Are you aware of Barak Obama’s vision for America?

The most RADICAL LEFTIST POLITICAL OPERATORS AND IDEOLOGUES in American History are exerting more influence than ever through the Presidency, Senate, House, U.S. Supreme Court, University Humanities and Social Science Professors, EPA, Labor Unions, Major City Governments, Main Media, District Courts, Appellate Courts, State Supreme Courts, Trial Lawyers, Lobbyists, State Department, Justice Department, NEA, CIA, FBI, United Nations, Popular Culture, and Public Schools.

Do you have any counterpoint to my fear that our democracy is being undermined by activists imposing their concept of fairness and secularism?

Not only are the underpinnings of our society crumbling, but the national conversation is tragically hampered by the way the Left disregards coherent argumentation. They dominate all forms of media that don’t rely upon intelligent debate. That tells you why they want to handicap Conservative talk radio (reimposing the “Fairness Doctrine”) because they cannot compete in that medium. They also hamper debate by stripping the historical meaning from crucial concepts such as marriage, family, community, morality, equality, fairness, choice, constitution and freedom. If they reduce the nation’s ability to verbalize and criticize they can accelerate their aphonic agenda far more easily.

They’re doing a good job of intimidating some of those who disagree with them.

Everyone knows their views are based more on emotion than logic. You can’t use sound reasoning when you are reengineering the future and dismantling the past. They’re opportunizing the current financial crisis which has provided them an FDR and Saul Alinksy golden opportunity to reinvent America (not that this isn’t an opportunity for sound financial reform). They believe in catastrophic global warming, not because of any evidence, but because it fits so perfectly with their collectivist vision as transnationalist saviors of the world. They would even delude you into believing most scientists agree with them. I question any Liberal or Conservative’s intelligence who doesn’t realize that global temperatures have been decreasing for the last 19 years as dictated by the delayed effect of normal cycles of solar flaring, sunspots and cosmos radiation, with insignificant increases in CO2 levels over the last century (over 95% of which is not anthropomorphic anyway, url=

Conservatives understand both sides of issues far more than Liberals do because their counterparts are sheltered inside intellectual bubbles. Progressive have thoroughly persuaded themselves that their intentions are superior to self-reliant, realistic, independent thinkers, who don’t believe “it takes a village”. That’s why they can’t imagine anyone who holds an opposite viewpoint isn’t a bad person!

That’s convenient.

But Liberalism is not a courageous choice anyway. That’s why it’s the default preference of those clamoring for government largess. Most leading Progressive spokesmen restrict themselves to the groupthink of university social science departments, mainstream media and the Progressive Beltway / Manhatten / Los Angeles / San Francisco “intelligensia”.

Not long ago it wasn’t so seriously consequential when the Democratic party gained power. 

There wasn’t as much urgency for Conservatives to counteract the effects of Liberalism. Most Conservatives are loath to do this because they aren’t as radical and are very uncomfortable with the tactics directed towards those who contradict the Liberal party line, like the way they kneecapped Joe Lieberman, filibustered and vilified numerous extremely qualified federal judicial nominees who weren’t politically correct, tried to destroy President Bush, Clarence Thomas, Robert Bork and Sarah Palin, derisively scorned those who want a fair hearing for intelligent design, vandalized thousands of yards and vehicles with McCain/Palin signs, assaulted many Californians who supported Prop 8 (even some who voted against Prop 8 because they were black and were assumed by the thugs to have voted with the majority of blacks who opposed Prop 8) and brutalized 18-year old Minneapolis Augsburg College freshman Annie Grossmann for wearing a McCain-Palin pin Nov 4 (assaulted by three black women who perhaps were inspired by Obama’s encouragement in September to argue with neighbors and get in their faces).

The Democrats didn’t previously promote historical amnesia (see today’s government school history texts) and weren’t hellbent on secular humanist social reengineering as they are now. The last Democratic president commited to American exceptionalism and liberty was John Kennedy (hardly an esteemed President otherwise). The mainstream media didn’t completely adulterate themselves to the Democrats as they now have done shamlessly since Obama became their hero.  

