Wednesday, November 19, 2008

"Save the World!" -- Part I

A few weeks back, at the start of this so-called “economic meltdown,” House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stated at a press conference that she wants to “Save the World.” She elaborated that she saw it not only as her individual responsibility, not only as the Congress’ responsibility, but as the responsibility of the country as a whole.

The idea, when spouted, seemed to touch the depths of absurdity, but Ms. Pelosi is proving that she means it.

Not only has she single-handedly “saved” the economy via the $700 billion “rescue” but she now wants to “save” the automobile industry by “giving” – “with strings,” of course! – another monumental amount of taxpayer money to that industry. The premise for this is supposedly that the “Big Three” employ so many people that allowing them to founder would throw too many people out of work.

Her close partner in crime – oops, I meant, co-savior, of course – Barney Frank, has tried to place the reticence (expressed by Republicans) to hand out the additional funds on the level of “white collar vs. blue collar,” stating that the previous monumental “bail-out” was solely for “Big Business,” and not for the “little people.” (So much for unity and workin’ together, huh?)

When are people like Pelosi and Frank and Dodd and the rest of them going to stop condescending to the American people? When are the American people going to stop allowing those people to condescend to them and assume We the People really don’t understand what is going on?

The original “bail-out” was not to save big corporations alone. Those big, bad corporations, I am sure, employed hundreds of people, if not thousands. The original bail-out kept those hundreds, if not thousands, on the payroll – whether blue or white collar is immaterial – they are employed. That, I would think, would be the ultimate goal of any “bail-out.”

Mind you, my husband and I were, and are still, against the very idea of the government taking over ill-run, failing companies on the premise that the economy will suffer “too much.” Companies that go out of business follow the ebb and flow of this economic system: capitalism, where the best run, strongest companies manage to adjust to and survive through all economic problems. Those that do not survive probably did not run themselves well enough to get through extremely difficult times, and therefore would not be expected to survive, anyway.

Like the automobile industry.

When we see the leaders of the American Automobile Industry go hat-in-hand before the Congress to beg for funding “just to keep them going,” we must admit that it is probably much easier on their psyches and their pride rather than having to face the unions to which they already ceded so much and having to say “no” to more “requests.”

The money being “requested” (read “begged for,” and “demanded,” and “blackmailed for”) by the automobile industry is not to save the industry; rather, it is to save the unions from having to face their members and explain that they, the members, will not be able to get everything they had gotten the industry to agree to at the bargaining table.

What We the People must accept is that there is a population of this country, unions and their members, who have already done very much to negatively affect the economy of this country. They – and we – are reaping the “rewards.”

Why is the automobile industry extremely important at this time? Because it is one of the very, very few homegrown industries we still have operating within the territory. What happened to the rest of them? Remember the steel industry? What happened there is the very same thing that is in the process of happening with the automobile industry.

Union demands to Management, the use of blackmail (strikes) to force management to capitulate, and the power amassed in the hands of a few (remember Hoffa and his cohorts?) who claimed to know what was best for thousands.

Unions are “big business.”

In our estimation, unions have outlived their usefulness in the last 20+ years. The unions of yesteryear that fought for livable wages, safer workplaces, dignity for the working man, respect for an honest, hard-working workforce, better benefits for the worker and that gave labor a voice in negotiating contracts are now gone.

Labor unions are now used primarily by the Democrats as spear carriers, delivering votes on demand. Unions have demanded more and larger pieces of the pie while at the same time demanding to be less productive and more highly paid, to the point of pricing their industries and products out of the U.S. (and world) markets.

Union leaders promise the rank-and-file much and are expected to deliver. If the industry is priced out of both the domestic and global markets, the industry will inevitably experience massive shutdowns resulting in equally massive numbers of suddenly unemployed people.

What we are seeing in Congress these days is Managements’ answer to the Unions’ demand that they “DO SOMETHING!” to avoid the companies’ demise and the resulting loss of jobs, ongoing perks, and legacy benefits. In the past, when faced with similar situations they could not win at the bargaining tables, union leaders have merely shrugged at their members and moved along to unionize another industry.

This issue we face today is another level altogether, however.

It is not the “auto industry” that Ms. Pelosi and Messieurs Frank and Reed wish to save. It is their biggest political base they wish to please: the unions and the millions upon millions of dollars they bring to the election table every so many years in terms of union voters. The unions who, by the by, were instrumental in ensuring the results of November 4, 2008.

What we are watching is another industry unionized into oblivion, hoping We the People will save them.

We the People must refuse their "request."

Copyright MCzwz, November 19, 2008. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, November 16, 2008

Another Example of "Change"?

Mr. Obama has started to float names for nominations to his cabinet.

Interestingly enough, one of the first names is a gentleman named Rahm Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel will hold the powerful position of Chief of Staff. This position decides who has access to the President, for what reasons, and for how long the access will be permitted. In essence, this position could very well be perceived as the power behind the throne.

Mr. Obama based his campaign on “unifying” the country and ending what he perceived as “divisiveness,” yet he names one of the most well-known Washington insiders and a most liberal of liberals to be his gatekeeper. This man also has the reputation of detesting Conservatives and Republicans.

Is this another example of the “change” promised by Mr. Obama? How is this individual going to make the divisions Mr. Obama claimed to want to “heal” magically disappear when Mr. Emanuel's own history has always shown a distinct antipathy, to say the least, against Republicans?

Those of us who doubted, at least, or simply disbelieved, at most, the greater majority of the lovely oratory to which we were treated by Candidate Obama are now shown that our skepticism was accurate and based in reality.

The Chief of Staff, a political appointee and therefore a personal representative of the President-elect, is already known for his own very divisive views. Based on this example of choice of representative, how are we to expect that the “change” touted by Mr. Obama is going to be anything that could be good for the country as a whole?

Nothing Mr. Obama has yet done has shown that he was sincere in his campaign rhetoric made so attractive to those who supported him. True, it is a bit early on, and we have been admonished to “give the guy a chance.” Mr. Obama, however, has not given his lovely words and beautiful phrases the basis on which to grow, at least, not yet. Let us see where we go from here.


From Washington Insider with Ronald Kessler

Rahm Emanuel is the Real Pit Bull
Friday, November 7, 2008 12:18 PM By: Ronald Kessler

Sarah Palin may be known as a pit bull, but Rep. Rahm Emanuel, Barack Obama’s new chief of staff, is the real pit bull whose favorite target has always been Republicans.

“Let us resist the temptation to fall back on the same partisanship and pettiness and immaturity that has poisoned our politics for so long,” Obama said in his election night speech.

Yet as his first personnel decision, Obama chose a man known as “Rahmbo” because of his hyper-partisan, bare-knuckle tactics that were honed in Chicago-style politics.

Emanuel has called himself a “Vince Lombardi Democrat” because he believes that “Winning isn’t everything. It’s the only thing.”

Emanuel once sent a dead fish to a pollster who displeased him. In one meeting with his staff, Emanuel shouted out, “Since my kids are gone, I can say it: They [Republicans] can go f--- themselves!”

Following the 1992 campaign, Emanuel met with Clinton campaign advisers to discuss which politicians and members of the press they would retaliate against. Grabbing his steak knife, Emanuel shouted out to George Stephanopoulos and others at the meeting the name of another enemy. He then lifted the knife, brought it down with full force into the table, and screamed, “Dead!” The chairman of the House Democratic Caucus, Emanuel voted with Democrats 98 percent of the time in 2007.

“Rahm Emanuel’s job on the Hill was to advance the Democratic agenda, and he did so in a very partisan manner,” Brad Blakeman, a Republican strategist who was an aide in the Bush White House, tells me. “He has a history of being abrasive and using foul language. A chief of staff has to be more of a statesman to set an example to the staff on how they should comport themselves.”

“The problem is we don’t know who the 44th president of the U.S. is,” Dave Keene, president of the American Conservative Union, tells me. “Is he the Sol Alinsky radical? Is he the risk-averse state senator? Is he the most liberal member of the U.S. Senate? Is he the centrist, the unifier, who ran for president? There is no record that would indicate which one of those men was elected president.”

However, Keene says, “If you’re a unifier and a bridge builder, you don’t hire Rahm Emanuel to build your bridge. He after all is the guy who said Republicans can f--- themselves. And that’s in his kinder moments.”

Still, when assessing how a new president will operate, it’s wise to keep in mind that once they take office they often govern more closely to the center than their campaign rhetoric or record would indicate. Looking back at Bill Clinton’s presidency, many of his initiatives were surprisingly conservative.

Some say Emanuel has mellowed in recent years. In fact, The Wall Street Journal does not see Obama’s choice of Emanuel as a bad sign.

“For our part, we like the choice. Mr. Emanuel is likely to be a restraining influence on the wackier Members of Congress,” the paper said today. “There’s no doubt he's a liberal and a fierce partisan, an architect of the Democratic takeover of Congress in 2006.”

