Obama's Billionaires

Speaking at a fund raising event among the very richest of San Francisco elite progressives, Obama made the following statement. Can you imagine the POTUS saying something this tasteless about the Chinese or the Italians or the Saudis?

[T]he truth is, is that, our challenge is to get people persuaded that we can make progress when there's not evidence of that in their daily lives. You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not. And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.

The event occurred on what's known as "billionaire's row," probably the most expensive block in the world! The funniest part is that Hillary really can't jump on this because she lost her claim to authenticity a long time ago. Though with this kind of audacity, even Hillary would be allowed to call him a hypocrite.

Blogger Zombietime has lots of links to reactions, but it includes a photo essay of the mansions on billionaire's row. Nice job, actually.

Values, Morals, and Obama

"Look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."
-- Barack Obama.

He sure has a way with words, doesn't he?? Pathetic.

Wright's Awards

This problem is bigger than I thought. My impression was that this preaching was unique or contained. It may be pretty widespread in the Black church. (I used to say "black church" thinking it meant the color of the skin of the congregation. Does it mean the preaching they receive also?)
Retired pastor Wright is set to receive an award at Brite Divinity School, in Dallas, on the 29th. He was named the recipient of the award a year ago.
This article makes it plain that Wright is indeed a hero of sorts to folks in the black community of Christians.

Stacey Floyd-Thomas, director of black church studies at Brite, said Wright, like Martin Luther King Jr., represents the black church tradition in his harsh denunciation of social problems affecting the country, and said Wright's harsh criticism does not make him unpatriotic.
"Standing in the rich tradition of the African-American church, if he [Wright] is guilty of anything - this loving father, this prophetic pastor, this former U.S. Marine - is guilty of loving the United States enough to tell the truth," said Floyd-Thomas, who teaches ethics at Brite.

And later in the same article...

More than 15 black church scholars joined Floyd-Thomas and Haynes in their defense of Wright.
The Rev. Raphael Warnock, pastor at the Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta, said the public has confused moral outrage with hatred in response to claims that black preachers promote hate from the pulpit.
"In fact, it's inappropriate not to feel outrage in the face of injustice," he said.

At the bottom of the page is the nearly 45 minute video (I have only seen snippets) of the news conference at which the black bible scholars defended pastor Wright.
Personally, I'm all for outrage over moral injustice and I'll be the last to argue that the media always portrays their stories accurately. I find it odd though, that the defenders are heavy on counter-attack and weak on content. But this has a while to play out now. I think this is either Obama's inexperience showing up (that this whole scenario was allowed to go on this long) or a confirmation that he really didn't expect to get this far in his quest for the office he seeks.

I had a chat with a friend at work this evening. He'll be voting for Obama. I got the distinct impression that Democrats expect politicians to lie. Bill used to say that he tried marijuana but didn't inhale, and his party thought he "handled the question" quite well. For a Democrat, truth isn't the point, it's telling the lie cleverly enough that no one challenges it.

This is the "edited" spoof on Hillary's arrival in Bosnia. Hillary "showing off her marksmanship" cracks me up every time. The video is fine but the rest of the page is unfortunately not "family friendly."

Presidential Campaign Websites

Today is youngest child's 21st birthday, I took this week off, and it's freezing outside, so I have WAY too much time on my hands!
From several perspectives, the look of a serious candidate's homepage is interesting. These pages represent, one has to assume, the state of the art in online marketing and dissemination of information in the "information age." What strikes you about any page in particular? Does one seem warmer or more informative than others? If someone ends up at a particular political website, should the site expect them to be friendly? Curious? Decided? A Contributor? As with all links I provide, these will open in another tab. While visiting your favorite, you can sign up for emails or drop in a few dollars.
My google search was "president campaign homepage" - interestingly, the first listing was Kuchinich's congressional page! Why would google do that to us?? Skipping that one, presenting the order as they appeared... Some have already dropped out, others should, or will soon. I included one spoof site and skipped a couple others.
Enjoy!

Hillary for President

Mike Huckabee - President

John McCain 2008

Go Hunter '08

Join Rudy 2008

Mike Gravel for President 2008

John Edwards for President

Welcome to Obama for America

Mitt Romney for President 2008

Hamster for President Official Homepage
(ed. awww, how cute!)