How will we stop the holocaust, perpetrated by Liberals, of the unborn, and restore wisdom and moral absolutes in a culture that worships “choice” (licensed narcissism), insists on values-neutrality and relativism; a society that rewards failure (financial bailouts) and punishes success (progressive, corporate, family estate and capital gains taxation). It’s not so difficult to undo the “harmful” effects of Conservatism (even though Progressives deeply fear becoming victims of a religious inquisition)!

But it’s extremely hard to undo the New Deal, the Great Society, the current bailouts, the massive repercussions of an entitlement culture, the millions of students brainwashed in public schools and colleges (e.g. showing the movie “Inconvenient Truth” to 4th graders), the 45 million aborted babies, the coercive socialist labor unions impoverishing both corporations and public eduction, the gigantic vise grip of pervasive political correctness, the redefinition of marriage, the welfare state and the widespread stigmatization caused by affirmative action.

Fortunately the Left hasn’t yet eradicated America’s Judeo-Christian foundations, the Military, New Media, Churches (Biblical ones anyway), non-profit organizations, Conservative Colleges, University science programs, some state governments and courts, private high-schools, 150 million still upholding traditional values and 2 million students being homeschooled!

If you prefer rose colored politically correct glasses (meaning you don’t embrace truth if it offends anyone) then Ben Franklin is reminding you that the Founders birthed the only Constitutional Democratic Republic that exists, whose fragile liberty requires YOUR extreme vigilence!


Even though I daily read and listen to many journalists / blogs / magazines / spokesmen / talk shows / publications (especially Victor Davis Hanson, Charles Krauthammer, George Will, Tammy Bruce, Dennis Prager, Hugh Hewitt, Laura Ingraham, Claudia Rosett, Diana West, Michael Medved, Bill Bennett, Michelle Malkin, Melanie Phillips, Mona Charen, Robert Samuelson, Jeff Jacoby, Thomas Lifson, Ed Lasky, Richard Baehr, J.R. Dunn, Thomas Sowell and Howard Kurtz, and admittedly to a lesser extent, Liberal resources) — James Lewis ( tops them all with his lucid, skillful, hilarious dissection of the Progressive worldview. (Thomas Sowell is a very close runner-up to James Lewis!) Please read James’ article below.

What does it say about you If you don’t avail yourself of such a convenient wealth of intelligent conservative commentary? Are you willing to forfeit our liberty and heritage to the Progesssive radicals who are rapidly pushing America towards the already doomed Eurosocialist model? If you need to make up for years of not doing your homework, resolve that quickly by downloading my e-book, “The Progressives’ Triumph Of Hope Over Reality” at

The authors above provide RSS feeds you can receive in your browser (the middle “S” stands for “simple”)! Don’t be technophobic or apathetic while the shining city on a hill is losing its brilliance (figuratively and literally)!

November 20, 2008


By James Lewis

“Yet I … can say nothing — no, not for a King,
Upon whose property and most dear life
A damned defeat was made!
So said Hamlet the Prince of Denmark about the murder of the King, his father.

Well, we’ve just suffered a damned defeat, not as bad as the loss of a beloved father, but all the same a very bloody punch in the nose. American conservatism has taken a trouncing, and the country has itself a new King Obama.

Cardinal Stafford of Baltimore just declared in a published sermon that “On November 4, 2008, America suffered a cultural earthquake.” He called Obama’s campaign “aggressive, disruptive and apocalyptic” and said he campaigned on an “extremist anti-life platform.”

On the matter of abortion the Cardinal is literally correct.

I don’t think the Cardinal meant to dehumanize the President-elect, the way that President Bush has been dehumanized so thoroughly by the Left since 2000. But telling the truth is the first step to recovery.

It is incumbent on us to tell the truth, without scapegoating, and without denying the new administration a chance to find the center of American political life. If they are so inclined.

However, judged by the open record, the coming administration will bring to power the most radical Leftist group of political operators in American history. Their unapologetic radicalism on the subject of abortion is only part of their story, but it is surely the single most lethal and irresponsible part.

Their entire campaign was built on lies and image-making, shielded by a solid stream of daily cover-ups by the Big Media, and supported by tens of millions of brainwashed followers.