But the paper said that one of the “keys to Democratic success is that Mr. Emanuel made a point of recruiting candidates who fit their districts—even if they disagreed with liberal orthodoxy on abortion or gun rights. As a veteran of the Clinton White House, Mr. Emanuel will also want to avoid the chaos of its first year. He helped to negotiate the 1997 balanced budget deal that cut the capital gains tax even as it created the children’s health-care entitlement. He supports expanded trade and will not want Mr. Obama to govern as a protectionist. The Chicagoan also has experience with financial markets, so he is likely to be a voice against the long-term nationalization of the U.S. banking system.”

The paper predicted that “Mr. Emanuel's famously sharp elbows” are as likely to be wielded against his fellow Democrats as against Republicans.

“With Democrats now so dominant, the fiercest fights—and the ones that really matter— will take place among Democratic factions in the White House and Capitol Hill,” the paper said. “Mr. Emanuel can help Mr. Obama understand when he needs to ignore the pleas of the left and govern from the center.”

In a similar vein, Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, a top John McCain supporter, said Emanuel “can be a tough partisan but also understands the need to work together.”
Blakeman, for one, is not buying it.

“In my opinion, a leopard doesn’t change his spots,” he says. “The jury will be out on this guy to see if he can change his style.”

Ronald Kessler is chief Washington correspondent of
© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved

Saturday, November 15, 2008


I just watched a news report on Mr. Obama’s “new” way of communicating with the populace.

Completely and totally gone are the well-known “Fireside Chats” of old, which had been remade into the President’s Weekly Radio Address in “modern” times. We are now going even beyond that level of “modern” . . . something like, post-modern?

The next level is taking us to “YouTube” that ubiquitous and annoying presence utilized primarily by today’s youth and many others, of course, to "express" themselves. Mr. Obama has gone completely digital and is apparently starting to fulfill his promise of “change," I guess.

Mr. Obama's new site, "" is touted as the venue through which the Obama government will communicate with the world. All sorts of items will be posted on the site and will allow the populace to communicate its ideas and suggestions to the Obama government. Additionally, the site is also the place to go to apply for jobs in the Obama-Biden administration, particularly transition jobs.

Are we to believe that in all these many, many, many years there is not one site, website, link or digitally accessible place to learn what jobs are available in any administration? I seem to remember something called “,” a site through which anyone could apply for government jobs, but, what do I know?

I also seem to remember something called “White” through which I, and many other citizens for quite a few years, have sent direct communications to the President, as well as having been kept up to date on what was occurring in the White House on a regular basis.

Taking this into account, that there already exists a direct digital communications link to the White House, how, then, is Mr. Obama’s “” so different and new?

It is reported that this is specifically a place to apply for jobs during the transition, but these positions have always been filled by direct appointment; they are usually recompense for financial and/or other support given during a successful campaign. I don't think this standard process will "change" despite the presence of the website.

It would appear to me that this is merely another example of how Mr. Obama’s “change” will come: recreate and repackage an existing element, present it under a “new and improved” guise, and once again count on the need and desire of his constituents to overlook the obvious…while We the People once again pay for another unnecessary item: a super-high tech website, webmaster, and all the other costs of the bells-n-whistles this will require.

On the whole the cost may admittedly even be considered inconsequential when compared to anticipated expenditures of this new government, but the question remains: why is it necessary? Is this the first example of the type of “change” we are to look forward to in an Obama Administration?

If we are to take this as an example of what the incoming administration has touted as “change we need” for the past two years’ of campaigning and promise-making, I would say many people will have to pause a moment and ask themselves, “what have we done?”

It appears that one of the most important aspects of the “transitional” website, as mentioned above, is to provide a portal through which interested parties can apply for positions to work in the transitional team and possibly be carried forward to long-term positions within the Obama government.

What would have been wrong or so difficult about revising/revamping/ changing the existing White House Website? All that would have been necessary would have been to add a new “Welcome” page to the existing White House site reflecting the information relevant to the transitional period. An entirely new, separate website seems much like an exaggerated effort to make a distinction between existing/"old," and incoming/"new."

The initial online employment application is fairly basic – more basic than any other I have encountered for much more low level positions (administrative support and secretarial, for example) for which I have applied in the past. I understand this portal is merely an information gathering source and that potential recruits will be interviewed in a more in-depth manner at the next level of recruitment – at least, one would hope and expect this to be the case.

From reports I have heard from very credible sources, one of the perplexities of the next level of questionnaire for interested parties is that the questions are so intimate, so broad ranging, and delve so deeply into one’s background – as should be expected, considering the positions in which the applicants wish to work – that even Mr. Obama himself would more than likely not qualify for openings because of his background and past associations.

Yet, we have just spent several weeks being barraged by the liberal perspective that past associations and current connections “do not matter.” We have been pounded incessantly by the Obama mouthpieces with the idea that Mr. Obama is fully qualified to be President of the United States regardless of his incredible lack of experience, regardless of his past associations, and regardless of his clearly stated philosophies.

Now we are to also accept that Mr. is still “qualified” despite the fact that he could not even successfully pass his own background verification process!

Yup, this is “change,” alright.

Copyright MCzwz, November 15, 2008. All rights reserved.

Friday, November 14, 2008

Clarity! . . . At Least a Bit

Now, I understand, I think . . .

It is being bandied about today that Mrs. Clinton will possibly be offered the position of Secretary of State in the Obama White House. This most certainly does explain quite a bit: why there was no “convention floor fight” for the nomination, no difficulties in conceding the nomination to Mr. Obama when Mrs. Clinton was the “most favored,” and why so much was made of the so-called breaking ceiling(s).

Call me a skeptic, but it appears clear to me that a deal of some sort was struck that very evening when we were all hanging about with the proverbial bated breath, waiting to see how the convention would pan out between the two “historic” leading Democratic candidates. As we now know in hindsight . . . there was obviously more “history” on one side than on the other: race trumps gender?

I could never get my head around why Mrs. Clinton ceded the nomination so seemingly easily to Mr. Obama when she certainly could have “negotiated” with delegations for their votes. This “sudden” and “unexpected” rumor finally makes clear to me why things went so easily at the convention. I felt there had to have been a price negotiated or at least discussed.

Here again, call me a skeptic, but I did not believe any of the stuff and blather about “party unity” that was given as the basis for Mrs. Clinton’s concession to Mr. Obama. When, tell me, anyone, has either Clinton shown him/herself to be guided by “party unity” unless it was solely or ultimately to their own advantage?

My husband feels that Mrs. Clinton may not accept the “offer,” should it come. He sees it as more of a lateral move rather than a power move. I would agree with that assessment. There is definitely more real power to be had in the Senate than as the President’s international personal messenger, however high the position may be. (Especially considering it would be this president and that particular messenger.)

The Clintons tend to gravitate more towards real power, from what I have seen of their “style.” If Mrs. Clinton does accept the position, we will all be provided with more fodder for the “what are they up to now” mill, though, won’t we?

Copyright MCzwz November 14, 2008. All rights Reserved.

"A Few Lessons for Republicans"

From: Letters to the Editor, Jacksonville Times-Union, November 9, 2008

R. Lumb of Jacksonville points out in a Letter to the Editor several very salient points delineating why so many of We the People are concerned about the election of Mr. Obama to the extremely high and important office of “P.O.T.U.S.”

This letter should help many who were supposedly “undecided” at the time of the election to see the areas about which they should have been thinking and about which they should have been looking for specific answers -- before voting.

Honestly, I do not think many people who voted for Mr. Obama, whether white or black, really took specifics into consideration. They either voted from a sense of “pride” (because Mr. Obama is black), or from a sense of liberal satisfaction (to see the fruition of their “cause”), or even from that understandable sense of “throw the bastards out!” that occurs very so often from dissatisfaction with the current government, whatever it may be at any given point.

It is not up to me to say whether any of the above possible reasons are invalid; I will merely say that I strongly disagree with each and every one of them in this specific instance.

Regardless, R. Lumb’s letter, titled A Few Lessons for Republicans certainly deserves consideration, especially in the post-election light of “rebuilding and revamping” the Republican Party.


R Lumb writes:

“As Republicans prepare themselves to endure the next four years, here are a few things they should consider as they struggle to maintain the proper perspective:

· This election may not have been a referendum on President Bush, but for a large number of voters it was the next best thing. As the economy slumped and markets melted. The disdain for an unpopular president turned into loathing. Rightly or wrongly, the desire to punish Bush played a major role in John McCain’s defeat.

· The major media not only went in the tank for Barack Obama, they went in at the deep end. Transgressions that might have been fatal to a Republican, like Obama’s reneging on his promise to accept public financing for his campaign, were simply ignored by the mainstream press. The media’s mission was to make straight Obama’s path to victory and they did just that.

· Obama outspent McCain by a huge margin. How else does the most inexperienced candidate in modern history convince voters he’s qualified to be president?

· Republican losses in the Senate and House could have been much worse. The Democrats didn’t get their super majority in the Senate and appear [at the time of this letter] to have gained fewer than 18 seats in the House. It was bad, but it wasn’t the blood-bath some predicted. One very good piece of news: It appears that Al Franken has been denied the opportunity to bring his act into the United States Senate. [As of this posting date (11/14/08) the determination of a winner has yet to be made as we all await the results of what we just know will be a fair and clean and open recount. As soon, of course, as the Franken campaign locates the last box of ballots in yet another volunteer’s car.]

