Wicked Wolf's Lair

Art!

2009-06-29T23:09:19Z

We've recently moved into our new house, and I've been searching the Internet lately for some real artwork to put up. As my friends know, I love wolves. However, most wolf artwork out there is (a) boring, (b) bland, (c) silly or (d) amateurish. I must have looked at over 2000 images on Google and they all fell into one of the above categories. Then I found Kendahl Jan Jubb's website, and I knew I'd found what I'd been seeking. Below are some examples of her work, graciously sent me by her director of sales, Ram Murphy.

Visit the site, http://www.kendahljanjubb.com/default.htm and if you see something you like, give Ram a call at 1-866-721-7050 toll free. Kendahl does commissions, and also offers Giclee prints and regular prints of her work. Since I am much too poor to afford real art, if you want to make a contribution to my art fund, I'm accepting personal checks, cashiers checks, money orders and of course, cash. ;-)

I don't know what Kendahl's politics are, but hopefully she won't be too offended by my endorsement.

"Autumn Meadow"

"One Wolf"

"Autumn Wolf"

Comrades! Hail National Socialist Healthcare!

2009-06-17T01:28:37Z

Once again, it’s been a while since I posted, and yes, I have been busy with life. However, with the firehose of stupidity coming out of Washington lately, it’s hard to have time to compose my thoughts about one outrage before there is yet another roaring down the pike at us.

I am physically nauseated every day watching the new national socialists (a.k.a., "progressives" or "Democrats" or "Republicans") move us ever closer to state corporatism. Forget Nancy “Liar, Liar Pants on Fire” Pelosi’s outrageous behavior, the President’s illegal firing of an inspector general to protect his cronies, the bed-wettingly frightening prospect of letting ACORN and Rahm Emanuel control the census, the biggest national deficit in our entire history, not as a country but as a species, the political deal to trade the safety of our troops for a hundred billion dollars we don’t have for the IMF and the media’s absolute complicity in all of it.

I want to talk about health care tonight. Walk with me, won’t you, down the Primrose Path to our state-corporatist-socialist future.

Is or is it not true that health insurance is basically a bet with distributed risk? The insurance company (the house) collects your premium (stake), betting that you will not need a payout. Your bet is that you will. The insurance company collects the premiums of its entire client base and pays out of that pool, and takes some of the money to cover costs and to make a profit. The company also sets some rules to minimize its risk: no preexisting conditions, or higher premiums for clients with higher risks, etc. The broad pool of clients makes for a large pool of money, facilitating the ability to cover costly procedures for what the company hopes will always be a small minority of its clients.

What the company doesn’t do very well, however, is negotiate prices for services rendered. Medical care providers, following the profit motive, will ask the highest price they think they can get. Since there is no real limit to how much can be paid, the very existence of the insurance companies inflate the price for medical care – the balance of supply and demand has shifted in favor of supply in this case.

Enter government. Against all common sense, but with the best of intentions, government decrees that health care providers must provide services to patients regardless of their ability to pay. Since the health care providers can’t bill people with no ability to pay, they recoup their costs by inflating their prices yet again so that the people who do pay through their insurance companies get stuck for a portion of the cost of caring for patients who can’t pay. It is an unofficial tax to support a social program that is levied and collected by the healthcare providers simply so they can remain in business. Health care costs soar, premiums soar and now it is nearly impossible for anyone with a moderate income to afford health care and/or insurance.

Then government strikes again, this time with government-sponsored health (and now drug coverage) insurance like Medicare, Medicaid and TRICare. Because it’s the government and can’t be sued, the government simply says to the health care provider, “Okay, here’s what we’re willing to pay, take it or leave it.” Usually it’s only a small percentage of the actual bill, so the government stiffs the provider who has to either (1) raise their rates on everyone else to cover it, or (2) refuse to accept Medicare, Medicaid or TRICare. (That’s why so many doctors have stopped taking TRICare, leaving those patients dependent on less skilled, less-qualified or less-experienced doctors. Moreover, because of all this madness, small businesses that once could afford to pay for medical and dental insurance suddenly have to cease paying this benefit because it’s too expensive anymore, thereby adding more uninsured patients, once again increasing costs to everyone.

Now the government wants to create a single payer system. It’s not politically viable for them to say we’re taking over the health care system, so they say the government program won’t be a mandate, just an option available to people so everyone can have health insurance. (But wasn’t the creation of big health insurance programs the start of the problem to begin with? But I digress…) Oh, and by the way, to help pay for it, we’ll start taxing workers’ health care benefits. (Another Obama campaign lie). So now no small business can afford to pay the cost of insurance and the additional taxes, so the government program grows. Health insurance companies can’t compete with the efficiencies of scale that government has, so they quietly go bankrupt and out of business.

Now we’re stuck with a huge government program and what will amount to the defense contractors of health care who will bid for government contracts. Since the government will determine what it is willing to pay, and because everyone will be on the health care dole by then, every hospital will look like Walter Reed: understaffed, with vast waiting rooms and horrible wait times. Forget nipping out for a couple of hours to see your doctor – you’re there for the day, baby, and that after waiting six months or more just to get an appointment.

Since the government won’t pay as well as they should, the skilled and qualified physicians will probably quit, leaving the field open to lesser doctors, increasing the risks of incompetence and malpractice. Can’t really blame the doctors, though. As Dr. Sanity put it on June 13th:

"I will simply not practice medicine anymore. I will take my psychiatry books and my years of experience and do something else. I used to wait tables when I was in college. It's an honest living and Obama isn't interested for the time being in nationalizing restaurants--yet.

"Let me be clear. I don't believe that people have a "right" to health care; because, what advocating such a "right" basically means is that you believe you have a "right" to my mind; you have a "right" to my professional competence; i.e., you have a "right" to enslave me."

In fact once you declare that health care is a “right,” you have declared it to be a “public good” like national defense. In that case, the only model that makes sense is to create a National Healthcare Service Corps, probably under the Department of Health, that is run the same way that the military services are and with the same corporate infrastructure to back it up – pharmaceutical and medical equipment labs vs. weapons labs. Now in addition to the military-industrial complex, you’ll be able to add a medical-industrial complex that’s just as inefficient and just as dependent upon and wasteful of trillions of taxpayer dollars as the lefties always want to accuse the DoD of being.

Personally I say screw ‘em. Lets do away with government health care programs and massive health insurance companies that do nothing except create a feeding frenzy for the corporate healthcare industry that inflates costs beyond all reason. ($12 for a couple of Tylenol? $350,000 or more for a month in hospital?) Let’s see what happens when we re-introduce actual market forces. Maybe, just maybe we’d get more healthcare professionals and more and better care rather than the rationing that will surely accompany a single-payer government-run system.

(Hat Tip to Michelle Malkin for the picture.)

Vive la Difference!

2009-03-24T01:33:08Z

Enjoy and/or take a lesson (you know who you are). A little levity to lighten our loads in the waning days of the Republic, as the Obamatons push their statist agenda and the Obamaconomy unravels before our eyes.

We ALL Own "Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness."

2009-03-14T20:46:35Z

On April 1, 2008, Elizabeth Doyle-Propst, CEO of Breath of Hope, Inc, filed a trademark request with the United States Patent and Trademark Office to own the rights to the phrase “Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness” and a logo of a turquoise ribbon. This request was initially denied. It was resubmitted without the logo and went onto the supplemental registry on September 17, 2008. Preceding and following this registration, Breath of Hope, Inc. filed complaints and sent threatening correspondence to other Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia (CDH) support organizations and families who used the term “Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness.”

This story has received little press, apart from some coverage on BoingBoing and TechDirt. (Hey, Wired Danger Room! Still worried about the Pentagon’s mind control rays? Why don’t you lose the tinfoil hat once in a while, Noah.)

A few words about Mrs. Propst. Mrs. Propst lost her daughter Cecilia to complications arising from a CDH in 1999. She then volunteered at CHERUBS, one of the first online communities for parents coping with the effects of CDH on a child, and seemed to be just what the organization was looking for. Soon however, her increasingly erratic behavior led to a series of conflicts that began to affect the entire CHERUBS online community. Mrs. Propst eventually quit the CHERUBS community, but bizarrely, she began attempting to reenter the site under a variety of alias personas. She has generally been unceasing in her attempts to attack the CHERUBS website, even going so far as to hire “professional” hackers to carry out denial of service and malware attacks. You can read more about the whole sordid mess here.

