinion, most voters (about 65%, apparently) are not stupid. As they see and hear more about this perplexing man, it will be Obama's experience and judgment that are the central issues in this campaign.
 
In handling this issue, it's important that conservatives consistently qualify their comments about Obama's lack of experience, by saying that he's way too inexperienced _even if_ his radical politics were right for America. They will never be right for any people anywhere, they always fail and produce misery. We don't want to wake up to a resurgent Obama in three years who is saying that the main objection we had to him last time was his lack of experience. Unless he is permanently discredited by some revelation from his past or some terrible mistake in the campaign, he will be back, probably repeatedly.

TOTA

For the second time in as many weeks, the messiah has urged that the UN security council act against Russia. Not content to see Obama sitting alone on the "58 states" short bus, his handlers have also clamored aboard. Does no one in Obama's orbit know that Russia has a SC veto? Everyone learned that in high school, didn't they?
Obama is intelligent, but not smart (two different things). Nor is he knowledgeable, in fact he is laughably ignorant, moreso than anyone could have expected from any presidential candidate.
Dan Quayle's political career ended when he misspelled potatoe. Obama said there were 58 states, after noting he'd visited 57, and there was one more to go. That means it was not a verbal slip. If a republican said the same thing, he or she would be finished as a public figure. But hey, cut Obama some slack - not only is he liberal, he's black! So he gets twice the passes from the old media.
I've said it before, I'll say it again: Obama will lose in a massive way, and racism will be widely blamed. He has already noted the possibility of riots, a standard leftist method of extortion.

TOTA

As Obama's star fades, look for the radical left to pull out all the stops. Wild and baseless accusations of racism will be the norm, and before it's all over, we can expect the obligatory threat of riots. The 'black community' has a lot invested in Obama. Watch for at least one of their 'leaders' to caution us: if racist whites reject Obama, you can expect unrest in the streets.

This will backfire, further undermining Obama's campaign. No one wants to live under the threat of riots caused by election outcomes. If unrest actually does occur, it will damage Obama and democrats. And it will further cement the growing acknowledgment that what we've done to date on race has not worked. Many blacks remain bitter and angry over real and imagined abuses and slights. And many retain a sense of entitlement that saps their productive and creative capacity; this mindset is nursed by democrats.

To make matters worse, this poisonous worldview is the only one promoted with any consistency or visibility in the black community. Racism isn't the problem, I've never met a person who would not hire someone because they are black. Nor is there a community anywhere in America, or a school system anywhere in the country which will deny blacks a business license or a free education. The only concern I've encountered from business owners relates to the firing of blacks - some say that hiring a black person carries with it the risk that if they are dismissed, they will sue and you'll find yourself defending your business in front of bureaucrats who can destroy it. If there is any widespread reluctance to hire blacks, that is likely a greater cause than racism. And of course leftists want more such laws; if they had their way, you'd have to go to a tribunal in order to fire a minority from your business.

The vast, vast majority of whites are cheered by black success and have no hate in their hearts for blacks. Yet we are almost all depicted as racist haters, who view blacks as the enemy, and want them to fail, and miserably. In fact, the general lot of blacks was improving consistently until liberals got their hooks into them and started using the black community as a giant social experiment. The white people they consider their friends are really their worst enemies.
If the goal of a national discussion on race is to eliminate racism, it has largely already happened. If in order to move on, blacks must be convinced of the truth of this, the debate has no end. There will always be those who will agitate.

Obama promises no relief, only further division and discord. He apparently endorsed reparations the other day, and a more liberal congress could conceivably approve it. This is the age of madness.

TOTA

I used to coach high school debate for a very competitive school in Texas. We had kids in the dramatic speech events that spoke as well as Obama, and we had freshman debaters who could beat him like a drum, even taking the weak side of any argument. His speaking skill is nothing compared to the likes of Alan Keyes, who is a great orator, unlike the merely 'good' - but liberal and black - Obama. Were he white, at best he'd be hoping to be Hillary's VP choice - that's a truth as clear and hard as diamond.

If you don't believe this next statement, please consider reading Obama's autobiography:   For Barrack Obama, almost everything is about race.  Generally, race is wholly irrelevant.  If whites see "black guy" when they look at a black man, rather than "guy", it's largely because the mouthpieces for the 'black community' won't shut up about race. If we handed out massive reparations, they'd complain that it wasn't enough, then complain that some people were swindled out of their booty by greedy white capitalists.  But it the case of the presidential race, it turns out that it _is_ ultimately all about race.

