I don’t believe the polls any more than I believe the so-called journalistic organizations which commission the polls. Despite absurd claims of ten and fifteen point margins of victory, this is going to be a close race right up to the last minute. Ultimately, I’m afraid, my gut tells me that Obama and his party of frauds will prevail in this election.
But before you rush to clean out the local ammunition store stop, take a breath, and let’s look at the situation rationally.
The fact that the race is this close, despite everything the republican ticket has stacked against it, is cause for extreme optimism about the future direction of this country. This election can be seen as a last ditch act of desperation on the left’s part. Their last gasp. They are expending every last bit of ammunition they have to pawn Obama off as a post-partisan, post-racial moderate, instead of the far left, redistributionist, black-liberation theologian he is. The dying dinosaur media has doubled down with it’s final shreds of credibility. Zillionaire leftist financiers and subsistence-class liberal donors alike have dug deep in these trying financial times and thrown every last red cent they could muster into the Church of Obama’s unscrupulous online offering plate. The left has played every magic political card in the deck, from the race card to the elitist card. The Obama campaign linked Acorn has registered every real or imaginary Obama supporter in the world to overwhelm and effectively sap the efforts to oversee the veracity of the electorate at the local level, which aids the typical beneficiaries of voter fraud – the Democrats. All in an effort to skew the playing field in favor of the left. In Washington, ballots are being mailed to democrat supporting felons, despite laws forbidding it.
Leave a comment
Print This Post
About all that man-made global warming stuff…yea, our bad:
Scientists at MIT have recorded a nearly simultaneous world-wide increase in methane levels. This is the first increase in ten years, and what baffles science is that this data contradicts theories stating man is the primary source of increase for this greenhouse gas. It takes about one full year for gases generated in the highly industrial northern hemisphere to cycle through and reach the southern hemisphere. However, since all worldwide levels rose simultaneously throughout the same year, it is now believed this may be part of a natural cycle in mother nature – and not the direct result of man’s contributions.
Methane accounts for roughly one-fifth of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, though its effect is 25x greater than that of carbon dioxide. Its impact on global warming comes from the reflection of the sun’s light back to the Earth (like a greenhouse). Methane is typically broken down in the atmosphere by the free radical hydroxyl (OH), a naturally occuring process. This atmospheric cleanser has been shown to adjust itself up and down periodically, and is believed to account for the lack of increases in methane levels in Earth’s atmosphere over the past ten years despite notable simultaneous increases by man.
A perfect example of why we mustn’t make policy decisions based on the popularity of global opinion. The Kyoto Protocol was repeatedly presented by American leftists as an example of U.S. policy being hopelessly out of touch with the rest of the world. But if we had followed the rest of the world, we’d have shackled our economy in an effort to deal with a[n] (alleged) problem which we have little, if any, control over.
Leave a comment Print This Post
I recently sent the following letter to the Washington Post:
Dear Editor,
Ruth Marcus’ recent defense of Obama was incomprehensible (”The ‘Socialist’ Scare,” Oct. 22). While rightly acknowledging that it’s important to debate the proper role of government, Marcus later uses examples of those trying to engage in such debates as proof of an “uncivil” campaign. Socialism and welfare go to the heart of “the proper role of government,” yet she finds discussion of such issues to be “ominous.” We must, in her view, move beyond the “stale ‘no new taxes’ debate.” Rather, she is concerned that engaging in these important debates will make it harder for the next President to “unite a divided country.”
Marcus wants a debate, but only after we first all accept her premise that taxes are good, and that any increase should be seen as nothing more than the price for civilized society. It sure is easy to win a debate if everyone is forced to accept your ideas before it even begins.
Sincerely,
Brian Garst
Print This Post
Obama sees that which shackles this nation. He will set us free of the oppressive chains…of the Constitution?
Transript (Hat tip: StopTheACLU)
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.
Obama is sad that “the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth.” It failed to “break free from the essential constraints … in the Constitution.” It’s a “tragedy” that the civil rights movement failed to “bring about redistributive change.” Apparently, “we still suffer from [that failure to shred the Constitution].”
Welcome to Obamunism.
Leave a comment Print This Post
I recently sent the following letter to the Washington Post:
Dear Editor,
Harold Meyerson says it is now up to liberalism to “[build] a more sustainable economy from the wreckage of the old,” while declaring the conservative god of “unregulated capitalism” to be dead (”Gods That Failed,” October 15). He’s a bit late for the funeral. Free-markets died almost a century ago when FDR, ignoring the Constitution, expanded government power over economic activity. Today, there’s an alphabet soup of federal agencies employing over 12,000 bureaucrats to regulate the supposedly unregulated financial sector.