· Obama is a talented politician who ran a disciplined campaign. Let’s see if Obama has the same aptitude for governing.

· McCain is not an especially gifted politician. His reputation as a maverick may be engaging, but it isn’t sufficient to win an election by itself.

· As Fox News pundit Bob Beckel observed, Obama created his own margin of victory. The large number of newly registered black voters coupled with newly registered younger voters who actually materialized on Election Day, thanks to a good ground game, put Obama over the top. Republicans can replicate this strategy in the next election by pursuing their own affinity groups.

My message to fellow Republicans is this: As bad as it was, it could have been worse. McCain may not have attracted as many moderates and independents as promised, but he held his own and fended off what could have been an even worse defeat.

In doing so he did a great deal to endear himself to conservatives. So, let’s put the ritual bloodletting on hold. Let us instead return to our core principles and our role as the party of ideas.”


I would add the following thoughts to the above.

If we are to consider Mr. Obama to be a “talented politician,” let’s not forget where Mr. Obama was tutored in politics and the source of his base support: the Chicago political machine. This is also the arena where the phrase vote early, vote often was coined to specifically describe the politics of that area. It is necessary to at least look at the success of this campaign with a bit of a large grain of salt when one remembers the scandalous issues that the mainstream media did their best to play down at least, and to completely ignore, at most.

The concerns about ACORN’s (one of Mr. Obama’s most vocal and significant supporters) involvement in Mr. Obama’s vaunted “get out the vote” efforts leave a sour remnant to digest.

The under-reported stories about voter registration fraud which very well may have translated into real voter fraud were basically left hanging and not followed up. We can only hope that the allegations and concerns never translated into anything more nefarious, though we will doubtless never know.

Personally, I feel the fact that Senator McCain was not a “politician” stood him in good stead if we were all really interested in “change.” A non-politico such as Senator McCain has been dubbed would have been a breath of fresh air in the hallowed halls of the White House. Combine that high qualification with the character of the man: honest, sincere, desiring to serve his nation and nothing more, for the love of that nation alone, I think Senator McCain would have been the perfect embodiment of “change.” Unfortunately, due to the many issues well described above and many more best left unmentioned, we have what we have at this time.

It is definitely incumbent on those of us who consider ourselves conservative Republicans to now ensure that our country will be taken on the road of “change” that is best for all her people, and not just a chosen few.

Copyright MCzwz, November 14, 2008. All rights reserved.

Why Is This "News?"

The Headline says, "Wildfire Ravages Ritzy California Town" (By THOMAS WATKINS, AP, filed under: National News, Wildfire News.) and begins with the following:

SANTA BARBARA, Calif. (Nov. 14) - Firefighters were racing early Friday to pushback a wind-whipped wildfire that destroyed at least 100 homes and a college dormitory, injured 13 people and forced thousands to flee the longtime celebrity hideaway of Montecito.
Other than on the most basic human level, sorrow at another's loss, why is it a headline story that a “ritzy” town, where the likes of Oprah and other such celebrities have one or more of their homes, a headline story? I would rather know who the 100 other homes belonged to, how badly the college was damaged, and how the residents are being taken care of.

Instead, we learn almost immediately that Oprah’s pets are “OK!” She had them taken to the Four Seasons, a posh, ritzy hotel for high-flyers to be cared for. Her dogs for goodness’ sake!

Is this an example of someone who really cares about the “little people,” the “main street folks” as supposedly represented by her wholehearted, tingly support of Mr. Obama?

I would ask, why are the celebrities not offering such accommodations as a stay at the Four Seasons to the people whose homes were also damaged but who do not own million-dollar homes? Or, am I too "out of touch" to realize that the entire area is exclusive to those types of abodes only?

I have not much pity for Oprah, Pitt, and the others of the ‘glitzy’ set. They have the funds and wherewithal with which to rebuild immediately, especially since they could more than likely well afford the homeowner insurance rates these homes would command.

The fact that their mansions were damaged in a natural disaster should not be the story. A better story would be to wonder what they are going to do about others less fortunate?

Are they going to provide assistance in any way at all to those whose dormitories were damaged or destroyed? By assistance, I do not mean providing their presence in a "visit" to show “solidarity and support” with those less fortunate.

I mean will they go into their own pockets and give money to those who are unable to rebuild or repair their damaged homes themselves . . . or will they want the government to do that with our tax money?

If it is the latter … whatever happened to the “spread the wealth around” mentality? Did it come and go that quickly? Did we miss it? Or, as I suspected all along, is it a selective “spreading” with the choice of whose wealth for what reason to be determined by …?

Shouldn’t be hard to guess, folks!

Copyright MCzwz, November 14, 2008. All rights reserved.

Thursday, November 13, 2008

First Joe the Plumber . . . Now . . .

They came for Jessica, and I will not be silent

Roger Hedgecock, WorldnetDaily Exclusive Commentary, Posted: October 13, 2008 1:00 am Eastern© 2008

After World War II, trying to explain how good Germans allowed the monstrous evil of the Nazi regime, a pastor recalled that the Nazis came for the communists, and he did nothing; then for the trade unionists, then for the gypsies and Jews; then for the Catholics – and each time he did nothing. When they came for him, none were left to defend him.

Last week, here in America, they came for Jessica Hughes, and I will not be silent. I will not turn away, hoping, in the end, they will not come for me.

Jessica Hughes of Lufkin, Texas, former Marine, mother of three, answered her cell phone in the car, coming home from the emergency room. Her 9-year-old had suffered a mild concussion, but was OK.

The caller was a female Obama volunteer who asked if Jessica would support Obama for president.

Jessica replied, "No, I don't support him. Your guy is a socialist who voted four times in the State Senate to let little babies die in hospital closets; I think you should find something better to do with your time." Then Jessica hung up.

The next day, a man and a woman in suits showed up at the door of her home, identifying themselves as members of the Secret Service.

The Secret Service agents stated that the Obama campaign had complained of a death threat. They had quoted Jessica as saying, "I will never support Obama, and he will wind up dead on a hospital floor."

Jessica's husband had heard Jessica's side of the original phone call and verified the actual quote. To which the female agent replied, "Oh? Well why would she (the Obama volunteer) make that up?"

Jessica replied that the Obama volunteer was probably unhappy about what Jessica had said about her candidate. The female agent then said "That's right, you were rude!"

The male agent then displayed a file with Jessica's full name prominently printed on it and asked her how she felt about Obama. At this point, the former Marine told the agent "in no uncertain terms" (as she later recounted) that this was America and that the last time she checked, she was allowed to think whatever she wanted without being questioned by the Secret Service. And was being "rude" a federal crime now too?

The agents then admitted they had no tape of the conversation, just the quote from the Obama campaign.

Responding to Jessica's questions, the agents would not identify themselves by name, nor reveal the name of the Obama volunteer who had made the complaint. The agents did indicate that Jessica was not in a court of law yet, and that they were trying to not embarrass her "by going to all her family and neighbors."

To these implied threats, Jessica invited the agents to speak to whomever they wanted, and stated she would happily go to court since she had done nothing wrong.

Jessica asked the agents, "Look, someone calls me unsolicited on my cell phone to ask me to support their candidate, and I can't tell them why I don't?"

The Secret Service left Jessica that day, but she could not get the "visit" out of her mind.

Jessica wrote later, "The fact that the volunteer lied, the fact that the Secret Service came to my house to question me about my thoughts and feelings and threaten to embarrass me to my neighbors and go to court if I didn't cooperate is not the tragedy here.

"Because that girl on the phone doesn't have the pull to send the Secret Service to my home. Someone high in the ranks of a campaign working for a man who may be the next President of the United States of America felt comfortable bringing the force of the Federal Government to bear on a private citizen on nothing but the word of a partisan volunteer."

Taken together with the intimidation campaign against WGN Radio because it aired an interview about the Obama-Ayers connection, the use of local criminal prosecutors to intimidate TV stations in certain states to not run ads critical of Obama, and the use of race to rally black voters and shame white voters, the Obama campaign's M.O. in Jessica's case is a warning.

The pattern is unmistakable. The drumbeat of jackboots echoes now faintly, but persistently, in the fall breeze.

They came for Jessica, and I will not be silent.

The Choice Has Been Made, So . . .

Under the headline, “Racists React to Obama Victory”several examples are given of “racists” reacting to the election of Mr. Obama (/political-machine/bloggers/david-knowles//political-machine/bloggers/david-knowles/ by David Knowles, Nov 13th 2008 9:40AM, Filed Under:eRepublicans, Barack Obama, Featured Stories, Crime, Race).

It must be admitted, however, that for as many examples of "racist" comments there are several comments that simply demand either that we “get over it and move along,” or that we “just celebrate the history and move along” or that we accept that this was “the best thing to do, and move along” or who even concede that Mr. Obama is unqualified, but voted for him because he would be “historical.”

