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

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

It's been reported that a contingent of the Obama 'War Room' has been detached to the 'Bomb Shelter' - a secretive enclave where final options are considered, if things look grim going into the final days. Though supposedly secluded and sequestered, we managed to pay one of the escorts coming and going from the place to grab whatever papers she could and make a dash for it. We watched from behind the nearby outhouse as the door flew open and "Charice' (not her real name) came running from the shanty. She'd managed to grab a Chicago phone book and a single piece of paper. Against all odds, we hit pay dirt. Here, for the first time, is the text of the 'nuclear option' ad, their final push to turn things around in desperate circumstances. To make things better, judging from the handwriting, Obama both edited and approved it, there's a big "A" circled at the top, a little green star is pasted on it, and the words "Very nicely done" are at the top in red pen, underlined. Here it is, you might want to sit down.

"Old 'Stinky Fish' McCain and his porcine partner have lied and lied and lied. They say they care about regular people. Only I do, Barack. I'll give every family in America a big fat check, at least a grand. A grand! Whether you work or not. All you have to do is show up on election day and vote for me. Can't you spare an hour out of your day to make a cool grand? Now we're talking. That's right - we'll stick it to the man, together. You and me, brothers and sisters. If you've been cast aside I want your vote. If you've been down and out, or feeling blue, I'll speak for you. If you need a better job, I'll make someone give it to you. If you feel like the man has been holding you down, I'll look the other way when you riot. In short, if you're anything but smiling from ear to ear 24/7, I can cure what is wrong with you. The rich have more than enough cash to help out the rest of us, and I'll make sure you get it - if you vote for me. So now we're up to $1000 or more in cold, hard cash, and the promise of whatever we can squeeze out of the people who have been crapping all over you for so long - your employers, bosses, all republicans, the fuzz - you know, the man. THE MAN! Well, there's a new MAN in town, and his name is Barack HUSSEIN Obama! That's right - I said it. It's not enough that the republicans hate me because of the color of my skin. They hate me because of my name. Well look here, republicans with your fancy yaughts and your segregated country-clubs: You may be able to kick around Jose the gardner because he's a Mexican migrant who doesn't have papers, but you can't kick me around, because there's a new MAN in town. That's right ladies. And gentlemen. That's right, I said I'm the new Man. I'm the one we've all been waiting for. I saved southside Chicago from poverty and destitution. Now I'll save you from being crapped on by the old man, the 'stinky old fish' crowd that McCain rules over with an iron fist. As for his partner, did you know she comes from a small town, and her 17 year old daughter is a prego? Will she have the baby at the trailer, or at the hospital? Stay tuned. Anyhoo, vote for me. I'm Barack Hussein Obama, and I approved this message.
PS - Vote for me. MeCain stinks. Vote for me.
PPS - McCain stinks vote for me to the 100th power.
PPPS - No takebacks and no halfsies."

We can't verify the above story or the authenticity of the proposed ad.

TOTA

It's a real pleasure to see the McCain campaign surging, and to see the Senator consistently talking like a conservative. He's said enough about the issues that matter - judges, border security, taxes, etc. - that conservatives feel they can hold him accountable if he strays from promises. And the environmental issues are likely to disappear - they are being overshadowed, and a consensus is starting to build that the Earth is entering a cooling period, and that we can do little about climate change in any event, absent complete cooperation from burgeoning China and India. McCain can point to economic uncertainty and the real lack of significant consensus on climate change as reasons to put off action in favor of further study.
None of us doubt that America will always be first in McCain's heart, and his desire to see government contained appears to be real, as does his zest for new energy production. In short, even without Palin, McCain is looking like the kind of candidate we could have stomached in any case. Had he picked Romney, given the current meltdown in the credit markets, conservatives would have found other reasons to be energized. Outside the party, there is another source of energy that ought to make the party react like it's been slapped - Obama's apparent Marxist leanings and racialist thinking.