The latest outrage is, as noted above, an attempt to copyright a phrase commonly in use. Her rationale is as follows:

“Breath of Hope, Incorporated has been criticized for the trademark which was done to protect the campaign from being marketed by Corporate America. What Breath of Hope did was have the foresight to make sure that the families and children who have been affected by CDH are not being profited on and the funds raised through the Awareness Campaign will go to education, research and possibly a cure one day. In order to use marks from a company, individual or an organization – you can obtain license to do so. This is to protect the mark. When other nonprofits request the use of the mark the license and guidelines will explain how it is to be used so Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness® doesn’t go the way of pinkwashing. Any other non-profit out there that benefits families, encourages research or truly makes a difference for this birth defect that occurs just as often as Spina Bifida, Cystic Fibrosis and Downs Syndrome will freely obtain a license which will protect this campaign and those that have been affected by congenital diaphragmatic hernia the birth defect.”

Ooooh! Watch out – Corporate America is out to screw over disabled children! Thank goodness we have someone like Mrs. Propst to protect us all. <Sarcasm off.> Just who is she to determine what organizations are worthy enough to be “licensed?” Based on her “Fatal Attraction”-type behavior, do you think CHERUBS will get a license? Somehow I doubt it, just as I doubt that any “licenses” she deigns to grant will be “free” in any sense of the word.

On December 4, 2008, CHERUBS filed a “Petition to Cancel” with the United States Patent and Trademark Office against the trademark “Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness”. According to the website:

”It is our goal, along with 7 other CDH organizations and over 4000 CDH families and medical care providers who signed an on-line petition, that this trademark be canceled so that all people affected by Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia be able to raise awareness without the threat of lawsuits. Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia is a severe, and often deadly, birth defect that affects over 1600 babies each year in the United States alone and it would be extremely detrimental for one person or organization to dictate who can raise awareness for this birth defect. Because threats and complaints have been filed in the past and recently by Breath of Hope, Inc against organizations and persons using the term “Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness”, we felt that we had no choice but to stand up for CDH families and to fight for their rights to raise awareness.

”It is our sincere hope that the United States Patent and Trademark Office will see that it is in society’s best interest to cancel this trademark. We also hope that Breath of Hope, Inc and Elizabeth Doyle-Propst will refrain from any further attempts to harm members of the CDH community and will handle this matter in a mature, professional, non-vindictive and compassionate manner and put CDH families and their awareness rights first and foremost – as should be the behavior of any non-profit organization for families affected by Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia.”

As you may have guessed (and those of you who know me already know), we have a child who is a CDH survivor; therefore this whole situation is somewhat personal for us, and many others. In fact, my wife and I were recently banned from the CHERUBS website, despite over four years of membership simply because our IP addresses are geolocated closely with Mrs. Propst’s (we recently moved). Her unceasing attacks – despite several restraining orders and charges of cyberstalking - on the CHERUBS site are definitely having an affect: mostly on people innocently seeking community in face of grief or mortal fear for their child; people trying to come to grips with what seems like the gross unfairness of fate. Mrs. Propst should be ashamed of herself. She is not the first, last or only parent to lose a child to CDH, and her bid to copyright a commonly used phrase is nothing but sheer malignant narcissism and greed.

In any case, please visit the CHERUBS website and sign the petition. Legal action to stop Mrs. Propst and Breath of Hope are proceeding. CHERUBS has also been designated an official YouTube charity. You can visit their YouTube channel here. Be sure to check out all the “I Own Congenital Diaphragmatic Hernia Awareness” videos and tell others to do the same.

Two Items of Some Passing Interest

2009-02-20T02:16:02Z

It’s been a while since I’ve posted, and I’m sorry about that. Life intervenes, and we often lack all the time we would like – at least if we’re working for our family’s betterment instead of voluntarily sitting on our butt waiting for that support check.

All that aside, I saw a couple of items today that I had to post about. The first just for the sheer, jaw dropping surrealism, and the second because it’s the first ray of hope for America I’ve seen since November.

Item 1: From the American Thinker

“Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has said the US should take a lesson from the pages of Russian history and not exercise “excessive intervention in economic activity and blind faith in the state’s omnipotence”.

“’In the 20th century, the Soviet Union made the state’s role absolute,’ Putin said during a speech at the opening ceremony of the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland.

“’In the long run, this made the Soviet economy totally uncompetitive. This lesson cost us dearly. I am sure nobody wants to see it repeated.’

“Sounding more like Barry Goldwater than the former head of the KGB, Putin said, ‘Nor should we turn a blind eye to the fact that the spirit of free enterprise, including the principle of personal responsibility of businesspeople, investors, and shareholders for their decisions, is being eroded in the last few months. There is no reason to believe that we can achieve better results by shifting responsibility onto the state.’

“Putin also echoed the words of conservative maverick Ron Paul when he said, ‘we must assess the real situation and write off all hopeless debts and ‘bad’ assets. True, this will be an extremely painful and unpleasant process. Far from everyone can accept such measures, fearing for their capitalization, bonuses, or reputation. However, we would “conserve” and prolong the crisis, unless we clean up our balance sheets.’

I mean, what the hell kind of through-the-looking-glass world have we fallen into?

Item 2: Rick Santelli Rant on CNBC

Select Transcript:

“The government is promoting bad behavior. We certainly don’t want to put stimulus forth and give people a whopping $8 or $10 in their check and think that they ought to save it.

“And in terms of modifications, I tell you what. I have an idea. The new administration is big on computers and technology. How about this, President and new administration?

“Why don’t you put up a website to have people vote on the Internet as a referendum to see if we really want to subsidize the losers’ mortgages? Or would they like to at least buy cars, buy houses in foreclosure … give it to people who might have a chance to actually prosper down the road and reward people that can carry the water instead of drink the water?

“This is America!

“How many people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage, who has an extra bathroom and can’t pay their bills?

“Raise your hands!

“President Obama, are you listening?

“You know Cuba used to have mansions and a relatively decent economy. They moved from the individual to the collective....Now they’re driving ‘54 Chevys.

...

“It’s time for another tea party.

...

“What we are doing in this country will make Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin roll over in their graves.”

Have we a new Sam Adams and the Sons of Liberty? Where do I sign up? (Of course it would be Chicago, not Boston, and Lake Michigan, not Boston Harbor, and dumping …? instead of tea…)

An Immaculation Day Special

2009-01-20T15:41:36Z

Cult of Personality (2009 update)

(With Apologies to Living Color)

Look in my eyes, what do you see?
The Cult of Personality
I know your anger, I know your dreams
I’ve been everything you want to be
I’m the Cult of Personality

Like Mussolini, (not Kennedy)
I’m the Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality

Neon lights, a Nobel Prize
When a mirror speaks, the reflection lies
You don’t "have" to follow me
Only you can set me free

I sell the things you need to be
I’m the smiling face on your T.V.
Oh, I’m the Cult of Personality

I exploit you, still you love me
I tell you one and one makes three
Oh, I’m the Cult of Personality

Like Joseph Stalin, (not Ghandi)
I’m the Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality
The Cult of Personality

Neon lights, a nobel prize
When a leader speaks, that leader lies
You don’t "have" to follow me
Only you can set you free

You gave me fortune
You gave me fame
You me power in your God’s name
I’m every person you need to be
I’m the Cult of Personality

I’m the Cult of

I’m the Cult of
Personality

Should Sarah Go On Oprah?

2008-11-11T05:37:29Z

CNNHN Entertainment Tonight is asking the question: Is it time for Sarah Palin to go on Oprah? Huh, gee, I dunno; let's see...

Oprah refused to allow Sarah any airtime during the campaign, but now that the 'Bama won the election (by only 1 percentage point more than Bush had when he won re-election in '04, I might add), she's okay with having Sarah on now? I suppose it's in line with the conciliatory "peace, love and unity" sentiment floating around, kinda like these folks are offering.

And where was this sentiment of fairness, reconciliation and unity prior to November 4, 2008? Oh, that's right. These same fools were busy apologizing to the world for Bush's election. So where was the love and unity from the leftists then?

If Sarah should appear on Oprah, then Sarah's not thinking right. Why allow the same partisan hypocrite who refused her an appearance during the campaign to show her insincere magnaminity and parade Sarah like some kind of war trophy -- or worse, trying to get Sarah to admit the "error of her ways," as though Obama's election and Oprah have somehow managed to "save" her? Used to be, I had some respect for Oprah for her charitable work; but now? She's just another self-important left-wing hypocrite tool.