So the Left got away with it. The Democrats won, but democracy lost.

And yet, all is not lost.

American conservatives can celebrate one historic triumph: The performance of the New Media in this election. We can’t lose sight of the fact that the New Media managed to expose Obama and his lifelong network. We did the job of real journalism.

Any American who wanted to know the truth was able to find it out with a few clicks on a keyboard. That is real journalism, not the phony imitation from the Old Media and its camp followers.

There is no secret any longer about the ideology of these people, or about their close alliances with Islamic radicals, destructive Leftist billionaires and Saudi influence buyers. There is no doubt about their deep and entrenched roots in the Chicago Machine. Chicago Mayor Daley is on the transition team, and Chicago hardball pol Rahm Emanuel is the White House Chief of Staff. This is the dream team of demagogues like J-Wright, Bill Ayers, Louis Farrakhan, and our sworn enemies abroad. About half the voters know it, and they will not forget it.

That simple fact — that tens of millions of Americans are not deceived — puts powerful pressure on the Dems to behave themselves, as least in public. Any dirty work will have to be done in the dark, where it can be exposed.

Telling the truth is the first step.

Between the web and talk radio the New Media did the job. A decade ago it would have been impossible. After a similar electoral loss, the legacy media would award itself Pulitzer Prizes in these circumstances. We should give the same kind of lasting recognition to brave and talented people like Stanley Kurtz, Andrew McCarthy, Jack Cashill, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Mark Steyn, and a host of others who exposed the Left’s agenda, and kept us laughing in spite of the painful outcome for the country. Friends in the British and European blogosphere helped. Without the New Media, the truth about the Obamanoids would have been drowned in Lake Michigan — with concrete boots on, like Jimmy Hoffa.

We did our part. We will keep doing it.

Lincoln went through hellish defeats before saving the Union and freeing the slaves. George Washington had nothing but pain and trouble before beating the professional armies of King George III. Winston Churchill looked like a goner more than once. And our troops in every single war, including Iraq, have suffered much worse, and still kept their spirits up.

Churchill showed us how to survive defeat and come back stronger.

“… never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never — in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Words to remember.

What comes next? We need to repair ourselves and prepare to be counted in the coming battles. We need to do it intelligently. No banzai charges, but nimble guerilla warfare, like the Minutemen against the Redcoats. And we need to remind ourselves that the Hard Left will try to lock in its control of this country, just as it has in most of Europe. That will be the biggest running battle, to stop the power grab that is even now taking hold silently behind the scenes.

And if you need to keep your bearings straight, remember Obama’s words on live-birth abortion, properly called infanticide:

“Look, I got two daughters … I am going to teach them first about values and morals, but if they make a mistake, I don’t want them punished with a baby.”

Bear that in mind when Obama’s famous charm is on display.”

And I might add, bear that in mind when you discover that Illinois Senator Obama three times voted against bills that would ensure life-saving measures to survivors of abortion  (

James Lewis article above Printed from: at November 21, 2008 – 07:30:23 PM EST


Liberals Reward Failure and Punish Success. They want to give 25 billion to the automakers that should have re-engineered themselves years ago and overtax other corporations.

Mitt Romney has it right:



November 19, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor

Let Detroit Go Bankrupt




IF General Motors, Ford and Chrysler get the bailout that their chief executives asked for yesterday, you can kiss the American automotive industry goodbye. It won’t go overnight, but its demise will be virtually guaranteed.

Without that bailout, Detroit will need to drastically restructure itself. With it, the automakers will stay the course — the suicidal course of declining market shares, insurmountable labor and retiree burdens, technology atrophy, product inferiority and never-ending job losses. Detroit needs a turnaround, not a check.”

Some of the damage the President, elected by virtual affirmative action and by young people brainwashed by liberal public education and Leftist professors, may inflict on the U.S.


Gays in the military. Congress could change US Code, Title 10, Section 654 to allow open gays in the military. (Congress sets such rules. President Clinton tried to change them by Executive Order, but the courts ruled only Congress can change its own rules on military regulations.)