But with Sarah Palin in tow, McCain's swelling campaign has become a tidal wave. In addition to the party loving her, she connects with normal people, and contrasts sharply in nearly every regard to the charlatans on the other side.  Mrs. Palin appears to be so fundamentally decent that she serves as something of a sanity check: If you find yourself hating this woman, there is good reason to believe that you suffer from some kind of mental illness. You may find yourself surrounded with people who agree with you, who likewise hate her. They, too, are likely suffering from mental illness.
Consider: Biden is a foreign policy 'expert' who voted for the war, against the surge, and wanted to break Iraq into three permanently warring pieces. He opposes missile defense, going back to the beginning. He's scary on foreign policy, and a giant liberal on other issues. He's got lots of experience sitting in the senate, but very little experience making sound decisions there. He would make a lousy VP or President. But we don't hate him. I haven't heard a hateful word spoken about him on talk radio, and I listen to about 10 hours/day. In contrast, many on the left have a pulsing, visceral hatred for Sarah Palin. They want to see her destroyed and humiliated. Those people should seek therapy. Har har - No, I'm not kidding. If the idea of Sarah Palin fills your heart with anger and hatred, you are in need of help.

Back to luck. Yes, Palin represents an incredible bit of luck for the GOP. The energy issue likely killed Obama before Palin even came along. That, her, his gaffes, and his increasingly shrill and strident approach have cooked him for good. But it took Palin - a stroke of luck, exactly the right person at the right time and in the right context - to drive the nails into the coffin. With any further luck and good fortune, President McCain and VP Palin will actually do something significant and improve the brand of the GOP. If they can't, we're probably cooked. This is the third election in a row in which we got lucky.

In 2000, had Gore not shown himself in the debates to be an insufferable blowhard, he'd probably have won. Had he not insisted on a selective recount, he'd have lost with great honor and probably won in 2004. Had the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth not come along with their book, showing what a phony preening jackass John Kerry is, and had he not been such a flaming liberal, Kerry would have won. The Democrats have yet to nominate a moderate. The GOP has yet to craft a message that is widely appealing to Hispanics. If they ever do, leftists will form a human chain on the border to keep any more of them out. As things stand, our demographic advantages are diminishing. It's true that conservatives breed more than liberals, but their kids then get run through the leftist-dominated culture and consciousness-forming institutions.

In short, our luck will run out some day unless something fundamental changes. Perhaps the conservative/reform branding by McCain/Palin will stick. Something has to change, we can't count on luck forever.

TOTA

(End the debate, Senator Kerry - show us your scars.)

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

The movement left isn't unearthing much in Alaska, so they're moving on to warmer climes, Africa. Yes, the dark continent has yielded dark secrets sure to sink Palin - specifically, her connection to a man in Africa who has been called a witchhunter (at least by the leftie author of the hit piece). I take it apart here.

But since we're in Africa, let's linger and consider irony. It turns out that over the last ten years, Joe Biden and wife have given $3690 to charity, on a total income of $2.4 million. Over that same period, a man named George has lived in Africa, and has reportedly earned about $3650 (George says $120 over that period, $1/month, but others say $1/day). To make things even more incredible, George is sort of connected to Biden. He's Obama's half brother! Obama visited George two years ago. Obama visited George two years ago. (not a mistype. I repeated it two times to emphasize that Obama visited his destitute brother George just two years ago, and is aware of his brother's borderline existence). Two years later, George is still raking in $1/day.
If my dates are right, two years ago was the year Obama published his second autobiography, earning him something like $4 million in one fell swoop. Obama gave a lot to charity that year, about 1.5% of his income, though at least 2/3 of what he gave did nothing but promote leftist causes. Not one hungry mouth was filled with the bulk of what little the Obamas gave to charity, certainly not George's.

But assuming that charity works its way around the globe, the math is just too convenient to pass up: Biden's charitable giving met Obama's brother's meager needs almost precisely for a full decade. Be sure to thank him, Barack - he may not have actually been thinking about George, but you weren't either.

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 Dinesh,

Your illuminating piece about attitudes in the Muslim world skims too lightly over reality. The actual prospects for any reconciliation between Islam and anything approaching western-style constitutional democracy are dim for structural reasons. And your article essentially concludes that if our social attitudes were more conservative, like theirs, they would like us more - or at least not want to destroy us quite as fervently. But there is no refuge in conservatism for non-Muslims. Theirs is a creed that demands constant expansion by whatever means are available. There is no list in the Koran of acceptable alternate religions, social structures, or lifestyles: This world is Allah's, we are His subjects, and sinners are to be reproved and corrected, and often mutilated or killed - not only by the state, but by loyal followers. Finally, the attitude of the average Muslim on the street matters little - as constituted, a cabal of sorts runs these societies and the religious structures within them.