Hypocrites and tools seem to abound on the left. Don't believe me? Well, how about this paragon of educators? Listen to how she responds to the girl who was supporting McCain, going so far as to use a blatant lie to inflict emotional pain and humiliation on the girl. Child abuse anyone? Supression of dissenting opinions? Then in the followup interview, this unbelievable lying hypocrite says she doesn't browbeat anyone for their difference of political opinion. I plan to show this to my own daughter to teach her what to watch out for.

Of course it's all just therapeutic mind control. Gotta save the children from their parents' delusions for the sake of the State.

A big hat tip to Michelle Malkin and Dr. Sanity for the above.

Doubt -- About Obama, Race Relations and America’s Future

2008-11-09T01:00:07Z

“I saw the decade end, when it seemed the world could change in the blink of an eye…”

I was listening to Jesus Jones’ “Right Here, Right Now” from their 1991 album “Doubt,” yesterday, and thinking about that period of my life. The policies of Ronald Reagan, and his successor George H.W. Bush, defying their liberal critics, had defeated the Soviet Union, and freedom was breaking out in Russia and the Former Soviet Republics. I remembered the intense, giddy relief at the end of the tension that marked the Cold War, the end of the fear of a nuclear Armageddon, and my hope that the Russians and we could at last be friends instead of enemies. That time for me defined Hope and Change. It occurred to me, listening to Maya Angelou’s interview with Harry Smith on CBS, that black Americans must be feeling that same mélange of relief and triumph now that I felt then.

As I’ve walked about my place of employment the last few days, I’ve noticed something different. My coworkers of African descent seem to be walking a little taller and standing straighter. They are quicker with a smile and a friendly word, greeting me as we pass in the hallways with a nod that bespeaks a greater sense of confidence and esteem and real pride. I believe it has to do with the fact that finally, FINALLY, Americans of all ethnicities have elected a black to the highest office in the land, and finally blacks have a sense – a feeling – that they have arrived, that they are “real” Americans at last.

Perhaps Maya Angelou put this feeling into words best, in the above referenced interview:

“I'm so proud and filled, I can hardly talk without weeping. I'm so filled with pride for my country. What do you say? We are growing up. My God, I'm so grateful.... I mean, look at our souls, look at our hearts. We have elected a black man to talk for us, to speak for us. We, blacks, whites, Asians, Spanish-speaking, Native Americans, we have done it. Fat, thin, pretty, plain, gay, straight, we have done it. My Lord, I am an American, baby.”

I must admit with some embarrassment that I had never really noticed any lack of pride and confidence before in my black coworkers before the election of Mr. Obama, but its presence now makes its prior absence more conspicuous. For this gift, I rejoice with my black coworkers.

However, I find it more than somewhat sad that despite the end of slavery, despite the success of the civil rights movement, despite all that America has done to put citizens of African ancestry on an equal footing with those of European descent, it still took the election of Mr. Obama to make blacks like Dr. Angelou finally feel that they are Americans. I hate to have to tell you this, Dr. Angelou, but, uh, you were an American before Obama was even a gleam in his father’s eye.

I, and millions like me, have never thought of blacks as not Americans. We have always believed in Dr. King’s dream of a society and a nation in which people “will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” Believing in this dream, we have made a moral and ethical decision never to look at the color of a person’s skin and prejudge them solely on that basis; but instead we have striven to look at their words, deeds and associations as an individual, and it is inconceivable to us that any rational, sane person would do or think any differently. For us, color-blindness is a good thing. We neither understand nor condone the politics of race.

Biological science shows us that there is no such thing as race. You wouldn’t speak of “races” with any other species, despite color variations among their members. We are one species with a number of color variations that represent adaptations to differing environments. That’s it.

“Race” is only a convenient socio-political distinction without a difference. It is a social construction that merely allows one group to easily identify another group for scapegoating. For proof, look at the 2007 Salon.com article about Mr. Obama not being “authentically black:”

“‘Black,’ in our political and social reality, means those descended from West African slaves. Voluntary immigrants of African descent (even those descended from West Indian slaves) are just that, voluntary immigrants of African descent with markedly different outlooks on the role of race in their lives and in politics. At a minimum, it can't be assumed that a Nigerian cabdriver and a third-generation Harlemite have more in common than the fact a cop won't bother to make the distinction. They're both ‘black’ as a matter of skin color and DNA, but only the Harlemite, for better or worse, is politically and culturally black, as we use the term.”

By this logic then, neither I, nor my family, nor any of the other hundreds of millions of descendents of European immigrants who were never slaveholders can be considered “authentically white.” And if that’s the case, then none of us has any cause to feel any “white guilt.” Nor do we have any cause to treat blacks with any special favor or disfavor. We owe them nothing, save the basic respect due to any other human being.

Imagine our shock and outrage, then, when despite our best efforts to keep race from being a factor in our dealings with our fellow citizens, we inauthentic whites of European descent are incessantly accused of being racist. Certain blacks constantly throw their skin color into the national discussion as if that trait alone qualifies them for special preference. In short, we inauthentic whites of European descent are tired of having our skin color used to identify us as scapegoats for the culturally based social and economic failures of non-white individuals – in America or anywhere else.

Just like race, class is also socially constructed. As I have tried to point out on this blog for years, the Marxist-Liberal politics of the left wing of the Democratic Party are the politics of envy. Politicians like this constantly reinforce the socially constructed differences among us and then claim that differences in group identity are the root cause of the unjust privation of some and the unjust success of others, rather than differences in individual actions. It is the politics of something-for-nothing; the politics of taking from those that have (who earned it) to give to those who have not (and have done nothing to earn it). It is the mistaken belief that everyone has a right to everything they want but has no commensurate responsibility to work for it. It is the politics of social control, in which people voluntarily give up their personal liberty along with their personal responsibility. As Benjamin Franklin said: “Those who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security deserve neither liberty nor security.”

So let me be as clear as I possibly can be: I care not what color Mr. Obama is. His skin color is a distinction without a difference. Only to the extent that today’s descendants of former slaves of African ancestry feel better about themselves, to the extent that they will finally start thinking of themselves as Americans, vice hyphenated Americans, to the extent that his Presidency can begin healing our self-inflicted political wounds, does Mr. Obama’s skin color matter.

Unfortunately, I suspect that in their excitement at FINALLY being able to elect a “black” man to the office of the President, over 60 million Americans utterly failed to consider his other – more important – individual traits: his belief in Socialism, his fundamental lack of belief in the ideals of the American Constitution, his rejection of the values of personal responsibility, and his association with men and women who actively hate all that America has (often imperfectly) stood for and symbolized. His openly stated policy plans show this:

In one fell blow, Obama would force millions of American children into involuntary servitude, placing the left’s objective of raising “social consciousness” above the serious and already challenged business of actually educating them.

Obama would, like Hillary Clinton, “take those profits” of the oil companies through taxation and redistribute them to lower income Americans who have done nothing to earn them.

Obama also would seek passage of the once already defeated Matthew Shepard Act, which would essentially criminalize thoughts; punishing people for their thoughts in addition to punishing them for their deeds by creating an entire new class of “hate crimes.”

Sadly also I fear that Mr. Obama’s ascendancy will not mean the end of racially motivated hatred among blacks, as evidenced by statements by Harvard law professor (and plagiarist) Charles Ogletree, who seems to believe that even Obama’s election is not evidence of the end of white racism, because Obama is half white.

I fear that the country I grew up in, for whose revolutionary history and ideals I have felt such unabashed pride and love, will be no more than a cherished memory if Mr. Obama and the leftists now holding the majority in Congress are able to use the mechanism of representative democracy to deceive a majority of Americans into surrendering their liberty for the sake of envy.

As I close, it is fitting (in regard to this essay’s opening) to note that less than twenty-four hours after Mr. Obama’s elevation, Russia announced its plans to move short range, nuclear-capable missiles within striking range of Europe. I pray Mr. Obama’s presidency does not result in the world's repossession of the sense of hope and positive political change bought for us all so long ago by President Reagan.

The New Look for usa.gov Under The Obama-Pelosi-Reid Troika

2008-11-06T04:05:15Z

Despite the fact that 60+ million voters just made what I believe to be an exceptionally grave mistake for which all of us will pay in the now inevitable time of troubles to come, I have to look for some humor. [And don't worry "Dems" (wink, wink); as a member of the loyal opposition, I fully intend to give Barry the exact same level of respect, honor and loyalty you all so richly lavished on President Bush.]

From Andy Rutledge:

Click Andy's link above to read the whole thing. :)

As Winston Churchill Said...

2008-11-05T04:58:12Z

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with ~~the average~~ an Obama voter."