Gay marriage. The Democrats could overturn the Defense of Marriage Act and thus make gay marriage the law of the land throughout the country, including how such couples are treated on federal taxes and Social Security rules. That is, since gay marriage is already the law in at least two states (by court rulings, not legislation or popular support), ending DOMA would force recognition of those marriages throughout the states and federal government.

Stem cell research. Federal funding of research that destroys human embryos, beyond a few existing embryos, was restricted by Executive Order under President Bush. President Obama can eliminate this Order immediately, and Congress could then get to work passing legislation to fund human embryonic stem cell research, thus incentivizing early abortions that yield such embryos.

Abortion. Congress could pass the Freedom of Choice Act and overturn the Hyde Amendment, and thus eliminate all restrictions on abortion and get the federal government back into the business of funding abortions in the US and around the world.

Censorship. By bringing back the so-called fairness doctrine, conservative voices such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and virtually all of talk radio would be eliminated. The internet could be regulated and political speech further restricted under McCain-Feingold type rules.
Mandatory national service. Obama stated that national service would be the “central cause” of his Presidency. At a minimum, this would likely entail dramatic expansion of AmeriCorps and the Peace Corps as well as mandatory “public service” hours as part of high school and college requirements. It could mean a draft, or mandatory service, and a national force in size and funding comparable to the current US military.

Think of it as ACORN with $500 billion in annual funding and that your sons and daughters must serve.
Socialized health care. While I have stated tepid support for some kind of universal health coverage (with significant caveats), what we will likely get from the all-Democrat federal government will be full-blooded socialized medicine from price controls on drug companies to insurance mandates and a Medicare-like bureaucracy imposed throughout the system, with no simplification of or reductions in Medicare and Medicaid. A single-payer system like Canada’s or the UK’s will look good by comparison.

Court appointments. President Obama will nominate, and the Senate will approve, the most leftist, “living-breathing Constitution”, judges to federal courts. Such judges could easily rule that the right to keep and bear arms is not an individual right; that gay marriage is a Constitutional right; that women must receive comparable pay for like work; that the 14th Amendment’s equal treatment clause requires taxpayer funding of just about anything you can think of, from schools to sports programs; that the Boy Scouts must allow openly gay adults to take 12-year-old boys camping; that school administrators have more say in your child’s upbringing than you do; that “private property” is effectively a meaningless concept if you do not use it to serve “the public purpose” as conceived by any public official; etc. (Here’s a secret: courts have already ruled in favor of many of these concepts.)

Taxes, spending, regulation. Taxes will be increased, especially on people who pay them. Social Security taxes will be applied to all income levels. The Death Tax will be restored in full, and then some. We might get totally new taxes, such as a national sales tax, a value added tax, or a wealth tax. Spending will go up, perhaps dramatically, on everything but Defense. New regulations will be imposed on everything from investment banking and hedge funds to work rules and insurance mandates.

Foreign policy. It will be all talk and no action when it comes to national defense. We will reward enemies (e.g., Venezuela, Cuba, Russia) and punish friends (e.g., Columbia, Israel). We will work through the UN as much as possible, and we’ll probably put ourselves under the jurisdiction of the World Court. Look for Donald Rumsfeld and perhaps George W. Bush to be prosecuted in the Hague.

Rule of law. Voting rules will be weakened so that vote fraud will be widespread but undetected. The border will become a meaningless line on a map, since border enforcement will be weakened, no one will be considered “illegal”, and every border-crosser will get all the rights and benefits of citizenship once foot is set here. Generally, think Chicago-Daley on a national scale.

The Reality of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child


“Imagine if . . .”

Posted by: Peter Kamakawiwoole on November 10th, 2008

Imagine an Air Force mom, serving her country on a month-long deployment, who learns that her daughter has been secretly removed by local authorities, claiming the child has been “abandoned.” Children begin mandatory sex-education at the age of four, regardless of their family’s opinions, beliefs, or convictions, and parents are imprisoned if their children fail to receive any of their mandatory vaccinations. Parents live in a state of constant supervision and suspicion.