After offering a number of widely held Muslim mores that conservatives can appreciate, you note, "This book is a huge embarrassment to some conservatives who, based on no data and very little familiarity with the Muslim world, have been portraying Muslims as violent theocrats who reject modern science, modern democracy and modern capitalism and spend most of their day performing honor killings and genital mutilations."
This must be tongue in cheek. Your article discusses the bulk of Muslims, so you must be referring to the attitude of some conservatives toward the bulk of Muslims, or Muslims in general. Who are the people you are talking about, and what did they say? I know of no conservatives with a national voice who have come close to approaching this kind of blatant characterization of most Muslims. Even the widely criticized Michael Savage is careful to distinguish between the average Muslim and the extremists. If these quotes don't in fact exist, what is the point of making this claim?

Further, your basic argument here is fanciful. Nothing about the conservative social mores exhibited by observant Muslims has anything to do with Islam's embrace of science or democracy, nor its support of capitalism as a panacea for totalitarian instincts. In the wrong hands capitalism is not the natural expression of natural rights, but merely a powerful tool - ask the still avowedly communist Chinese. Regarding scientific curiosity, Mark Steyn notes that more books are translated into Italian than into Arabic. And few inventions of note have come out of the Arab world; Islam generally does not embrace or encourage modernity in any regard aside from technology and moving money around. Does anyone doubt that the entire region would be poor if not for oil?
Are they theocrats? They are, which is why they reject democracy. What they want is not freedom for individuals, they want only the freedom to 'elect' a Sharia government. Once in power, will they be tolerant of ideas that are contrary to Sharia? Not if history is any clue. The government may not actively stifle dissent, but there will be plenty of Muslim 'brown shirts' to do the job for them. How about the recently devised 'hijab' (circa 1970s), the lovely black garment that covers Muslim women head to toe? Is an elected democratic government which imposes this as a dress code for all women worth its weight in sand?

Most Muslims want to make the world a better place, and/or better secure their place, and their family's place, in the overall scheme (the now and the hereafter). The leaders, however, those pulling the strings of the 'movement Muslims', are after power. Perhaps power to fulfill what they see as some greater good - but first and foremost, power and more power.
There is no give or moderation possible here. The leaders, the fascist Muslims, see democracy as incongruous with Islam because democracy pre-supposes that people govern themselves, that they ought to make up their own laws. That very idea is an insult to Allah, who has provided the laws, Sharia, that he expects every human being on this planet to observe.
Even with 95% of the population of a Muslim country being somewhat moderate, the 5% can ruin the country's prospects for meaningful participatory self-governance. How real will Muslim democracy be when alternate ideas are constantly beaten or blown into submission by extremists? Any democratic flowering in the middle east and other Islamic countries will likely be short lived, or it will be democracy in name only. People will be able to elect their rulers - but only those who support Sharia.
Others will be terrorized into silence, or killed. The hard rump of Islam will consider them traitors. Government and the religion are one and the same, both are meant to be clearly defined and eternal. Islam appeals to many good-hearted people, but its unique blending of religion and state also speaks to the totalitarian mindset like no other religion or philosophy at work in the world today.

That said, any rational person has to be encouraged whenever positive transformation seems possible for Islamic societies. But that is largely a matter of information, people have to be aware, first, that another way of thinking about reality even exists. You suggest that this information flow has a downside, since the world gets our bad with our good, and that bad affects Muslims unlike it affects any other identifiable group on the planet: "Rather, it is the values of the cultural left, and the cultural imperialism that seeks to impose those values on reluctant Muslims, that is the real source of Muslim rage, and the best recruiting tool of the radical Muslims." You seem to argue that we are imposing our culture on Islamic countries, as if they are malleable, to the point where they are literally killing us for it.
We can impose our culture, but not our ethic of tolerance for minorities and minority thinking? And what is the mechanism of imposition? Is it not capitalism, which means by definition that no 'imposition' is involved? If Muslims embrace more capitalism, they will arguably see more of this influence, not less. America puts cultural garbage into the marketplace, but no one is shoving it down their throats, and the worst of it has to be obtained illegally in most if not all Muslim countries (drugs and pornography).
Furthermore, this proves my point about Muslim tolerance: These surveys speak for the bulk of Muslims, so only a small portion of Muslims are affected by western mores, becoming decadent as a result of western influence. Yet this affect upon a small segment of their population is enough to inspire Jihad and stimulate recruitment. So this is really about tolerance for the thinking and decisions of a small minority. What chafes at them is the fact that some small portion of their population is not toeing the line. Yet democracy is often about 51% steering the nation in a direction opposite what the other 49% wants. That reality cannot be reconciled with Islam and Sharia.