"From ~~Stettin in the Baltic~~ Manhattan on the Atlantic to ~~Trieste in the Adriatic~~ Los Angeles on the Pacific, an iron curtain has descended across the Continent."

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery."

"Some people regard private enterprise as a predatory tiger to be shot. Others look on it as a cow they can milk. Not enough people see it as a healthy horse, pulling a sturdy wagon."

"Study history, study history. In history lies all the secrets of statecraft."

"In war as in life, it is often necessary when some cherished scheme has failed, to take up the best alternative open, and if so, it is folly not to work for it with all your might."

"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts."

"Never give up, never give up, never, never, never give up."

More Critical Info for the Obamamedia to Cover Up - er, Ignore

2008-10-27T22:54:09Z

As Sean Hannity says, we are witnessing the death of journalism in this country:

Halloween Palin Prop Sparks Controversy In WeHo

WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. (AP) ― A Halloween decoration showing a mannequin dressed as vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin hanging by a noose from the roof of a West Hollywood home is drawing giggles from some passers-by and gasps of outrage from others.

The mannequin is dressed in brunet wig, glasses and a red business suit. Another mannequin dressed as John McCain emerges from a flaming chimney.

Chad Michael Morisette, who lives in the house, told CBS 2 News that drivers and bus passengers have been stopping to snap pictures of the macabre scene.

Morisette says the effigy would be out of bounds at any other time of year, but it’s within the spirit of Halloween.

He says “it should be seen as art, and as within the month of October. It’s Halloween, it’s time to be scary it’s time to be spooky.”

And just earlier this year a sports reporter and a golf magazine editor lost their jobs because the former used the word “lynch” in a jocular reference to an African-American athlete, and the latter approved the use of the image of a noose on the magazine’s cover with regard to a popular African-American golfer (who apparently wasn't offended anyway).

Guess it’s okay to advocate lynching conservative white women though. (h/t to S&L)

And now the piéce de résistance (h/t to Michelle Malkin):

This should scare the hell out of every true American. Obama seems to think the Warren Court was not radical enough; and though he doesn’t say so much, it’s clear he believes the Supreme Court should “break free” of Constitutional constraints.

What better way to bypass the unenlightened masses, who foolishly think they should be free to govern themselves? But to the post-modern leftist, nothing is sacred – especially not the written intent of the real revolutionaries of the Enlightenment, who are, after all, merely a bunch of dead white racist slaveholders (but I repeat myself).

The Left-Wing Democrats' Ultimate Media Strategy

2008-10-17T23:22:14Z

So what, pray tell, is our Obama-cheerleading media trying to accomplish with stories like this…

Nation Could Face Short Election Night

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14660.html (h/t to S&L)

“Network news executives said they are preparing for an unusual Election Night challenge: How to be honest with the audience, and still keep them tuned in, if the race between John McCain and Barack Obama is effectively decided before most Americans have finished dinner.

”After two elections in which the suspense went far into the evening (and, in the case of 2000, for 36 days afterward), the executives said they are contemplating how to manage their newscasts in the event of an Obama blowout — in which the Democrat’s victory would be obvious while polls are still open in most of the country.

‘Our policy is that we won’t call individual states until all of the voting in those states is finished,’ said Jeffrey Schneider, ABC News senior vice president. ‘If enough of those states add up to 270 electoral votes, then the outcome is obvious.’

“… executives are already mulling how clearly they would want their anchors and analysts to state the obvious, since networks have been criticized for depressing turnout by calling elections while polls are still open for several more hours. But they must also decide how they are going to fill air time, since networks are planning to be on the air until 2 a.m. on the East Coast.

“Paul Friedman, CBS News senior vice president, said he has started to think ‘about what we could do to augment our Senate and House coverage on election night if the presidential story is over.’”

… and skewed polls like this?

“AP/YAHOO Poll of 873 Democrats; 650 Republicans shows OBAMA 44%, MCCAIN 42%..." (http://l.yimg.com/a/i/us/nws/elections/ap_election_wave8_topline_101308.pdf -- h/t to Matt Drudge)

Check out this article on zombietime.com for a fascinating article with the answer, and realize the matrix has you (or so they think)… (h/t to Dr. Sanity)

Sheer Eloquence...

2008-10-08T22:43:39Z

A big hat tip to Dr. Sanity for this one:

One more thing; check out the new CD "Distortion" by Reverend Run (formerly of Run DMC)! Sample video "Mind on the Road" here.

The Smoking Gun

2008-09-26T03:30:56Z

If you didn't read my first post from September 21st, then watch this. Pay attention, this is important!

(Hat Tip to Dr. Sanity)

A Disturbing Similarity...

2008-09-21T21:44:59Z

'Nuff said...

Debate Advice for McCain

2008-09-21T16:19:12Z

Trialdog over at S&L posted this little summary in his comments on this article, and I think it needs to be re-posted. I forwarded these to the McCain campaign (ideas@mccain08hq.com).

Maybe if more of us do so, we'll get to see Obama stutter over his responses. In any case, I thought this was well-worthy of re-posting it here.

____________________________________

"So, Obama runs ads critical of McCain for voting with Bush “90%” of the time. Let’s see:

"When Bush proposed a comprehensive energy bill in 2001, passage of which would have let us avoid the latest energy crunch, Democrats celebrated their ability to kill the plan for partisan and special interest purposes.

"When Bush proposed oversight of Freddie and Fannie in 2003, something that might have helped us avoid the latest financial “crisis”, Democrats voted against the plan because it would have hurt their special interests, and, by the way, the groups that are the biggest supporters and donors to Obama.

"When Bush called for “the surge”, Democrats opposed it, for partisan purposes. Bush prevailed and, with the success, is able to draw down troops. Then, Obama tries to stop the draw down through back door unauthorized negotiations with Iraqi officials. He does this for personal reasons of helping himself win an election (”Elect me - Bush can’t get troops out, I will) and trying to secure future status (I brought the troops home from Iraq).

"Here is what McCain should say in the debates:

“Senator, you and your colleagues, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and Charles Rangel have consistently voted against and blocked energy bills forwarded by this White House and the Republicans. In 2001, the President presented a comprehensive plan, which I supported. The Democrats celebrated the fact they killed the plan for their special interest lobbyists. Those lobbyists have enjoyed the profits they’ve made because your party blocked the plan. Now, you have the gall to claim you will be the energy President? Senator, you can’t fool the American people twice.

“Senator, it’s been the appointees of your party that ran Freddie and Fannie down while taking huge salaries for themselves. It was the groups that support you and you worked for that have benefited the most from the sub-prime mess. In fact, it was the lobbyists from those groups that pushed for the Democrat controlled Congress to pass the legislation to allow this mess. The President proposed an overhaul in 2003 that your party blocked and ridiculed. That proposal would have helped us avoid this mess. After your colleagues blocked the proposal, their lobbyist friends poured money into their campaign accounts. I notice you’ve been a huge recipient too. So spare us all the talk about change. When I was for it, you and you friends were against it. It paid you well but it wasn’t in the best interest of the American people.

“Senator, the President and I worked hard to help our troops toward victory in Iraq so they can come home. You’ve claimed you just want them home, yet last spring, when the President wanted to enter a deal with the Iraqis to bring some troops home, you asked the Iraqis to block the deal. Our troops earned their ticket home and you tried to stand in the way so you could have something to say in the election and claim credit for bringing them home for yourself. You should be ashamed.”

____________________________________

My neighbor across the street put up an Obama bin Biden campaign yard sign. Although I've never had campaign signs in my yard before, I guess I've no choice now. I've requested my McCain-Palin sign.

Why You Should Vote McCain-Palin

2008-09-21T16:02:07Z

For what it’s worth, here’s my take on the current economic crisis.

Regulations were enacted post-Great Depression that were the result of lessons learned from that era. These regulations served consumers well, by preventing further crises and ensuring stable growth and increasing prosperity for over 60 years.

However, certain aspects of some regulations chafed at the industries they regulated. These industries formed lobbies pushing for deregulation that came to dominate the agencies set up to regulate them.

“One problem that encouraged deregulation was the way in which the regulated industries often controlled the government regulatory agencies, using them to serve the industries' interests. Even where regulatory bodies started out functioning independently, a process known as regulatory capture often sees industry interests come to dominate those of the consumer. A similar pattern has been observed with the deregulation process, itself often effectively controlled by the regulated industries through lobbying the legislative process. Such political forces, however, exist in many other forms for other ‘special interest’ groups.” (See NOTES below.)