So now we should just move along and stop making an issue of it ...? Making an issue of what, though? The question causing the issue remains.

To those who did vote for him we ask, “Why this choice?” and the Debate continues.

The answers to that question are really very simple. The majority of We the People elected one of the most unqualified individuals to the highest office of the land...

Because . . .

He made promises that attracted those who feel the government is their Mother, Father, Caregiver, and Fairy Godmother all wrapped in one. Unfortunately for the country, that turned out to be a majority.

He said that he would *take* from the "rich" to *give* to the "poor."

He essentially said that he would do whatever it takes to avoid confrontations with the enemies of this country.

He said that he feels we "owe" the countries of the world; that "giving" those countries whatever they ask or demand, whether they are our friends or enemies, would get them to "like" us more.

He is "different" from other presidents, though the only difference between him and the other liberal democrats who ran is his color, which we're not supposed to mention, and his gender in one comparitive case.

He promised “change” though what type of “change” has yet to be made clear and was not delved into at all by the so-called "mainstream media."

There is a significant population of Americans who consider themselves to be “enlightened,” “open-minded,” and “forward-thinking” – making, I suppose, the rest of us who do not agree just the opposite. They, of course, had no choice but to vote for Mr. Obama, regardless of any other factors.

Those who voted for Mr. Obama did not listen to his campaign speeches with their brains, skepticism, and pragmatism but rather just to the oratory used to attract supporters and ultimately fulfill his ambition (well described in his books).

The population who supported him provided him the financial means to purchase the commodity for which he was shopping, the Presidency of the United States of America.

And yes, finally, because he is black and therefore an “historic” candidate who had to be elected regardless of any other considerations.

What it comes down to, to me, anyway, is that the “dummying down” of America that started in schools at least two generations ago has made it to the White House. The purposeful (no doubt thoughtfully considered, by some) choice and election of a most unqualified individual, primarily on the basis of the color of his skin, takes affirmative action and reverse discrimination to an extraordinary level.

The debate will doubtless continue ad infinitum.

Please remember: Should Mr. Obama's responses to the myriad "supporters" (ACORN,, et al) who bought this position for him not be to their satisfaction, we shall all feel the repercussions of their ire.

Copyright, MCzwz, November 2008. All Rights Reserved.

Sunday, November 9, 2008

Fruit Flies, Barack Obama and My Good Friend Christopher Hitchens

By David Horowitz, Front Page Magazine
October 29, 2008

"A candidate may well change his…position on, say, universal health care of Bosnia. But he … cannot change the fact - if it happens to be a fact - that he … is a pathological liar…"
-- Christopher Hitchens

"This idiot woman, this blind, short-sighted ignoramus, this pretentious clod, mocks basic research and the international research community."

Is this a description of Rosie O'Donnell explaining that metals don't melt and 9/11 was an inside job? A swipe at Green Party presidential aspirant Cynthia McKinney explaining how the Jews were responsible? A shot at Gloria Steinem for defending partial birth abortion under the delusion that a living child is actually a disposable "fetus"?

No, this is a psychotic attack on Governor Sarah Palin by an Obama supporter. Palin's sin is her opposition to earmarks, in particular an earmark for olive fruit fly research. The same earmark was recently seized on by my good friend Christopher Hitchens to justify his contempt for Palin and endorsement of her opponents.

While not as vitriolic as his attacks on Mother Teresa and Princess Di, Hitchens' attack on Palin is characteristically severe. In an article in Slate --"Sarah Palin's War On Science: The GOP Ticket's Appalling Contempt For Knowledge And Learning" ( -Hitchens first explains to readers the benefits of fruit fly research (as though anyone - even a small town clod like the Alaska governor wouldn't have learned about fruit flies in high school biology). Fruit fly research, he continues, allows us to study the DNA of living organisms, "which makes it useful in studying disease." In Hitchens' strained calculus, these facts rank Palin as a hypocrite since her "signature issue" is disability and special needs: "She might even have had some researcher tell her that there is a Drosophila-based center for research into autism at the University of North Carolina."

But when Palin attacked the earmark, she wasn't campaigning against fruit fly research. She was campaigning against earmarks -- the $18-billion-a- year scam under which forces taxpayers to underwrite personal favors that congressmen perform for their "constituents," like giant agribusiness corporations. Such earmarks are transparent bribes since they are bound to encourage constituents who receive them to fund congressional campaigns. The fruit fly earmark was the project of a California congressman named Mike Thompson; the service provided was to the California agribusiness community, which was looking for taxpayer help with a fruit fly problem that threatened their designs to turn olive trees into a profit. The earmark was not about autistic kids. It was about a corrupt patronage system used to benefit one congressman and the olive oil industry.

Of course Hitchens is smart enough to smell the rat in his own argument. Without exactly explaining what the earmark was for, he writes: "The fruit fly can also be a menace to American agriculture, so any financing of research into its habits and mutations is money well-spent." Christopher! This isn't about DNA, and all research isn't fungible. This is a welfare handout to giant corporations. Instead of going to funding sources where projects are peer-reviewed, they can appeal to one pliable congressman, likely to appreciate their ability to help his re-election.

In an earlier Slate column ("Vote for Obama" Hitchens described McCain's selection of Palin as "the most insulting thing a politician [could do]" and therefore, apparently, a cause to throw the Iraqis and his country under the bus. Of course the author of the religion-bashing book, God Is Not Great, is not really enraged at Palin because of her concern about earmarks. His contempt is for the fact that she believes in a divinity, and a moral law higher than California congressmen. Even this contempt coming from Hitchens is puzzling, since the chief sin Hitchens ascribes to the religious in his polemical book is presuming to speak in the name of God. Since Palin readily concedes her inability to read the Creator's mind, she should get a pass. But she doesn't.

Instead, Hitchens suggests that with Palin "the contempt for science may be something a little more sinister…. She is known to favor the teaching of creationism in schools…" Well, not exactly.

As Hitchens himself explains she has not advocated imposing creationism on the schools. She merely wants to "smuggle" the doctrine through the door in "the innocent disguise of 'teaching the argument.'"

Oh. She wants students to be made aware of the discussion over evolution, whereas Hitchens wants the fact that some members of the scientific community believe in Intelligent Design to be suppressed- and this in the name of "knowledge and learning!"

Hitchens' is normally able to make the sharpest distinctions, but this ability is strikingly absent from these electoral ruminations . Perhaps his instincts have been blunted by the new company he is keeping among the bigoted hysterics of the political left to whom distinctions appear as mere distractions from the righteous Path of Truth. "The Republican Party s has placed within reach of the Oval Office a woman who is a religious fanatic, and a proud boastful ignoramus," writes Hitchens, adding that those who care for the Constitution and reason will on November 4, "repudiate this wickedness and stupidity." The wickedness and stupidity are more aptly reflected in baseless, mean-spirited remarks like this.

Anti-God is not great either, Christopher. While you refuse to cut Governor Palin slack in an election season, look at the gaping latitude you provide to her opponents. Obama's election (should it come to pass) will not put him a heart-beat away from the presidency but anoint him commander-in-chief. This makes your burden of responsibility that much greater, particularly since as a man of the left you understand exactly who Obama is.

Some years ago, you wrote a memorable book about Bill Clinton called No One Left To Lie To. When you wrote it, you shared many of Clinton's political agendas but parted ways with him over his moral corruption. Your defection turned on the issue of presidential character. You were repelled by Clinton's easy ways with the truth. But Obama's lies make Clinton's look pale.

Consider that Obama's closest counselor and spiritual guide over a twenty year period is a racist kook, a Jew-hating, terrorist-loving acolyte of Farrakhan. When confronted with this fact, Obama responded he had no idea who Jeremiah right was. What Clinton lie comes close to that in brazen coolness? Or this one: My name is Barack Hussein Obama and I grew up the son of a Muslim father and went to a Muslim school in an Islamic state but I wasn't raised as a Muslim - I've always been a Christian.

Not that being raised as a Muslim should matter. The lie should.

For his entire adult life, Obama's closest political allies have been pro-Soviet progressives like state senator Alice Palmer who chose Obama as the politically appropriate figure whom she chose to inherit her state senate seat; or anti-American radicals like Billy Ayers who organized a terrorist army in the 1970s with the intention of launching a race war in America, and bringing down the "empire." Others may be under the illusion that the WeatherUnderground was organized to protest the Vietnam War. But you know better. Ayers and his comrades were still bombing during the Jimmy Carter Administration in the year of America's bi-centennial, 1976. They were still in the trenches four years after our withdrawal from Vietnam, because their agenda was a war to destroy the imperial beast, America.

I was eight years old when Ayers set his bombs (more likely 16). But Ayers' reputation was legend in the Hyde Park "liberal" community where Obama met him and embraced him as a political comrade and ally. It was in Ayers' living room that Obama launched his campaign for Alice Palmer's leftwing seat. It was Ayers' father who got Obama his job at the law firm of Sidley Austin, and it was Ayers himself who hired Obama to spend the $50 million fund Ayers had raised to finance an army of anti-American radicals drawn from ACORN and other nihilist groups to recruit Chicago school children to their political causes.