And Islam is not interested in rules of democracy and fair elections. It seeks complete victory, complete surrender to Islam and Sharia for every man, woman, and child walking the earth, and all those yet to be conceived. That is the self-stated goal of the religion. It is distinctly different from other religions which encourage evangelism. The rules tell Muslims that they _must_ push evangelism at the point of a sword. That fact, and their contempt for democracy as a mockery of Allah's clearly revealed plan for humanity, is why they do what they do. Not because of western mores.

The real western mores that concern them are some of the others that make it through the censorship filter. Mostly, they fear those about God.
Allah is a fearful taskmaster, who created people to fill some part that he has defined for us. The Christian God created people with free will to share love with Him, or not - they live their lives in accordance with their free will. He corrects and chastises, but ultimately He is love, and He proved it by defining for all time the substance of love - the willingness to suffer for another. A triune God knows love in His own Being, and creating angels and humans is a rational next step if He is intent on sharing love as widely as possible. We know love as the foundation of happiness: People can have everything the world has to offer and be miserable without love, and people can have love and very little else and still be happy and secure. Our God created Mankind for a beneficent reason - for our sake first, not His - so that we could also know love.

Allah gave humans free will in only the most limited sense. In the end, their free will is meaningless, all will bow. Our religion is about love and speaking to open ears, theirs is animated by an ethic of control, domination, and uniformity. One speaks loudly to the heart, the other does as well in some regards, but also whispers to the darkest recesses of the coldest minds.

In the end it is very basic. No rules told Eric Rudolph to bomb an abortion clinic. Our rules leave the handling of the wicked - except in defense of life and property - to the state and to God. The other side has _actual rules_ which do not subtly urge, but rather command loyal individual followers to take violence into the field and convert by threat of death. No magical words by hopeful Westerners can blot out or erase those words, they will forever be with humanity. They are what distinguishes Islam from every other significant religion. Consider the places in the world where violence is rampant and in many or most you will find radical Islam in the mix.
Wherever Islam is found, some small percentage of Muslims are actually willing to follow the actual rules to the letter. We know this as a fact. This small percentage is willing to blow up the apple-cart repeatedly because they actually believe what their religion actually says - that their violence is sanctioned by God, and will be rewarded with lots of sex, among other things.

I'm glad that Islam seems to encourage cultural mores similar to those widely shared in 1950s America, but perspective is important: It's the other things the religion encourages that are the problem. In Islam, as with other religions, God is going to sort us out in the end. But in the meantime, Allah has turned our world over to the faithful, who have been given license to hack their way through the rest of us (it matters not what you or I or every moderate Muslim think The Prophet was saying, it only matters what the extremist mind can see or infer). And until someone else from above tells them differently, the mission is a 'go'. There is nothing written about the prospects for failure. The effort will be ongoing until it succeeds.

Christians are told that most will not listen, most will not walk the difficult path of self-denial inherent in Christian transformation. Allah actually offers his followers the prospect that they can accomplish their mission completely, that every knee will in fact bow. This translates into a future forever plagued by Muslim extremism.

Kind regards,

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).

Steely fingernails are raking the political chalkboard. Three high-ranking wing-nuts on the left have said that Christ was a community organizer, whereas Pilate was a governor. One of these schlemiels was Donna Brazille, Gore's campaign manager. Another was a sitting congressman, so this latest bromide comes straight out of the democrat establishment, not the leftwing bileosphere.

Precisely what reaction is this supposed to inspire among sane people?"Golly gee. I never thought of it that way. I'd better vote for Obama, since he is so Christ-like."

Who is the intended audience for this latest ditty? Christians hear this kind of statement and they literally want to throw up – it's bordering on blasphemy.

The movement left's consistent mis-reading of sane people confirms their essential madness. They stare into the face of sanity and see very little that is familiar to them.


Put aside these people comparing Palin to Pilate. By the time anyone reads these words there will probably be comparisons being made to Hitler – they are already saying she thinks like an Islamic fascist. In spite of the movement left's attempts to neuter society, we still have enough raw instinct left to smell fear, and you lot on the left positively reek of it.