As a result, “deregulation” came to be a byword of both political parties. In some instances, deregulation worked well, yet in others it did not (airlines, banking). Politicians should have foreseen the effects of banking industry deregulation with the S&L crisis of the 1980s and 90s, and the massive bailouts that followed.

However, in 1999 a bipartisan repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act, a 66-year-old firewall between commercial banks and investment houses.

“Two separate United States laws are known as the Glass-Steagall Act. The Acts (Glass & Steagall) were both reactions of the U.S. government to cope with the collapse of a large portion of the American commercial banking system in early 1933. While many economic histories attribute the collapse to the economic problems which followed the Stock Market Crash of 1929 it is clear that the U.S. banking collapse of 1933, which came three and a half years later, could only have been partially the result of the stock market collapse in October 1929.

“The bill that ultimately repealed the Act was introduced in the Senate by Phil Gramm (R-TX) and in the House of Representatives by James Leach (R-IA) in 1999. The bills were passed by a 54-44 vote along party lines with Republican support in the Senate and by a 343-86 vote in the House of Representatives. Nov 4, 1999: After passing both the Senate and House the bill was moved to a conference committee to work out the differences between the Senate and House versions. The final bill resolving the differences was passed in the Senate 90-8-1 and in the House: 362-57-15. This veto proof legislation was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on November 12, 1999.”

Around the same time, Democrats in Congress, through then-President Bill Clinton, sought enforcement of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act (passed under President Carter), forcing banks to loan money to people who wouldn’t otherwise have qualified, in the name of combating racism.

“The Clinton administration has turned the Community Reinvestment Act, a once-obscure and lightly enforced banking regulation law, into one of the most powerful mandates shaping American cities—and, as Senate Banking Committee chairman Phil Gramm memorably put it, a vast extortion scheme against the nation’s banks. Under its provisions, U.S. banks have committed nearly $1 trillion for inner-city and low-income mortgages and real estate development projects, most of it funneled through a nationwide network of left-wing community groups, intent, in some cases, on teaching their low-income clients that the financial system is their enemy and, implicitly, that government, rather than their own striving, is the key to their well-being.

"The Act, which Jimmy Carter signed in 1977, grew out of the complaint that urban banks were 'redlining' inner-city neighborhoods, refusing to lend to their residents while using their deposits to finance suburban expansion. CRA decreed that banks have 'an affirmative obligation' to meet the credit needs of the communities in which they are chartered, and that federal banking regulators should assess how well they do that when considering their requests to merge or to open branches. Implicit in the bill’s rationale was a belief that CRA was needed to counter racial discrimination in lending, an assumption that later seemed to gain support from a widely publicized 1990 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston finding that blacks and Hispanics suffered higher mortgage-denial rates than whites, even at similar income levels."

Mr. Barack Obama, then a lawyer in Chicago working with ACORN (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now), was among those pushing for such enforcement in lending practices by seeking sub-prime home loans for poor minorities. AnotherKansan, commenting on S&L, described it this way:

“One of the few cases where Obama was an attorney of record during his community organizer days was suing Citibank for its failure to issue more sub-prime loans. This influential case filed in 1994, Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, was straight out of the ACORN playbook, and indeed Obama’s attack was just one in an ongoing assault against Citi by ACORN and its sympathizers. Evidence of the ACORN assault includes the 1992 occupation of Citi headquarters in New York. (AP Online, July 14, 1992) Citi became Obama’s target in the July, 1994 lawsuit, which surely played a role in a Sept. 20, 2004 press release, “Citigroup and ACORN Expand Access to Financial Services in Communities Around the Country.” The release trumpeted, “With this agreement, ACORN will be able to expand our mission of strengthening communities by helping low- and moderate-income families…become homeowners.” In a related development, the Chicago Tribune from Sept. 11, 1994 declared, “ACORN has enhanced its financial power through a pilot program with the Federal National Mortgage Corp., called Fannie Mae. The program links investors with ACORN to make mortgage money available to needy buyers.” Worthy polices, to be sure, but the sloppy implementation forced by Obama and his fellow travelers directly lead to the current financial crisis. According to the WSJ, the sub-prime driven takeover of Fan and Fred, could cost taxpayers $500B. Citi has already needed to raise $30B in new capital as a result of the sub-prime crisis. The total costs to the US economy of Obama’s signature economic plan are catastrophically high.

“Although a junior lawyer on the team, Obama’s role in orchestrating the sub-prime crisis cannot be said to be just a hired gun, the mercenary attorney looking for the big class action settlement. Obama has been affiliated in one form or another with ACORN for 20 years - since before he went to law school, and has their endorsement in this election. After graduation, he came back to Chicago, and went to work advancing ACORN’s agenda through the courts. Obama’s representational record in Westlaw is almost certainly incomplete, as it will only capture cases in which an opinion is given. This will exclude, for example, most cases that settle unless there is some intervening decision by the court captured by the court reporters. Westlaw captures six cases where Obama was an attorney of record. In two of them, ACORN was his client. In Buycks-Roberson v. Citibank, clearly inspired by ACORN but financed by a $950,000 attorneys fee, Barack Obama shows himself to be an intellectual author and a direct cause of market crisis of 2007-2008.

The repeal of Glass-Steagall also had the effect of nursing the housing boom by getting banks more intimately tied up in the home lending process. Contributing to the bubble of housing prices was a rush by many upper-middle class investors looking to make a quick buck by buying (and financing) “investment properties,” often many miles outside their home communities. This had the effect of reducing availability (supply) for others and driving up prices. Moreover, homeowners often borrowed irresponsibly against their (now artificially inflated) equity.

The market viewed real-estate as a safe investment (values won’t fall) and said mortgages were sold, divided and resold to the big lending houses, which suddenly found themselves the holders of billions of dollars of bad debt backed by collateral of artificially inflated value.

Meanwhile, Congress (Republicans and Democrats alike) also allowed businesses to get away with sinking their capital into ever larger mergers and acquisitions, failing to invest in recapitalization and job creation and (I believe) end-running the anti-trust laws created to prevent monopolies and ensure competition. This had the effect of putting all of our nations’ financial eggs into just a few baskets that became too big to be allowed to fail. When those eggs turned out to be rotten with bad debt, well…

A pox on both your houses, I say. Congressional Republicans and Democrats engaged in un-informed, indiscriminate deregulation of industries that had been regulated to the prosperity of all since the end of the Great Depression, all in the name of political expediency. They forgot the history behind the regulations and conveniently ignored the foreseeable outcome.

However, it is for the Congressional Democrats and Mr. Obama I reserve special ire. When, finally, in 2003, President Bush (and John McCain) had the foresight to see trouble ahead and propose regulations that may have significantly lessened (if not eliminated) some the negative cascading effects we’re seeing today, the Democrats filibustered, blocked, obstructed and then congratulated themselves on their defeat of the Bush initiative in a disgusting example of full-blown Bush Derangement Syndrome. It may have been too little, too late, but at least Bush wasn’t asleep at the switch.

As for Mr. Obama, he has been at the heart of the problem since the 1990s when he championed (and profited significantly from) a socialist movement to force banks and lenders to extend millions if not billions of dollars of credit to people who could not pay back the loans. Moreover, other Democrats piled on this effort in a typical liberal vote-buying strategy.

Even if Bush and McCain only belatedly saw this economic train wreck coming, at least they tried to do something to stop it. Meanwhile Barack Obama was busy stoking the coals of the engine. It is risible that Obama and the socialist Left will do anything to improve the situation.

NOTES (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deregulation):

“The argument for preserving Glass-Steagall (as written in 1987):

1. Conflicts of interest characterize the granting of credit – lending – and the use of credit – investing – by the same entity, which led to abuses that originally produced the Act

2. Depository institutions possess enormous financial power, by virtue of their control of other people’s money; its extent must be limited to ensure soundness and competition in the market for funds, whether loans or investments. (Mega-Mergers ought to violate the Anti-Trust acts)

3. Securities activities can be risky, leading to enormous losses. Such losses could threaten the integrity of deposits. In turn, the Government insures deposits and could be required to pay large sums if depository institutions were to collapse as the result of securities losses.

4. Depository institutions are supposed to be managed to limit risk. Their managers thus may not be conditioned to operate prudently in more speculative securities businesses. An example is the crash of real estate investment trusts sponsored by bank holding companies (in the 1970s and 1980s).

“The argument against preserving the Act (as written in 1987):

1. Depository institutions will now operate in “deregulated” financial markets in which distinctions between loans, securities, and deposits are not well drawn. They are losing market shares to securities firms that are not so strictly regulated, and to foreign financial institutions operating without much restriction from the Act.