When confronted by his association with Ayers, Obama had another characteristic memory lapse. Ayers was just a "guy in the neighborhood" whose children went to school with his. What other crucial facts about his life and what other essential clues to his character has Obama lied about? Better ask: What has he not lied about? Syrian criminal Tony Reszko, who gave him his house (and received what political favors in return)? If you ask Obama, he never read all those front page stories about Rezsko's indictments.

And of course, nobody ever bothered to ask Obama why a pro-Soviet trooper like Alice Palmer would want to give her senate seat to him rather than some other worthy. But we can pretty well guess Obama's answer if they had.

When you peel away the subterfuges and get down to the facts, what you are left with is a life-long radical posing as a political liberal to win the trust of a larger constituency. Schizophrenic disjunctions make up his political character. He is a ruthless machine politician, who chose the Daley mafia over inner city school kids and crushed an incipient reform movement he himself had been part of. When the chips were down his loyalty was to the machine; but when he runs for office it is as a political progressive. In his heart, he is an economic radical distressed that the Constitution presents obstacles to socialist theft; but when he runs for office he inhabits the persona of an economic centrist. The balancing act is superb. His chief economic adviser this presidential run is Austan Goolsbee, an economic centrist, while Paul Volcker a much admired conservative has joined his campaign. Both men would do a Republican Administration proud. But once in power will he follow their advice?

The economy is probably not where your heart is. Consider, then, the global war against Islamic fanatics, which is. These are not people who want to "teach the argument" in public schools, like Sarah Palin. Their remedy for disagreement is not discussion but off with their heads. Where is Obama on the war between barbarism and civilization? He was for keeping Saddam Hussein in power, when the entire Clinton national security team was against it. He was for capitulation on the battlefield once the war started, which would have left the Iraqis to the tender mercies of Zarqawi and crew.

In foreign policy, generally, his deceptions are world class. In practice he has spent his political life in league with anti-American, "anti-war" radicals who make no secrets among their friends as to the nature of their agendas. As a sitting Senator he was a white flag appeaser. But as a candidate poseur he is able to pull off the credible impression that he is a foreign policy realist.
And maybe he is. Or maybe he's not any of these things, because all that anyone knows for certain about Barack Obama - the only thing one knows for certain -- is that he is not what he seems. What we do know, because we have the performances on tape is that he is the most seamless liar since Bill himself - smoother by far. Who is the real Barack Obama? Who can tell? We don't really know anything about this man's intentions and what we do know about his deeds is bad.

We know that he is a man without loyalty. Wright, Ayers, Grandma - throw them under the bus (although perhaps only temporarily, while expedience requires it). When his benefactor Alice Palmer changed her mind about passing him her senate seat, he refused to give it back. When she and two other black candidates attempted to challenge him in the primaries, he went to court to prevent them from running at all. He preferred to disenfranchise their supporters than win in an election. When TV anchors posed uncomfortable questions to him and his running mate, he had his campaign threaten their stations with reprisals. Michael Barone has written eloquently about the emerging "Obama thugocracy." What counter-evidence could you possibly produce against this concern? You have embraced a Machiavellian liar and world class charmer, remarkably disciplined as a political actor, breathtakingly able to put on many faces. Should he become president, will you or anyone else be able to call him to account?

Here is another thing to think about. Consider what those who have known him best and longest think of all these weavings and bobbings and deceptions on the issues - issues fundamental to America's future. Despite his tacks to the center, his brave words about standing up to Iran and his claims to be ready to defend Israel's democracy, every anti-Israel, anti-American, pro-Iranian Communist in America is supporting Barack Obama; every pro-Palestinian leftist, every former Weatherman terrorist - many of whom are active in his campaign (some even on his official website); every Sixties leftist and all their disciples whose hope all their lives is that America would lose its wars, because in their perverse view America is the Great Satan, the imperial master of global capitalism; every black racist follower of Louis Farrakhan, who said recently that when Obama speaks you are "hearing the voice of the messiah;" every "anti-war" activist who wanted us to leave Saddam in power and then lose the war in Iraq, everyone who believes that America is the bad guy and that our enemies are justly aggrieved; every member of ACORN chief product of the anti-American Sixties left,which thinks nothing of conducting massive electoral fraud because it has massive contempt for the American way. Every one of these radical forces without exception and without defection is pulling for Barack Obama, along with al-Jazeera and Vladimir Putin and the religious fanatics of Hamas and the PLO. Have you asked yourself what it is that you think you know, that they don't?

Of course all these leftists with their hostile agendas may be mistaken about Barack Obama. His distinctive talent, after all, is to appear all things to all men and women. In the end, Obama may be so faithless, and disloyal, and unprincipled, as to turn his back on everything he has ever stood for and everyone who has ever supported him for the last twenty years. He may throw them all under the bus along with Reverend Wright, radical Ayers and racist grandma. But how certain can you be of counting on that? Can you even be sure that Wright and Ayers will not be invited back into the fold once the prize is achieved? What is it that you know that the anti-American, anti-Israel left in this country (and abroad), who are also supporting Obama, do not?

I am stunned that you would give all these facts a pass in casting your vote for the mysterious stranger, and use Sarah Palin's mild religious faith as an excuse to condemn her and endorse him. Unlike Obama's political commitments, Palin's faith has been a consistently private aspect of her life. (Is there an act of her governorship you can point to that was dictated by the "religious fanaticism" you ascribe to her on the basis of a single appearance she made in a church she has long since left? There is none.) I am not so much surprised as dispirited by your thoughtless attacks on the religious faith of this woman, who has the support of Democrats and Republicans in her state, and who is seeking high office in a nation whose core principle, as you know better than most, is religious tolerance.

Perhaps it is precisely America's tolerance that is the problem here. Perhaps it is this tolerance itself that has given rise to the passionate hatreds that are directed unfairly at Palin and McCain. These hatreds are justified by their protagonists as a defense in behalf of the first presidential candidate who is black. Perhaps in the rush to elect a black president, there is too much tolerance, too much willingness to give a pass to Obama on matters on which he should not get a pass - to ignore so many obviously troubling facts.

I am dispirited that you who wrote so movingly about your own post-9/11 love for this country would attack in such an unrestrained and incoherent manner a woman whose candor in expressing similar love has earned her the contempt of the left. Leftists of course refuse to consider themselves nationalists, or patriotic defenders of a tolerant countr. They think of themselves as "international citizens" whose allegiances are to international courts, and organizations, and to a United Nations dominated by dictators and racists, by women-hating, gay-hating, Jew-hating, Christian-hating and, yes, atheist-hating regimes. All of this doesn't matter to them when they are faced with truly dangerous individuals like Sarah Palin.

Think again Christopher. Vote for Obama if you want to, but don't debase yourself by thinking (and hating) in lockstep like the left. Since your adoption of this country, you have written thoughtful appreciations of several of its Founders. You know, more than most, that religious freedom - and respect -- is the foundation of all the freedoms we enjoy in this country, including the freedom of people to hate it. One thing you can count on from John McCain and Sarah Palin is that they will defend their country and its Constitution against enemies global and domestic who despise it, and seek its demise. What can you count on from Barack Obama?

David Horowitz is President of the David Horowitz Freedom Center, Los Angeles, CA

Thursday, November 6, 2008

Reasons to Fear - Part II

November 5, 2008

The people have spoken, the election is over, and we have a new president of the United States … Mr. Barack Obama, Junior Senator from Illinois. Having won 28 of the 50 States, Mr. Obama has been chosen as the leader of this country.

As one of “the people” states so well, it is difficult for some of us to forget the obvious and merely rejoice in an “historic” event . . . some of us would have preferred more substance.

“OBama’s eloquent, but empty rhetoric, reminiscent of cult leaders, duped the uninformed American voter into believing this charlatan was some sort of messiah. It’s a sad day for America when we elect to the office of president a man who, because of his past and present associations, would be denied the security clearance necessary to work for the U.S. government.” Comment by Brian comment-466690, November 5th, 2008 at 6:25 am

My opposition to Mr. Obama’s candidacy has been well documented for the past several months ( and may well come back to “haunt” me, as may the clearly stated opposition of many others in many other venues. The opposition has already been “warned” to restrict the number of commentaries deemed unsupportive of the new administration. There is already a concern by radio that certain talk radio stations’ FCC licenses may be in jeopardy under this new administration. (Newsmax)

There has been much talk since the election of “unifying,” and keeping the country together. Of course, to anyone who has followed American politics for any length of time, that is the refrain from both sides, after every Presidential election. The fact that Mr. Obama’s supporters have been speaking to this all day is neither original nor significant. It is merely politic.

Just as politic is the reporters’ swoon over Senator McCain’s graciousness in his concession speech. No one who has watched Senator McCain during even just the past few weeks would have expected less.

The talk about either reducing, not having, trying to avoid, or not acknowledging divisiveness is, to me, just plain silly.