In their sheer panic, the movement left is doing much of our job for us. Their insulting behavior will serve to insulate Governor Palin from future attacks if something meaningful is discovered. Their bias is utterly transparent; we know she is fundamentally decent, and she is not corrupt. Unless you can alter our thinking on that level, America won't be buying whatever you throw at her. She is now above all but the most sobering criticism.

Presently, new 'revelations' are meeting this kind of response:
"Nice try. 80%+ of Alaskans like her and think she's a reformer. They've actually watched her work. Now, after having essentially told us that she is a Christ killing pig with the mindset of an Islamic fascist, you are supposed to be believed? You are a sad and sorry lot. Why don't you go have yourselves a nice nap. You're obviously tired and cranky. Again."


The movement left could have approached Palin with sanity and calm, but they are, at root, petulant children, as they show time and again. With this ongoing and worsening tantrum, they have pretty much bullet-proofed Mrs. Palin from damaging criticism.



Back to The Creator being a 'community organizer'. There is so much wrong with this that it's hard to know where to start. In the interests of brevity, let's consider just a few of the ways this rubs sane people the wrong way.

But before I get going, if there are any Obama cultists reading this (fat chance – is anyone reading this?) can we at least stipulate that Obama and Christ are not one and the same? No? Anyway....
 
First, Christ actually accomplished something and had a boss. Obama sat around griping and perhaps helping people with a few bills, but had no defined responsibilities as far as anyone can tell. The campaign touts no great stories of his saving any small part of the south Chicago community. After a lot of pissing and moaning, southside Chicago remained essentially the same place as it was, in spite of Obama's messianic ministrations. One could probably not be faulted for guessing his was largely a screw-off job, since he has never noted an accomplishment from that period of his life. Christ's 'community organizing' forever changed the world and he was tortured to death for it.

Second, Christ encouraged the downtrodden to change, to turn away from earthly concerns and embrace a unique way of living and thinking about their place in the world and their relation to God. Obama encourages a lot of pissing and moaning about earthly circumstances, encouraging the downtrodden to nurse envy and blame others.

Third, Christ forsook material comforts. Obama, until recently, flew on 'O'Force One', a private plane with more lavish accommodations than Air Force One. On that plane was a throne, a large leather one, with "President" stitched into it. For a time, it was from that throne that Obama further honed the skills he garnered from his hard work as a community organizer. Christ has yet to ascend to his earthly throne.

Fourth, Christ was humble. Though perfect, had He made a mistake he'd have admitted it. Obama thinks he is perfect and can't see even that mistake, let alone any political mistake. While the rest of us are waiting for The Creator to return, Obama is the one Obama's been waiting for.

Fifth, Christ encouraged us to give out of kindness and love. Obama wants you to give at the point of a gun. This whole notion that the leftist philosophy is close to Christianity is a farce akin to heresy. Free will is central to mankind's nature and relation to our Creator, it is what makes meaningful love possible, the reason we were created to begin with. Every instinct of the left is to crush free will, and to subjugate us to the service of the government and its clients. Christian charity elevates everyone involved, government redistribution of wealth has never had such an affect on people.

Sixth, The Creator of the universe is pro life. His work proves it. Once human beings begin to develop, the results are predictable if we don't tamper with them. Accidents of nature can squelch life in the womb, but far more often it is human hands at work, tearing up another of The Creator's masterpieces. Obama, more than anyone else in American political history, is pro-abortion; he even supports eliminating every existing state restriction on every abortion procedure. Surely the Creator of human life cannot be happy when he sees it promiscuously created and destroyed.

Lucky #7: Others told the story of Christ's life, with his direction. These were biographies. Obama favors autobiographies. Ah yes, who but Obama could contain, even in two books, the monumental achievements of his life?

I will say it again and again: the fact that this man has already penned two autobiographies, in spite of accomplishing approximately diddly squat with his years of public service, tells sane people all they need to know about him.


This is a season of insanity in an age of madness. Hillary Clinton looks positively Reaganesque next to Mr. Obama, and I can't be alone in longing for the days of good old Bill Clinton – considering the present alternative. Is there a conservative anywhere on the planet who would not break their arms pulling the lever for Bill before they would even consider voting for Obama? Compared to Obama:

Bill Clinton is a veritable giant among statesmen, a renaissance man, a gentleman of the highest character, and a man of unparalleled dignity, honor, and self-control. A man not to be trifled with on the international stage, Bill's calling is selfless service, and he lives and breathes America.

Obama lives and breathes Obama.


TOTA

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

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