Ron Paul 2008 - Hope for America

Fred -08 - Friends of Fred Thompson

Team Tancredo (careful, this wouldn't load for me)

Kuchinich for President

What I Like And Dislike About Giuliani

Largely because of McCain-Feingold, (which denies free speech rights to issues organizations in the months leading up to elections - when the issues are most important) Senator McCain simply has no credibility with the conservative base of the Republican Party. As impassioned as his defense of the war on terror is, and as much as I appreciate ANYONE's defense of that under-reported important issue and viewpoint, McCain has already lost his most valuable asset as a national spokesman. Enter Giuliani, who has no similar problem on the war. At a New Hampshire "town hall" meeting Tuesday night, Rudy impressively handled citizen's questions regarding the war, and the president's prosecution of it. When the Democrat/media driven issue of the war somehow causing an abridgement of rights arose,

"Just about every personal right has been abridged in the war on terror," he said. "When will you say that's as far as I will go?"

Giuliani did not waste time or effort with his answer - with glorious attitude -

"I think you have grossly exaggerated the case," Giuliani responded. "And you didn't point out the other fact, and that is we haven't been attacked and we've been safe."
He defended the administration's domestic wiretapping program, tough interrogation techniques and the USA Patriot Act.
"So, no rights," Capodice said.
That drew a sharp retort from Giuliani: "That's hardly no rights!" he said. "You have more freedom than anyone in this world has ever had — and no one has taken that from you!"

While I can't vouch for the literal value of his statement, the fact is that whatever limitations there are to our constitutionally guaranteed rights have mostly been imposed by Democrats and politically liberal Supreme Court decisions. (Notable exception is the previously mentioned McCain-Feingold) Political-correctness, hate-speech, deprivation of the right to life of the unborn, are just a few of the many examples of the rampant fascism of the Democrat agenda. They simply cannot see the wisdom in the adage, "Be careful what you hope for!" Hate speech is a very dangerous lasso around our freedoms that is now being used by Muslims to keep Americans from discussing the serious threat their religion WILL someday present. Democrats desire a world where we are free - not TO BE what we want - but free from pain! Imagine a world free from struggle? Impossible so long as people are human...but there I go on my rant!! (((Focus! Giuliani!)))
Rudy of course loses it (his credibility) when he gets into issues not having to do with 9/11...
Some folks think that the tenth amendment only applies to the second amendment

Last week, after the shooting massacre at Virginia Tech, Giuliani said it "does not alter the Second Amendment" and emphasized state-by-state gun control measures, which contrasted with his past enthusiasm for a federal mandate to register handgun owners.

Imagine state-by-state "religion controls" or state-by-state "equal protection" controls, and you quickly see how silly is his - and liberals/democrats/media - approach. On the other hand, there is no mention of any medical procedure anywhere in the constitution, and so those legal/social issues SHOULD be approached on a state-by-state basis as directed by the tenth amendment. Which is why the 1973 abortion decision in Roe v Wade is such an abomination under the law, even if one CAN accept 45 million dead babies by now.
If Fred Thompson gets into the action, I'll vote for him. If not, then my primary vote will go to Huckabee - I like him, plus it's a sympathy vote for being Bill Clinton's Lieutenant Governor Indiana has no say in the primaries anyway - and my vote in the election will go to whoever runs for the Republicans.

You Tube, 1984, The Democratic Party

The creator of this ad has been "outed."
Internet video sensation indeed.

"It's true ... yeah, it's me," said Philip de Vellis, a 33-year-old strategist with Blue State Digital, a Washington company that advises Democratic candidates and liberal groups.

The name attached to this Hillary "response" is "obamaloveslieberman"

I think we're in for quite a few "whoppers" this cycle.

It's my belief that the reason the "Big Brother" scenario of the many available conspiracy theories has such holding power flows directly from the "nanny state" mentality of the Democratic party.
It's absurd to believe that we can tax the bejeepers out of the rich to pay for our entire two trillion dollar government, (complete with "free" benefits for the rest of us) expect them to smile and hand it over without a whimper, and expect nothing in return. If we are going to insist that they (the conspiratorial "they") pay for it, then they are going to own it.
It's equally absurd to try to arrange for this massive government to provide huge and expensive benefits for the entire population without tight controls over the use of those "bennies." If there is an erosion of rights, (I believe there is) that is the cause. If you can provide for your own, you are free and independent. If you can't, or won't, you are an obliged dependent.
What is delicious about this is that the promoters of the one-world welfare state are battling each other trying to prove that the opponent is more terrifyingly one-world-ish.
Doublespeak at it's finest.