Every time there is a new problem, a chorus of talking heads immediately blames it on a lack of regulation and demands action. Legislators who want to look like they are “doing something” get busy passing laws and hiring yet more regulators. It’s these knee-jerk government interventions to the challenges of the past that have fueled the problems of today. Let’s not create more problems in the future by making the same mistake now.
Sincerely,
Brian Garst
Print This Post
That’s the amount John Boehner says ACORN is known to have received from the taxpayers. There’s probably more.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) today sent a letter to President George W. Bush, urging his Administration to block all federal funding directed to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) and its affiliates until federal investigations into the group are complete. Allegations of voter fraud perpetrated by ACORN in at least 15 states have triggered an FBI investigation of the scandal-tarnished organization. A preliminary analysis of federal data conducted by the Republican Leader’s staff has determined that ACORN has received more than $31 million in direct funding from the federal government since 1998 – and likely substantially more indirectly through states and localities that receive federal block grants.
Can you imagine the media outrage and hysteria if there was a federally funded criminal organization working as an arm of the Republican party to promote voter fraud on behalf of John McCain?
Leave a comment Print This Post
What do liberals think is the job of government?
“I don’t know if I agree with them. Any kind of a plan, if it’s a good plan and a progressive plan, is going to take some property rights, but that’s part of our job – to channel evolvement, to get a good development, to have it proper and do it right,” Woodcox said.
Government must “channel evolvement,” create “good development” by insuring that they “do it right.” I can think of no better example of everything that is wrong with modern liberal thinking. They believe nothing can happen without government planning. Their ignorance of the benefits of free markets, that order is emergent, drives them into disastrous interventions in the market. This is not government’s job. Government exists to protect, not infringe upon, our rights.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Barney Frank, still beholden to the failed policies of Keynesian economics, wants government to spend away!
Never mind the last 8 years we’ve spent criticizing Bush’s deficit spending (which only an idiot could have taken for anything more than an argument of convenience), it’s time to spend, spend, spend! Oh, and we’ll throw on some more burdensome taxes on “the rich” once we’ve got you all sufficiently distracted. As a stuffy conservative who doesn’t like change, it’s almost comforting to see that democrats haven’t changed a lick, and are still singing the same tired, old tune. Unfortunate for my wallet, though.
Hat tip: Say Anything Blog
Leave a comment Print This Post
His campaign promises that an Obama presidency would legalize union intimidation of workers. He doesn’t sell it that way, but that’s what will happen if the Owellian named “Employee Free Choice Act” is passed.
Free choice? More like, “a choice you can’t refuse.”
Leave a comment Print This Post
You have to read this to believe it. Jacob Weisberg says the financial crisis has killed libertarianism. Notably absent from his list of villains are any of the people actually responsible (to see the real culprits, as well as my prediction for just this kind of left-wing response, see here).
There’s just so much nonsense in his article, it’s difficult to know where to begin. Weisberg clearly is not prepared to address any argument on its merits, but rather wants to tar his opponents with dismissive labels and insults. Libertarians are “immature” and the intellectual equivalent of Marxists in denial about he failure of communism. I find it ironic that such a hatchet piece, which freely admits that the author cannot and won’t address specific arguments from free market adherents (really, he waves them away with his magic wand in the second paragraph), would label anything immature.
The reason the author has to resort to such insults is because the facts are overwhelmingly against him. It’s pretty hard to lay the financial crisis at the feet of libertarians (who have warned of the disastrous consequences of meddling for years, identifying specifically this kind of crisis) when 12,000 bureaucrats were regulating the financial sector in the lead up to the meltdown. Does that sound like libertarianism? A libertarian market would have looked nothing like what we had. Just go back a few years and look at all the libertarians railing against the current system. If no libertarian was satisfied with the system, what makes Weisberg think it was libertarian?
Blaming the messenger is always tempting, but it’s utterly dishonest. The real blame rests with government interventionists who think they can meddle in markets without creating moral hazards. They were wrong, and now silly apologists like this author are intent to make sure they can do it again. We all know who will be asked to pony up the next time they fail.
Leave a comment Print This Post
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria.
I am a libertarian-conservative blogger living in the DC area. I have a Master's degree in Political Science, but please don't hold that against me.