2. Conflicts of interest can be prevented by enforcing legislation against them, and by separating the lending and credit functions through forming distinctly separate subsidiaries of financial firms.

3. The securities activities that depository institutions are seeking are both low-risk by their very nature, and would reduce the total risk of organizations offering them – by diversification.

4. In much of the rest of the world, depository institutions operate simultaneously and successfully in both banking and securities markets. Lessons learned from their experience can be applied to our national financial structure and regulation.

“Deregulation is different from liberalization because a liberalized market, while often having less and simpler regulations, can also have regulations in order to increase efficiency and protect consumer's rights, one example being anti-trust legislation. However, the terms are often used interchangeably within deregulated/liberalized industries.”

Hat tips to S&L:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/bush-mccain-tried-to-reform-housing-finance#comments

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/clintons-trillion-dollar-housing-shakedown

http://www.city-journal.org/html/10_1_the_trillion_dollar.html

Funny!

2008-09-13T22:20:49Z

Okay, poor taste, definitely. I still found this one hysterical. I'll have to send SG over at S&L my cleaning bill for the caffeine-free diet Coke I sprayed out of my nose watching this on S&L.

Obama's Vision for America?

2008-09-06T00:43:50Z

Does anyone recall all the media scrutiny of that odd little statement made by Mr. Obama in his 2 July speech in Colorado Springs? Funny, I don’t either. Here’s the relevant text:

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

Many of us have been wondering exactly what he meant by that. Of course, the true wing-nuts with their 2 tons of MREs and 6 tons of weapons and ammunition bunkered down in abandoned missile silos immediately leapt to the conclusion that Obama intends to have his own army of jackbooted Brown Shirts ready to enforce the will of their messianic leader.

Hugh Downs, writing for the conservative American Thinker mostly dispelled that notion with a logical, well-written article explaining that in its original context what Obama intended was to expand the Peace Corps. Most of us (except for the die-hards at World Net Daily) tended to accept Downs’ explanation.

Then came this editorial in Investor’s Business Daily, discussing an organization called “Public Allies,” and stating that

“Barack Obama was a founding member of the board of Public Allies in 1992, resigning before his wife became executive director of the Chicago chapter of Public Allies in 1993. Obama plans to use the nonprofit group, which he features on his campaign Web site, as the model for a national service corps.”

What is “Public Allies,” you ask? According to the site, its mission is “to advance new leadership to strengthen communities, nonprofits and civic participation.“ The IBD editorial counters this claim, stating:

“its real mission is to radicalize American youth and use them to bring about "social change" through threats, pressure, tension and confrontation — the tactics used by the father of community organizing, Saul "The Red" Alinsky.”

For those of you unaware, Saul Alinsky is the American agitator of the 1960’s who invented “community organizing,” and wrote about it in his book “Rules for Radicals.” More interestingly, as shown over at S&L, Obama himself ~~plagiarized~~ paraphrased directly from Alinsky in his 1988 article “Why Organize? Problems and Promise in the Inner City,” which later appeared in a book, After Alinsky: Community Organizing in Illinois.

Of course, being an editorial, the IBD piece offers no documentation for its claims beyond some rather weak references to claims by Public Allies stating that “’Our alumni are more than twice as likely as 18-34 year olds to . . . engage in protest activities,’" and a quote from a former member stating “’It's a lot of talk about race, a lot of talk about sexism, a lot of talk about homophobia, talk about -isms and phobias.’"

Perhaps of more immediate concern is the IBD claim that “The government now funds about half of Public Allies' expenses through Clinton's AmeriCorps. Obama wants to fully fund it and expand it into a national program that some see costing $500 billion.”

The charges by IBD are serious, even if it’s just a partisan hatchet job. I’d love to see our media restore my faith in their integrity by probing into Public Allies with the same zeal and persistence they seem to be investing in finding out whether Trig is really Gov. Palin’s son or not. You know, the kind of dogged journalistic integrity they’ve shown investigating Obama's relationships with his mentors Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright and Frank Davis.

And of course, the MSM will press Barack and Michelle over their involvement with their brainchild, Public Allies. Certainly Obama wouldn’t seek to manipulate the media to his advantage, like say, granting a long-sought interview to Bill O’Reilly with the proviso that it air the same night as McCain’s acceptance speech. And certainly our ~~fourth branch of government~~ ~~fifth column~~ stalwart defenders of the truth “journalists” in the MSM wouldn’t be in the tank for Obama, any more than the ~~most watched~~ pariah FOX News Network.

In any case, from what I’ve read, Obama’s “national security force” is more likely to look like this

than like the Hitler Youth.

Then again…

Brown Shirts? Hmmmm… And the Dems were outraged by the Republicans' tribute to 9/11 at their own convention. I guess that's understandable if the above is how they really feel about it.

(Pictures courtesy of Zombietime’s Hall of Shame.)

Betcha THIS'LL Make the News. (NOT!)

2008-08-31T15:46:53Z

Witness Democrat National Committee Chairman Don Fowler. I guess it's okay, since according to CNN, it's the Republicans who "need to be sensitive" about Hurricane Gustav, not the Democrats (like the current mayor of NOLA and LA's former governor, who botched the prep for and response to Katrina so badly). I'll be waiting for the MSM to broadcast this (but not holding my breath). (Hat tip to S&L)

Obamanation

2008-08-29T20:13:31Z

After listening to Obama’s speech last night, I happened across the following gem by one of my favorite authors, Carl G. Jung. Writing in 1957, on the eve of the 1960’s, Jung seems to sense the undercurrent of leftist thought that even then was poisoning the Democratic Party’s roots.

________________________________________________

On Mass Movements…

"All mass movements, as one might expect, slip with the greatest of ease down an inclined plane made up of large numbers. Where the many are, there is security; what the many believe must of course be true; what the many want must be worth striving for, and necessary and therefore good. In the clamor of the many there lies the power to snatch wish fulfillments by force.

"Sweetest of all, however, is that gentle and painless slipping back into the kingdom of childhood, into the paradise of parental care, into happy-go-luckiness and irresponsibility. All the thinking and looking after are done from the top; to all questions there is an answer; and for all needs the necessary provision is made. The infantile dream state of the mass man is so unrealistic that he never thinks to ask who is paying for this paradise. The balancing of accounts is left to a higher political or social authority, which welcomes the task, for its power is thereby increased; and the more power it has, the weaker and more helpless the individual becomes.

"Wherever social conditions of this type develop on a large scale, the road to tyranny lies open and the freedom of the individual turns into spiritual and physical slavery. Since every tyranny is ipso facto immoral and ruthless, it has much more freedom in the choice of its methods than an institution that still takes account of the individual. Should such an institution come into conflict with the organized State, it is soon made aware of the very real disadvantage of its morality and therefore feels compelled to avail itself of the same methods as its opponent. In this way, the evil spreads almost of necessity, even when direct infection might be avoided. The danger of infection is greater where decisive importance is attached to large numbers and statistical values, as is everywhere the case in our Western world. The suffocating power of the masses is paraded before our eyes in one form or another every day in the newspapers, and the insignificance of the individual is rubbed into him so thoroughly that he loses all hope of making himself heard. The outworn ideals of ‘liberté, égalité, fraternité’ (*Ideals of the French Revolution, that lend themselves too easily to supporting the power of the mob over the individual. Compare to the ideals of the American revolution: life, liberty and property/pursuit of happiness - WWJ) help him not at all, as he can direct this appeal only to his executioners, the spokesmen of the masses.

"Resistance to the organized mass can be effected only by the man who is as well organized in his individuality as the mass itself."

-- Carl Gustav Jung, (1957), The Undiscovered Self, p.59

________________________________________________

I strongly urge Americans of all political leanings to organize their own individuality before jumping on the bandwagon of any mass movement. Especially one headed by a man whose arrogance and egotism strain credulity, whose closest mentors and associates include a domestic terrorist (Bill Ayers), a child-molesting communist (Frank Davis), and an anti-American racist zealot (Jeremiah Wright), and whose most ardent followers are radicals and lunatics. Is this really the guy you want for your President?

Jon Voight Outs The Hollyweird Commies

2008-08-13T21:12:06Z

Actor Jon Voight apparently wrote an interesting little op-ed for the Washington Post that has the lefty blogosphere in a tizzy, and some Hollyweird insiders updating their blacklists.