If Obama wins, it will clearly be because he is black - millions will vote for him for that reason alone, and were he any other color, he would not be running this year - his lack of experience betrays a dangerously massive ego. Before going to the IL state house, where his seminal accomplishment appears to have been voting to allow doctors to kill babies that survive abortions, he was a 'community organizer'. This means he was the guy who really got south Chicago to band together to clean up their communitie, demand that schools institute discipline and fire bad teachers, and tear up the gangs that make the residents fearful. Say what? None of that happened, and the residents of south Chicago are as bad off or worse than they were when they first heard the name, Barack Obama? My mistake. I see upon some further researching that his years of 'community organizing' amounted to precisely diddly squat. He touts no accomplishments from this part of his life. He does confess to lots of pot smoking prior to these years. Perhaps his new chores as community organizer left time for - or even included - similar 'recreational activities'. How else do we explain that this brilliant and oh-so capable man, dropped into the midst of people he cares about so deeply, did so little for so long? Anyway, were he white, he'd rightly be laughed off the stage. So if he wins, it will be due to his skin color. We all know it; it's manifestly obvious to a low-grade moron.

If Obama loses, it will also all be about race. A great number of his supporters will say - perhaps vehemently or even violently -
that he lost because of white racism. In fact, if any of a number of talented conservative blacks were to run for president, the vast bulk of conservatives.would be unflinching in our support for them. But that doesn't fit the narrative that every failure of blacks is due to either overt white racism, or the inherent unfairness of a system set up to benefit whites at the expense of blacks. We can expect: 'The GOP played the race card over and over', 'whites just aren't ready to accept the notion of racial equality', 'The republicans cheated', 'the election appeared rigged', and worse. It will be a deluge because this election won't be close. Obama owns at least half a dozen serious flaws that make him unelectable. Already, the more the country sees and hears of him the less they seem to like him. He's had constant orgasmic coverage in the media and he's slipping in the polls. His idiot energy plan alone will sink him. And as he slips further, expect more and more radical statements and policy ideas as desperation sinks in. By election time, only blacks, hardcore leftists and government clients will be voting for him, to the rest of the country he will be seen alternately as a clown, a demon bent on ruining the country, or a tragic, broken figure.

But although we will have something to celebrate in 96 days - keeping the country out of the hands of a political lunatic - it will be a mixed blessing. Be ready for an earful about how racist you are.

TOTA

Matt Drudge missed the big news here: http://starbulletin.com/2008/07/28/news/story05.html

The story duly noted the ecstatic minority press reception of Obama. Though the reporters had been warned not to do so (don't want to appear biased, after all), "many journalists" leaped to their feet when he appeared on stage.

But the headline of the story and the Drudge post missed the main revelation. In Obama's own words:
"I consistently believe that when it comes to whether it's Native Americans or African-American issues or reparations, the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

What do 'deeds' look like to Obama? Affirmative action isn't enough. Nor are the trillions spent on economic assistance, nor the tolerance of black on white crime (100 white women are raped by a black man for every 1 black woman raped by a white man).  No, it's time we really ponied up. We need a massive income transfer from whites to blacks. Then, the crisis will evolve into, "The white man has stolen the blacks' reparations monies with scurrilous capitalist schemes." There is no end to this madness once it begins.

Here's the true prescription for black success in America:
 - Stop the anonymous sex and get married
 - Stay in school at least until you can read and write effectively
 - Don't tolerate gangster crime in your communities
 - Stop lauding the emotionally and mentally retarded "rap" industry
 - Stop complaining. Seriously. Thousands of Vietnamese arrived here in boats in the 1970s. They left mass genocide allowed by the US government, after we told those people we would help them. Where is the organized victim group for Vietnamese Americans? They're busy working, and have realized that they _are not entitled to anything_. Blacks' sense of entitlement is killing them as a race.

And for God's sake, we're all well aware of the country's shortcomings, enough already. I'm waiting for the speech where Obama scolds the Arab world for their treatment of Africans. As many blacks went to Arabia over the centuries as came to the new world. There are not a lot of blacks in Arabia today because most of the men were castrated; the Arabs didn't want them breeding. How does Obama feel about that? We'll never know, because the Arabs aren't going to pay blacks a dime for their woes.

TOTA