There is always a division during elections; it’s the nature of the beast. Most often, after each election there is a time of gathering one’s self to start again after the efforts, stress, hopes, and concerns of the previous months’ exercise, no matter what the ending.

There is constant division throughout the populace, based on not only the human aspects of individuality but compounded, perhaps, by the myriad differences of the world, politics included. It is an extreme naïveté to expect that divisions will suddenly and automatically disappear just because votes have been cast, the choices have been broadcast, and it is supposedly “all done!” It does not happen that way. In general, we all just move along, deal with what the final results happen to be, and look forward to better times.

This time, however, it does appear to me that the divisions are deeper, broader, and more significant.

It is important to note that by no means did Mr. Obama win by a significant “landslide,” meaning that he does not have a limitless “mandate to rule.” The final numbers are extraordinarily significant in that they reflect that Mr. Obama may have won The Electoral College (349 - 161) by a significant margin, but the Popular Vote was won by a notably slight margin (62,177,241 – 55,181,428). It is not surprising that Mr. Obama would have won the Electoral College considering he has been campaigning for this position for much over 1 year and had established an incredible grass roots campaign political machine.

We must remember and question the methods utilized in the winning of the Electoral College. The “slick, smooth, 21st Century election machine” utilized by Mr. Obama certainly left much about which to be concerned. The documented fraud and intimidation tactics utilized to register voters especially should worry and concern all Americans.

Nonetheless, I rejoice that we have once again seen the beauty of the American system of government represented in the most important process of all: the smooth transition of power. This, above all, sets the American system of government apart from many others. There was no revolution, no coup d’état, no decapitations of the incumbents, merely the casting of ballots. (So far, it appears that there will be no demonstrations, lootings, or arson by the losing side.)

However, the results of this particular election clearly show that the majority, slim though it was, chose to allow itself to be duped to an extraordinary extent. The Americans who made this final decision will now have to live with the results of their choices. Unfortunately, all of us will be subject to those results, as well.

It has been reported that “new voters” were instrumental in deciding this issue. That leads us to an important reason for fear. The “young, new” voters who were so powerful were no doubt swayed by the “impressive rhetoric” of Mr. Obama, his style, glibness and his promises of “change.”

I suppose it will be perceived as immaterial to ask what I have never heard asked by anyone so far during the past year of Mr. Obama’s campaign...“change” what, “change” how? We will certainly start to find out fairly quickly, but there have been more than subtle hints all along.

We must return to the issues of character, experience, and associations. Mr. Obama’s experience as a “leader” is predicated on the fact that he is an “impressive orator,” that he presents well, and can “connect” with many people. In my view, those qualifications would make him an excellent candidate for membership in the Actors’ guild or as a motivational speaker, but hardly anything else. Now we are subject to the results of his so-called “experience.”

We should all have been extremely concerned of the basis of the “experience” he purported to have. Very, very few questioned the where, how, and what of that “experience.” Where did he get it? How did he earn it? What did he do to prove it? I would posit that the basis of his “experience” directly relates to his background and the philosophies that were pervasive in it.

Here is a sample of his views and goals, his own words. Since Mr. Obama has not been reticent to express his opinions, no one should be surprised at the results of his presidency.

Everyone of voting age should read these two books. Don't buy them; get them from the library before they are removed from the shelves.

From Dreams from My Father:

• 'I ceased to advertise my mother's race at the age of 12 or 13, when I began to suspect that by doing so I was ingratiating myself to whites.'

• 'I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race.'

• 'There was something about him that made me wary, a little too sure of himself, maybe. And white.'

• 'It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names.'

• 'I never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father's image, the black man, son of Africa, that I'd packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela.'

To me, the most telling quote is from The Audacity of Hope:

• 'I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction.'

Those are not the words of someone with the goal of “unifying” the country and our people.

Those are not the words of an individual with the sincere political goals of “representing all of us.”

One of Mr. Obama’s much repeated campaign “issues” was that he would “restore” the standing of the United States in the world by “working with” governments that have issues with the United States. Personally, since I do not consider it terribly important that other countries “like us,” I do not find it encouraging that Mr. Obama is so ready to appease so many other countries.

As an aside, I don't in the least think that our "prestige" has been destroyed in any way at all. It has been my experience to understand that the ones who are most the target of denigration are more often than not the ones who are considered to be of highest standing.

Mr. Obama’s naïveté glares very brightly with this premise. He obviously does not have any understanding of the thinking in “the world” regarding our country. If anyone could hate our country more than most of the countries in the world already do, I do not think they have yet been created (other than those who have diligently worked to destroy her from within the last 30+ years, of course).

I do not believe it to be a sincere naïveté in the vein of the Democrats who flocked around Robert Kennedy. I believe it to be extremely hypocritical on the part of Mr. Obama to have geared his rhetoric to such naïveté knowing how he came to be where he is today, knowing who his supporters are, and knowing what he had to promise them for their support.

Remember, an inkling of the types of promises he made was shown, again, from his own lips, when he spoke to a gathering of ‘community organizers’ and ACORN supporters: they would be “instrumental” in the formation of his cabinet were he elected president; they would all have a say and be part of the decision-making. Here again, nothing in his words reflects full inclusion of every American, but rather, a distinct preferential bent.

A very astute reporter, Michelle Malkin of Creators Syndicate, spoke about, and ran clips of those who support Mr. Obama most emphatically. Asked why they support him, the overwhelming response was that he “will make” the government “take care of” them and “give” them what they “need.” Ms. Malkin referred to a specific individual who was interviewed as an example of the “moocher” mentality that is now in the forefront.

This “revelation” should automatically lead all logical, thinking individuals to ask whatever happened to the rhetoric so neatly and smoothly expressed by another very well-known Democrat . . . “And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”

It is a widely acknowledged fact that our country is in the throes of extremely difficult financial and economic problems would lead most patriotic individuals to immediately ask what we the people can do to get us through the problems. I would think that the primary reaction would not be to run to the government with our hands out for more and more. I would think that we the people would demand a full, true, accurate, and clear explanation of the cause of the current problems – not to place “blame,” but to understand and put in place safeguards to avoid repeating the errors that brought us to this point.

Here again, another old adage comes to mind from George Santayana: "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." If we do not clearly investigate and learn from the errors that brought us here we will inevitably repeat the very same mistakes and return to the very same results.

We cannot help every single person. We can only help people to help themselves. Many times over, history has shown that whenever government takes upon itself the goal to re-engineer society, the results fall very short of the goal and invariably have unintended consequences. We the People must take responsibility for ourselves, our choices, and the resulting consequences.

The ultimate reason for fear is that Mr. Obama himself has given a blueprint of what he appears to think the “change” actually is. This obviously did not penetrate into the psyche and brains of enough voters to preclude his election. This is a perfect example of the old adage, “be careful what you ask for . . . you may well get it.” The people have asked for “change,” and have placed at the head of this country the one they feel will achieve that “change” without investigating to any significant extent the true and exact specifics of that much touted “change.”

I find it incredibly hard to believe, though it is an opinion held by people I truly respect, that the “change” of Mr. Obama’s mantra merely refers to the color of the skin of the individual in charge of the country. If that is an accurate assumption, I truly fear, more than ever before. If that is an accurate assumption, it also shows that in spite of the claims of the liberal mentality, this country has not gone as far as the liberal mentality would wish to think as far as race and color are concerned. It appears that the color of the person’s skin is still a more overriding factor than anything else, even in a candidate for President of the United States. Some of those other more important factors, to me anyway, would be things like proven experience, first-hand knowledge of the world, and verifiable accomplishments.

I would have been the most ecstatic had the choice of candidates included an extremely qualified, proven, experienced individual who just happened to be black. But, maybe, I am the naïve one . . . maybe I expect too much pragmatism, logic, and sense.

As far as our future is concerned, hopefully, Mr. Obama will come to understand that a government is not a nanny; a government must meet its responsibilities as delineated in our Constitution — not in loose interpretations of — but, most importantly, is not responsible for creating problems for the entire country simply in order to please, appease, or recompense a small group.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved, November 5, 2008.

Wednesday, November 5, 2008

One Last Message to the "Undecideds" . . . and those considering Mr. Obama

I would not vote for Mr. Obama if there was a gun held to my head.The truth of it is . . . a gun is being held to our heads to force us to vote for him.

Some of the most obvious bullets in the gun are:

• Fear of being considered “racist.”

• Fear of being considered “selfish.”

• Fear of being considered “unpatriotic.”

I, for one, know that I am not racist – I am black, born in a foreign country, a naturalized citizen because of the unwarranted and hateful attacks on the United States on 09/11/01. It is not racist to be against a candidate who happens to be black because I do not believe he is qualified or worthy to be President.

I, for one, know that I am not selfish – I give whatever I can with those less fortunate as often as I can. It is not selfish to want to keep the greater portion of the wealth I may accumulate through my own hard work and efforts.

I, for one, know that I am not unpatriotic – I love this country, am proud of this country, and pay the taxes legally and correctly imposed by our government in order to meet the legal requirements of our country. It is not unpatriotic to not want to be taxed into oblivion to fulfill the desires of a man whose main focus is not the country as a whole.