I just find it interesting that without exception the left's response to Voight's comments has been unrelentingly ad-hominem (pretty typical, actually). It would be refreshing to see a liberal response that is genuinely respectful of Mr. Voight as a person, while rationally and calmly refuting his claims with actual evidence. Ad-hominem and straw man arguments really have nothing to do with the argument he makes. They are logically fallacious and only a fool would fail to see their intellectual emptiness. Below are some examples from the WAPO site under Voight’s op-ed:

By: SoldierBlue

Jon Voight is an example of how money corrupts the mind. Back in the 70s he was making protest films with Jane Fonda like "Coming Home".Now that he is an old man and wealthy he claims to know how America works. Jon Voight who didnt serve his country as a Soldier knows what soldiers need.Although it appears he cant think for himself as he buys all the myths about Obama. I dont even understand how a Newspaper could print an editorial from a guy who basically is happy being a hasbeen. Why not talk to guys who did serve..like me..I like Obama and I am a blue collar white middle class Veteran.

No class envy there… Or how about the straw-man AND ad-hominem attacks below…

August 12, 2008 at 1:01 p.m.

By: Lux

This is just the sort of rhetoric to be expected from racist, zealot and despotic idiots. Where were you dolts when the current bunch of renegades leaders hijacked the morals of this country with the result that all foreigners now view us as liars guilty of the most heinous crimes. Did you not consider the future of your kids then? Why are you imbeciles not discussing in public the record of McSame who is reported to have graduated last in his class, crashed about three aircrafts, and allegedly denounced the nation during captivity and, yes, his alleged involvement in the Keating five, his recent alleged ridicule of his wife in public? (Straw man anyone?) Have you no shame for you despicable and lying tirade against the record John Kerry. Where were your morals then? Did you not consider that sort of lying and deceit to be detrimental to your kids? We have a bombastic group of neocheaters that are more intent on spreading hateful venom over the air and in the press, rather than inducing our youth to embrace civilized and ethical behaviors. People of these sorts will continue to be the dregs of the earth and need to be rolled back into the times when war criminal like Joshua and the crusaders were murdering their fellow men –until the street flow with blood- in the name of their evil sprit Yahweh. (Wonder what religion this nutcase claims?) Now we have the descendants of these criminals still trying to promote barbaric agendas. Here in this modern age we have idiotic neo-con conservative faking compassion for the mass as they use subtle schemes to beguile the gullible and with the intent to destroy the very fabric of our civilized societies; by undermining every well meaning effort of anyone not a member of their sect. Your dishonest trade to manipulate our civilized systems –in your quest for power-is well supported by the way you use your wealth to compose, promote and purchase your volumes of divisive literatures. Apparently, you may be a despicable and conniving group that is organized to ruin the basic premises of a cultured society. (Sounds an awful lot like the pot calling the kettle black.) Your stupid whining and scheming are well known to the enlightened. It has no place in refined society and can only lead to chaos... It is high time to stop this childish madness.
You can write as many nonsensical books as your warped minds may compose, but in the end logical reasoning will be the victor. (This is an appeal to reason? Would this person know reason and logic if a manual for Socratic dialogue hit him in the head?) It is so sad that we are still infested with ignorant permeate. (Huh?)

August 12, 2008 at 12:58 p.m.

Who says radical muslims and/or atheists can’t be rational?

Finally, there is an entire post dedicated to insulting Mr. Voight here. Here is about the only reasonably objective bit in the whole rant:

The mail on Voight's doormat has had a mildly poisonous tinge of late. That's fine, he says. He has not responded to the Bart bitch-bite, but has not been able to let Mr Well's comments pass. Thus he has turned up talking to politico.com, the website that candidates and campaigns cannot ignore nowadays. "It's out of line to insinuate that we should blacklist people for speaking their minds," Voight told the website. "It's a strange thing when people in this country can't express their opinions without being attacked."

I tend to be extremely skeptical about conspiracy theories ("the commies have taken over our education system and spew their propaganda via Hollywood"); however, I see evidence (here, here and here, for example -- and for Hollywood, just take a look at any episode of ER on NBC) to support this theory and absolutely no rational fact-based counter-argument out of the left. So is Voight really being unreasonable, or is he merely revealing an inconvenient (for the left) truth?

If you happen across a serious refutation, I'd love to see it.

SItuation Report: Georgia

2008-08-11T23:07:24Z

Excerpts from the New York Times and Washington Post, with appropriate citation.

August 10, 2008

Georgia and Russia Nearing All-Out War

By ANNE BARNARD

This article was reported by Anne Barnard, Andrew E. Kramer, and C. J. Chivers and written by Ms. Barnard.

GORI, Georgia — As Russia moved more forces into the region and continued aerial bombing, it appeared determined to occupy both South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, said Russia’s ambitions were even more extensive. He declared that Georgia was in a state of war, and said in an interview that Russia was planning to seize ports and an oil pipeline and to overthrow his government.

Mr. Putin made clear that Russia now viewed Georgian claims over the breakaway regions to be invalid, and that Russia had no intention of withdrawing. “There is almost no way we can imagine a return to the status quo,” he said in remarks on Russian state television.

Mr. Saakashivili, the Georgian president, said Russia’s oil riches and desire to assert economic leverage over Europe and the West had emboldened Kremlin country to attack. Georgia is a transit country for oil and natural gas exports from the former Soviet Union that threatens Russia’s near monopoly.

“They need control of energy routes,” Mr. Saakashvili said. “They need sea ports. They need transportation infrastructure. And primarily, they want to get rid of us. ”

August 11, 2008

Russians Push Past Separatist Area to Assault Central Georgia

By ANNE BARNARD, ANDREW E. KRAMER and C. J. CHIVERS

This article was reported by Andrew E. Kramer, Anne Barnard and C. J. Chivers, and written by Ms. Barnard.

TBILISI, Georgia — Russia expanded its attacks on Georgia on Sunday, moving tanks and troops through the separatist enclave of South Ossetia and advancing toward the city of Gori in central Georgia, in its first direct assault on a Georgian city with ground forces during three days of heavy fighting, Georgian officials said.

The maneuver — along with bombing of the Georgian capital, Tbilisi — seemed to suggest that Russia’s aims in the conflict had gone beyond securing the pro-Russian enclaves of South Ossetia and Abkhazia to weakening the armed forces of Georgia, a former Soviet republic and an ally of the United States whose Western leanings have long irritated the Kremlin.

“They seem to have gone beyond the logical stopping point,” one senior Western diplomat said, speaking anonymously under normal diplomatic protocol.

…Russia, emboldened by windfall profits from oil exports, is showing a resolve to reassert its dominance in a region it has always considered its “near abroad.”

In a heated exchange with his Russian counterpart at the United Nations, Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad of the United States accused the Kremlin of seeking to oust President Saakashvili.

He charged that Russia’s foreign minister, Sergey Lavrov, had said as much Sunday morning in a telephone conversation with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, telling her “that the democratically elected president of Georgia ‘must go,’ ” Mr. Khalilzad said. Mr. Khalilzad said the comment was “completely unacceptable.”

In Washington, American officials said that Georgian troops had tried to disengage but that the Russians had not allowed them to.

“The Georgians told them, ‘We’re done. Let us withdraw,’ ” one American military official said. “But the Russians are not letting them withdraw. They are pursuing them, and people are seeing this.”

The official was not authorized to brief the press and spoke on condition of anonymity.

The official added: “This is not about military objectives. This is about a political objective: removing a thorn in their side.”

Monday, August 11, 2008

Georgia Retreats, Pleads for Truce; U.S. Condemns Russian Onslaught

By PETER FINN
Washington Post Foreign Service

OUTSIDE TSKHINVALI, Georgia, Aug. 10 -- The Georgian army, suffering massive casualties in the face of overwhelming Russian firepower, retreated from the breakaway region of South Ossetia on Sunday. Georgian leaders' recent expressions of defiance turned increasingly into pleas for a cease-fire and Western support in the face of a military debacle.

Russia ignored calls for a truce and continued to bomb targets deep in Georgia, with little apparent opposition, drawing new condemnation from the United States and other Western countries. President Bush spoke of his "grave concern about the disproportionate response," and the White House warned of serious setbacks in relations with Russia if the onslaught against a close U.S. ally did not end.

"Russia has applied unprecedented military power . . . and it is of such amplitude that it would have scared much bigger states," Alexander Lomaia, secretary of Georgia's National Security Council, said in an interview. "This war has changed the whole system of values of pro-Western, liberal-minded people. I don't want to be a bad prophet, but why would Russia stop here? There are other countries where Russia thinks it has a claim to territory."

______________________________________________

Is there really any question now that Russia is not merely pursuing limited humanitarian goals in Georgia? One wonders if Russia plans to ignore the legitimate Georgian government indefinitely, or if they even recognize the Georgean President as such.