It is hardly a step away from evil to use the worst elements of human denigration in order to achieve one’s desires. Mr. Obama has consistently utilized the worst aspects of humanity in order to achieve his goals. Mr. Obama and his people have continuously degraded other candidates to high office (Sarah Palin and her family), personally attacked and attempted to intimidate individuals (Joe Wurzelbacher), and threatened the rest of the citizens with dire reprisals should we not support him ("we'll see what will happen!").

Mr. Obama has not proven the worthiness of character or ideals or philosophy to be voted into the highest office our great country has to offer. On the contrary, he has consistently proven that he has the lowest regard for our great country and her people anyone could possibly have. Only our openly declared enemies have less regard.

He has never loudly and emphatically repudiated the dangerous elements that created him, nor has he removed himself from the mentality that will inevitably lead to the destruction of our country as we know it.

If one loves this country, is proud of being a citizen of this country – without needing to reach the office of “first lady” in order to feel that pride, there is only one way to vote today.

There is only one candidate who will maintain the integrity, pride of country, and be true to the goals of our great nation: Senator John McCain.

Place your vote to support, aid, and ensure the future of our country.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on on 11/04/2008, Election Day.

Obama a Big Hit in the Arab World

Why is it so important to a portion of the population in this country that “the world” always think kindly of us? Why is it important to the extent that the candidate to the Presidency of the United States has expressed that, in order to get other countries to “like us,” he is willing to sit at a table with known terrorist countries.

Is Mr. Obama so extraordinarily naïve that he does not – or perhaps – cannot accept that there are countries who really and truly do not “like” us and they would do anything they felt necessary to destroy us? None of the countries that has declared its animosity has ever expressed a desire to “negotiate,” or “compromise.”

I would also ask . . . why is it so important to Mr. Obama that these countries "like" us? Why should it matter?

What will it take for Mr. Obama to understand these basics?


These factors have made Obama a big hit in the Arab world, where he has received wide praise, including:

-- The Syrian regime has indicated its preference for Obama. Buthaina Shaaban, an adviser to President Bashar al-Assad, has written: “The change suggested by Obama is essential not only for the U.S. but for the entire human family.”

-- Libyan leader Muammar al-Qaddafi called Obama “a Muslim” and said: “All the people in the Arab and Muslim world and in Africa applauded this man. They welcome him and prayed for his success,” although Qaddafi also expressed criticism of Obama’s comments on the future of Jerusalem.

-- Hamas political adviser Ahmed Yousef said this year: “We like Mr. Obama and we hope that he will win the election.”

-- Hezbollah’s second in command, Sheik Naim al-Kassim, urged Americans to vote for Obama as a step toward peace with Islam, and pro-Hezbollah columnist Amal Saad-Ghorayeb said there is “no doubt Arabs should welcome an Obama presidency,” according to Taheri.

-- In Saudi Arabia, commentator Hussein Shobokshi wrote that an Obama presidency “would mark an important moral transformation in the superpower and is a healthy indicator of the long-awaited improvement in the international arena.”

Some columnists also have noted Obama’s close ties to several Palestinian radicals, including Columbia University Prof. Rashid Khalidi — former communications director for the Palestinian Liberation Organization — and another Palestinian political activist, the late Edward Said.

The “Arab street” also favors Obama. Recent surveys found that he is the preferred candidate in Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Algeria, Syria, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates.

© 2008 Newsmax. All rights reserved.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on on 10/29/2008.

The Affirmative Case for McCain - Part III

The Affirmative Case: Dave for McCain

/political-machine/bloggers/dave//political-machine/bloggers/dave/ By Dave, Oct 9th 2008 8:12AM, Filed Under: Endorsements, John McCain, Featured Stories, 2008 President

This is in response to an interesting assignment from our blog overlords. Instead of concentrating on all the problems of the other guy, why are we voting FOR our candidate of preference? For this article, choosing the area to focus on for John McCain is easy. In terms of foreign policy experience he is exactly the kind of president we need. But it's not just his experience that distinguishes him, it's several character qualities that he has exhibited over the past few years during our battle with the forces of terror.

Unlike many politicians, John McCain is not afraid to speak up when he feels something isn't correct. He was one of those who definitely spoke up and criticized the Bush administration over their handling of the insurgency in Iraq. He had seen this before, in Vietnam, closely, and he knew instinctively that a change in tactics was needed. So he joined with Norman Schwarzkopf and blasted Rumsfeld, declaring he had "no confidence" in Rumsfeld's tactics in Iraq.

Unlike most members of the opposition party, McCain was able to separate tactics from strategy. The failure of Bush and Rumsfeld did not necessarily mean we wave the white flag and go home. It meant that we change our tactics to something that would work. McCain's efforts in this area would eventually enable Gen. David Petraeus to assume command and shape the tactics and strategy of the surge that has been so successful over the last year and a half.

When the Bush administration did finally give Petraeus the resources for the surge, McCain stuck by his word and supported it even though everyone told him that he was likely giving up his chance for the Republican nomination and the presidency. They were wrong and McCain was right. Because McCain knew what apparently very few in the intelligentsia know: You don't bet against the American military.

McCain is also able to see the big picture and recognize that Iraq had become a battleground, a last stand, and a proxy war for al Qaeda. Losing there would have emboldened our enemies and doubtless led to more attacks abroad and even here in America. Winning in Iraq would show the Arab world that the USA stands by our word and that a functioning democracy with civil liberties and rights is worth fighting for. And functioning democracies that don't threaten and attack their neighbors are the real key to peace in the Middle East. That is the big picture that McCain understands, that Iraq is just a small part in what will likely be a decades-long slog to eradicate terrorism.

That's not a very happy thought, but it is the world we live in. A president who is both aware of that fact and is willing to do what is necessary to protect our nation, even at great personal sacrifice, is exactly the kind of leader I'm looking for in this election.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on on 10/31/2008.

The Affirmative Case for McCain - Part II

Caleb For McCain

By Caleb Howe, Oct 14th 2008 10:05AM, Filed Under: Endorsements, Republicans, John McCain, Featured Stories

In 2008, the right choice for America is John McCain.

That's something I decided early this year, over the objection of some of my conservative colleagues. There are a number of reasons, but the quickest summation would be "leadership." When I saw both Fred Thompson and John McCain in South Carolina, I knew who had to be the Republican nominee. This is a McCain year, for many reasons.

For many people, the election is about to be "about" the economy. We all know, though, were it not for the current major crisis, that would not have been the case. It would be about foreign policy. In point of fact, if it must be "about" something, then it ought to be foreign policy. On foreign policy and the war. McCain is just plain right.

The Middle East, and our role there, is at a crossroads. A stable Middle East region needs US presence. The Middle East desires that presence, bluster aside. Iraq's neighbors don't want the country to destabilize or devolve to chaos, particularly with Iran waiting at the sidelines. While the nation is ready for a troop draw-down timeline -- call it withdrawal if you like -- Senator McCain will not completely withdraw, as he has been clear about for some time. The US must establish bases in Iraq, and under John McCain we will. What's more, this is not our only significant foreign policy challenge. We must deal with Russia, and relatedly with the Caucuses region. We must increase our level of cooperation with Turkey. We must strengthen NATO. We must deal with North Korea.

All of these things require the steady hand of experienced command, and the courage, knowledge and judgment to make wise choices. Against his fellow senators and congress members, Senator McCain makes those decisions, and he makes the right ones.

Of course, an election can not, and must not, be "about" only one thing. The economy is obviously largely at play. Despite media and blog falsehoods, this is not a crisis of Republicans' making, and certainly not of John McCain's. Senator McCain was one of the few voices trying to avert this crisis. Now that it is here, we must recognize, however sadly, that the heavy hand of the government is required for a solution. Not only does navigation of these waters require the patience and experience Senator McCain brings to the table, but also the natural reticence of a conservative to use it to expand the government in unlimited ways or indulge emotional, socialist responses. We need a leader who won't sell out the free market economy which has driven human civilization to the peaks of prosperity and generated untold global wealth. Lastly, of course, we need a captain at the helm who has the courage to act in the face of unpopularity and a proven ability to obtain bipartisan cooperation. There is no one but John McCain so well suited to the task.

Of course, I am also influenced by the fundamental values. As mine are Republican and conservative by nature, this obviously leads to me McCain. From protecting gun rights to appointing responsible, impartial judges, he is a man we can trust in this role.

America and the world have tough times ahead. Today more than ever before, the world requires American leadership in the great economic crisis we face. The nations of Earth have been on a hectic and undirected path since the end of the cold war, and we all need an America that can calm that path.

Domestically, we need a president who represents our core American values, and has the wisdom and courage to reach across the partisan divide in pursuit of those values.

For all these reasons, there is only one possible choice for our future. As I said in January I say again now: 2008 is John McCain's year. He's what is right for, and about, America.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on

The Affirmative Case for McCain - Part I

The Affirmative Case: Mark for McCain

By Mark Impomeni, Oct 30th 2008 10:13AM, Filed Under: Endorsements, Republicans, John McCain, Featured Stories, 2008 President

The concept behind this series, the Affirmative Case, is for each of the writers here at Political Machine to make an endorsement for president based solely on the attributes of their chosen candidate.

While it is a worthwhile exercise to argue for a candidate's election rather than against another's, the concept, I think, does not necessarily reflect the way voters vote. Elections are contested between competing candidates, each with differing philosophies, policies, character, and experiences. Voters must make judgments between the competitors and that judgment must include a comparison of the available choices. It is perfectly legitimate for any voter to make their decision based upon negative attitudes toward one or more candidates based on his or her policies, plans, temperament, character, and experience. This format assumes that the available choices in this election are equal. I find that to be far from the case.

Nevertheless, with that objection stated up front, I will proceed to make my case for the election of Sen. John McCain as the 44th President of the United States.

Sen. McCain is a true American hero. In a time when the meaning of words like courage, sacrifice, honor, and heroism are being defined downward, John McCain exemplifies the true nature of each. Everybody knows by now that McCain spent over five years as a prisoner of war in a North Vietnamese prison camp; during which time he was brutally tortured, leaving him severely physically limited to this day. But fewer realize that almost none of it was necessary and all of it was practically voluntary.

After nearly being killed in a devastating fire aboard the U.S.S. Forrestal, during which McCain displayed great heroism in rescuing another pilot pinned down by the flames, McCain turned down a chance for rest and recovery and volunteered to fly missions from another undermanned ship. Not long afterward, he was shot down on a bombing run over Hanoi, one of the most dangerous sorties flown in the Vietnam War. The North Vietnamese soon learned that McCain was the son of a high-level U.S. admiral, and they offered him early release. It would have been a propaganda coup for the North as well as a blow to the morale of the remaining P.O.W.s. McCain, badly injured in the crash and nearly dead from maltreatment at the hands of his captors, refused.

He chose to adhere to the honor code that said the first captured would be the first released. It was after McCain snubbed the North Vietnamese that his torture became much, much worse. It was a display of physical and mental courage, dedication to duty, and commitment to a personal code of honor that is rarely seen. And despite protests from some on the left, it is absolutely a qualification for president.On policy matters, the three most important issues in this election for conservatives are: the war on terror, the economy, and judges. John McCain espouses policies on each that are not just sound, they reflect his wisdom and experience in government. The war against radical Islamic extremists is the national security challenge of our time. It will span many successive American administrations, and it is imperative that the U.S. maintain a steady approach. Al-Qaeda's capabilities may have been degraded, but its desire to kill Americans has not been diminished.

John McCain understands that America must remain on offense against this determined enemy in all parts of the globe. McCain understands that different theaters will require different tactics at the same time. He will finish the job in Iraq while beefing up the effort in Afghanistan. He will bring our soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines home in victory. It is an unheralded success of the Bush Administration that the United States has suffered no further attacks since September 11th. McCain is the only candidate in this election who will continue the successful policies that have kept America safe for the past seven years.The economy has surpassed the war on terror as the foremost issue in voters' minds. Sen. McCain is an advocate of tried and true economic policies that will help create jobs.

Although he voted against the Bush tax cuts of 2001, he now realizes that tax cuts are the surest way to prime the economic pump and get the economy moving. He will make the Bush tax cuts permanent for everyone, not just a chosen few. He will cut the corporate income tax rate to help stem outsourcing; and will cut the capital gains rate in half to spur investment.

In tough economic times families have to learn to make do with less. But liberals never seem to apply that metric to government. McCain will make sure of it. No one is a bigger deficit hawk than John McCain. He understands that the federal budget must be brought under control. He has built a career on fighting wasteful government spending and has never taken an earmark for a pet project. As president, McCain will veto every bill containing wasteful earmarks and force the federal government to control its profligate spending habits. He will not allow the government to take more of your money for Washington politicians to "spread around."The federal judiciary, by contrast, is not an issue that even registers in most voters' minds. But with judges playing an ever increasing role in ordinary Americans' lives, the makeup of the federal bench is critical. The next president could appoint as many as three Supreme Court Justices, to say nothing of the myriad lower level federal courts. As politicians push ever more and bigger political issues off on the courts, judges who understand and respect the role of the judiciary as enshrined by the Constitution are essential to protecting the people's primacy in deciding political questions.

John McCain supports judges who will decide cases based on the letter of the law and the Constitution, not dictate policy from the bench based on their personal preferences. McCain's commitment to good judges is rooted in principle, not ideology. That is evidenced in McCain's votes for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stephen Breyer, two of the most liberal justices on the Supreme Court. McCain believes that when it comes to judges, elections have consequences. That is certainly true for this election.John McCain has spent his entire life fighting for America, both literally on the battlefield and figuratively in the halls of Congress.

If there is one candidate whose life experience, resume, and personal story demand his election, that candidate is John McCain. Americans tend to choose the fresh face when they choose a president. But the stakes in this election, both economic and security related, call for a steady, experienced hand at the wheel. I will be voting for John McCain on November 4th.

I strongly urge you to do the same.

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on on 10/31/2008

Biden Wrong About ACORN-Obama Conection

Sunday, October 26, 2008 9:28 PMBy: Lowell Ponte on

Last Thursday, Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden did not tell the truth when hit with tough questions about ACORN from a veteran journalist.

“Aren’t you embarrassed,” asked Orlando, Florida, WFTV anchor Barbara West, “by the blatant attempt to register phony voters by ACORN, an organization that Barack Obama has been tied to in the past?”

“I am not embarrassed by it,” replied Biden. “We are not tied to them. We have not paid them one single penny to register a single solitary voter…. We register the voters ourselves, and so there is no relationship.”

A Newsmax Fact Check shows that Obama has had a long relationship with the group and the Obama campaign did indeed pay an ACORN subsidiary over $800,000. The radical group called ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) is a multi-faced creature its founders “spun off” into approximately 100 separate legal entities.

In our Oct. 6 investigation, Newsmax reported that ACORN’s founders “created a shell game under which money acquired by one ACORN front group, Project Vote (run in Illinois in 1992 by Barack Obama), would be moved to other ACORN-controlled groups,” some openly political and others tax-exempt and prohibited from direct political activism.


Does anyone doubt whether this and other similar groups known to be associated with Mr. Obama will not have immediate entre to the White House? Mr. Obama has already publicly expressed his intent to have all these groups actively participate in the formation of the policies of his government.

One question immediately comes to mind: Does anyone really consider this type of policy to be "all-inclusive" for all Americans?

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on on 10/27/2008

Why the Media Cheer for Obama and Despise McCain-Palin

By Thomas Sowell, Creators Syndicate. Originally published in the Jacksonville-Times Union, 10/27/08.

Apparently, there is something about Sarah Palin that causes some people to think of her as either the best of candidates or the worst of candidates. She draws enthusiastic crows and provokes visceral hostility in the media.

The issue that is raised most often is her relative lack of experience and the fact that she would be “a heartbeat away from the presidency” if John McCain were elected.

But Barack Obama has even less experience—none in an executive capacity—and his would itself be the heartbeat of the presidency if he were elected. Palin has had executive experience—and the White House us the executive branch of government. We don’t have to judge her by her rhetoric because she has a record.

We don’t know what Obama will actually do because he has actually done very little for which he was personally accountable. Even as a state legislator, he voted “present” innumerable times instead of taking a stand one way or the other on tough issues.

“Clean up the mess in Washington”? He was part of the mess in Chicago and lined up with the Daley machine against reformers.

He is also part of the mess in Washington, not only with numerous earmarks, but also as the Senate’s second-largest recipient of money from Fannie Mae.

Why then the enthusiasm for Obama and the hostility to Palin in the media?

One reason is that Obama is ideologically much closer to the views of the media.

Worse yet, from the media’s perspective, Palin does not seek their Good Housekeeping seal of approval.

Much is made of Joe Biden’s “experience.” But Frederick the Great said that experience matters on when valid conclusions are drawn from it.

Biden’s “experience” has been a long history of being on the wrong side of issue after issue in foreign policy. He was one of those senators who voted to pull the plug on financial aid to South Vietnam, which was still defending itself from Communist invaders after the pullout of American troops.

Biden opposed Ronald Reagan’s military buildup that helped win the Cold War. He opposed the surge in Iraq last year.

Palin will not be ready to become president on the first day that she and McCain take office. Nobody is.

But being vice president is a job that can allow a lot of time for studying, and everything about Palin’s career says that she is a bright gal with her head on straight. The country needs that far more than it needs people with glib answers to media “gotcha” questions.

Whatever the shortcomings of McCain ad Palin, they are people whose values are the values of this nation, whose loyalty and dedication to this country’s fundamental institutions are beyond question because they have not spent decades working with people who hate America.

Nor are they people whose judgments have been proved wrong consistently during decades of Beltway “experience.”

Copyright, MCzwz, All Rights Reserved. Originally posted on on 10/28/2008.