I guess what angers me even more is that although Georgia has been a staunch ally of the US, sent their troops to assist us in Iraq, we probably won't do anything to help them. And even though Europe relies on the oil from that pipeline, they won't intervene, either.

Russia Invades Georgia

2008-08-08T21:10:21Z

From Breitbart

Russia seizes South Ossetia as wider conflict feared

Russian troops backed by tanks and fighter jets seized control of South Ossetia on Sunday as fears grew of a wider conflict with Georgia over the separatist region.

Georgia said it had withdrawn most of its troops from South Ossetia in the face of a build-up in Russian firepower and that it had lost control of the near-destroyed regional capital, Tskhinvali.

International condemnation grew as Georgia claimed that Russian jets had bombed near the capital Tbilisi for the first time, targeting a military airfield.

Georgia said it had withdrawn most of its troops from South Ossetia and claimed Moscow had brought in 10,000 extra troops as well as building up a force of armoured vehicles on the Russian side of the border with Georgia.

"We have left practically all of South Ossetia as an expression of goodwill and our willingness to stop military confrontation," Georgian National Security Council Secretary Alexander Lomaia told AFP.

From the Malaysia Sun

Russian troops to stay in South Ossetia

Russia has said its military forces will remain in the Georgian breakaway enclave of South Ossetia to protect ethnic Russians, while the United Nations said fighting has also spread to Abkhazia, another separatist province.

Russia's UN envoy Vitaly Churkin told reporters Saturday following a closed-door session of the 15-nation Security Council that Moscow has political and humanitarian reasons to remain in South Ossetia.

He claimed fighting since Thursday has killed some 2,000 civilians and made more than 30,000 homeless, many of whom had fled into Russia.

'Russia will not pull out,' Churkin said. 'In order for us to withdraw we have to make sure there won't be genocide there. This is a grave matter.'

South Ossetia is within the boundaries of Georgia based upon the borders agreed to in 1933, and was re-iterated when the Soviet Union dissolved. Thus, this is an internal problem for Georgia. I would hazard a speculation that the escalation came about because Russia, under Putin, has decided to make a land grab; possibly the first of several such "interventions." Georgia was a critical part of the former Soviet Union, and its loss has hurt Russia. So Russia's primary aims are:

1. Derail the NATO talks with Georgia. Russia has opened direct economic and military aid with ’separatists’ (who also happen to be drug-dealers) within the borders of a sovereign nation - something that would rightfully anger any sovereign nation.

2. Protect its Gazprom revenues. Georgia has been a participant in the BP-funded Azerbaijan-Georgia-Turkey pipeline project (a.k.a, the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan pipeline), begun in 2002 and completed in 2006, a project described by environmentalists as:

“a vast social and industrial structure, a gathering of men, women and machines stretching 1,750 kilometres (1,087 miles) across hills and valleys, mountains and plains, fields and deserts, gardens and rivers. A complete system, running from the Azerbaijani oil and gas fields offshore in the Caspian Sea to a tanker terminal on the Turkish Mediterranean coast. A system that would include both the Baku-Tbilisi- Ceyhan (BTC) oil pipeline and the South Caucasus (gas) Pipeline (SCP). A system that would remain in place for at least 40 years. A system through which would flow US$ 21 million worth of fuel every day,nearly $8 billion a year.”

The pipeline diversifies the global oil supply and so ensures, to an extent, against a failure in supply elsewhere. It also bypasses Russia. Therefore, Russia sees the pipeline as intended to weaken their influence in Caucasus. The Russian Parliament Foreign Affairs Committee chairman Konstantin Kosachev has even stated his belief that the United States and other Western countries plan to station troops in the Caucasus on the pretext of instability in regions where the pipeline passes through.

This is not a unique position for Russia, vis-à-vis other Transcaucasian pipelines. According to the Harriman Institute:

“The US supports the Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan pipeline (TAP) despite Turkmenistan’s repressive non-democratic regime and notwithstanding that the gas has to be pumped through Afghanistan, the home of a resurgent warring Taliban. Russia, which has locked up Turkmen gas through profitable contracts, obviously has no interest in Turkmenistan having an outlet for its gas that bypasses Russian territory.”

According to President Mikhail Saakashvili, "All strategic contracts in Georgia, especially the contract for the Caspian pipeline are a matter of survival for the Georgian state." In the first half of 2007, a year after the completion and launch of BTC pipeline as the main export route for Azerbaijani oil, the real GDP growth of Azerbaijan hit a record of 35%. Substantial transit fees accrues to Georgia and Turkey. For Georgia the transit fees are expected to produce an average of US$62.5 million per year.

With the energy crisis affecting everyone, and the high price of oil, it is valid to speculate that Russia’s real goal is to gain access to or control over the pipeline.

3. Restore a critical region to full Russian control. I think this one speaks for itself, given the above and the relevant geopolitical history.

Rebuttals to Apologists

“The majority of people living in Southern Ossetia are ethnic Russians. Moreover, the Georgian ‘peace-keeping forces’ shot 10 Russian peace-keepers. Would any country allow such events to take place without intruding? Most refugees from Southern Ossetia are heading to Russia - would people head for the country that’s attacked them? I don’t think so.”

Really? According to Wikipedia only 2.1% of the population is ethnic Russian

“Georgia has finally explicitly shown its true intention in foreign policy - attack and kill innocent people in Southern Ossetia. Hundreds of people are currently under fire from Georgian side. Neighbor states, such as Russia, are struggling to help. The intention is clear: just render help to the people that are currently in struggles. I really don’t know why it is presented as an attempt to occupy territories by most news agencies. I just do not believe that a country that has always made efforts to intensify peace in the region. Moreover, Russia has sent humanitarian aid, the troops being only the result of Georgian army shooting Russian peacekeeping forces. President Saakashvily has given an order - kill innocent people - by committing a treacherous attack on civilians, not military forces. How can such a man appear on the screen of leading news broadcasting agencies and say his country is under attack. The current conflict has been initiated by Georgian government and distorted by news agencies. One more thing: if South Ossetia is part of Georgia, why do Georgian military kill civilians in South Ossetia. If Georgian military really treated them as co-fellows, would they fire missiles in the region? Again, it is Georgia that started the turmoil, killed people (and Russians as well) with Russia only trying to prevent genocide.”

“Well, I'm definitely not a major supporter of the current Russian government, but still don't see any alternative to independent South Ossetiya. I remember talking to some Ossetins, who had relatives in the South part. I got the impression that the animosity cannot be cured, they would fight until the end. So, the ‘peace’ under Georgian rule could only mean total ethnic cleansing, by pushing all the Ossetins over the border.”

What evidence is there that the democratically elected Government of Georgia, that has tried so long to become a member of NATO, and show itself to be a true ally of the US, has any intention of pursuing an ethnic cleansing pogrom? If the South Ossetian separatists have engaged in guerilla tactics, hiding among the population, how can Russia not appear hypocritical, given its own behavior in Chechnya?

This whole situation definitely reminds me of another August invasion...

“Although on the night of the invasion the Czechoslovak Presidium declared that Warsaw Pact troops had crossed the border without the knowledge of the ČSSR government, the Soviet Press printed an unsigned request, allegedly by Czechoslovak party and state leaders, for ‘immediate assistance, including assistance with armed forces’.” from Wikipedia

Time Magazine, August 30, 1968

To my Russian friends, I must respectfully disagree with you about Ossetia. I guess what angers me the most is that even though Georgia is a fellow democracy and an ally, I doubt we'll do anything to protect them, because no one wants the bad old days of the Cold War to return.

The problem with doing nothing, however, is that if the Russian government is really set on retoring its lost "empire," we'll get a renewed Cold War whether we want it or not.

Communist Party Backs Obama (Big Surprise)

2008-08-07T18:57:50Z

Thought this little tidbit was definitely worth propagating. From Sweetness & Light:

An editorial from the CPUSA:

(Click to enlarge.)
Eye on the Prize
7/15/2008
Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s “shift to the center.” (Right-wingers are happy to join them, suggesting Obama is a “flip-flopper.”) It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees. But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority.
A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.
This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.
Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”
If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.
The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.
One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.
Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.

I can't top Steve's comment on S&L:

"Why has their endorsement been so studiously ignored by our watchdog media? (Imagine if a similarly storied ultra-right lunatic group had endorsed John McCain?"

So what is the real agenda of the Washington Democrats? Perhaps this offers a clue as to why they're so eager to tank the economy.