Imagine if your national government had the audacity to appoint a “guardian” to monitor your child from birth, charged with the legal responsibility to evaluate your decisions as a parent and armed with the legal authority to “intervene, prevent or rectify” any violations of your child’s rights. Public and private schools alike are policed by the national government, and classes begin with singing about the principles of peace, tolerance, and the United Nations. Your child’s confidential medical records, stored in a nation-wide electronic register from birth until age twenty, can be accessed at any time, without your knowledge, by any physician, teacher, or government social worker in the nation.

Now stop imagining, because for parents in the 193 countries that have ratified the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Child, each of these scenarios is true.

Constant Supervision and Suspicion

Since its adoption by the United Nations in 1989, the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) has become the most widely accepted international agreement in history, ratified by every nation of the world except for the United States and Somalia. All signatories pledge to protect children’s rights, foster their development, and uphold their best interests by re-writing their national laws to conform to the standards set forth in the treaty.

While all this may sound harmless and even commendable, the reality is that the Convention allows and even demands that national governments interfere in the decisions of individual families and parents. By invoking the “best interests of the child ,” policymakers and government agents have the authority to substitute their own decisions for those of the child or parent. In short, parents lose their rights to be parents, and become merely caregivers. The result, as parents across the globe are now discovering, is that the family is being steadily undermined, often with tragic and devastating results for the very children who are supposed to be protected.

The Need for Vigilance

Thankfully, the United States still remains the sole organized government of the world that has rejected the Convention on the Rights of the Child, because our elected leaders emphatically rejected the Convention’s incursions on American law and the American family. America believes that international committees and courts should have no authority in the affairs of her families, and that the right and responsibility of lawmaking should be wielded only by her own sons and daughters.

This emphatic resistance, however, must be more than simply a one-time stand, for without vigilance on the part of its citizens, America is unlikely to remain the last stalwart defender of parental rights. Nations across the globe are reaffirming their commitment to the Convention every day, and domestic scholars, activists, judges, and politicians continue to urge us to join them.

To challenge their cries, will be taking a closer look at countries who have been recently cited by the United Nations as “model-governments” in the battle for children’s rights. Beneath their shiny veneer of success are stories and movements that reveal the dangers taking shape beyond our borders. Americans everywhere need to be informed about the true nature of the international movement for “child rights.” In short, they need to hear the stories of real parents, in real countries, who are becoming the real casualties of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Editor’s note: This begins a series of articles to be posted at the rate of one every two weeks.

America, Increasingly Decoupled from Reality and Morality


November 16, 2008
Orwell’s Children
By Bruce Walker

It has been sixty years since George Orwell wrote his chilling dystopian classic, 1984, and it has been thirty years since we saw the creepiest example of educated and free people willingly walking into a living dystopia. November 18, 1978, three decades ago, 918 people drank Kool-Aid laced with cyanide. Jim Jones, the communist leader of Jonestown, Guyana, had become “Big Brother.” Soviet and Communist Chinese propaganda films and condemnations of capitalist and imperialist America blared continually to the subjects of this island of Leftist Hell.

Jonestown ended in mass suicide, but the real horror was that ordinary people, Americans like you and I, had become so decoupled from reality and morality that they could be led to surrender everything, even their lives, intoxicated only with the venom of modern Leftism. These were Orwell’s Children.

We are drifting into the sort of horrific future he described. Too many of us for comfort or solace have become just like the denizens of Jonestown: Orwell’s children — a new generation of creature enraged into constant militancy against eternal enemies, oblivious to the notion of a Blessed Creator, melded into the consciousness of the party hive, divorced from history, hypnotized by images, inoculated against reason, stripped of family, and existing only to serve the cause.

Orwell did not write his book in a vacuum. 1984 describes the Soviet Union (the book describes Stalinist Russia so well so that subjects of that evil empire wondered when Orwell had lived there, though he had just described what he saw from the outside.) 1984 also describes Nazism and every other odious totalitarianism, which its secret police and propaganda machine and atomized subjects. But Orwell was very much also writing about the democratic western nations. His book was a warning of what could happen here. Oceania, the only totalitarian superstate actually descried in 1984, was largely America and the British Empire.

There were specific elements necessary for nations with a heritage of freedom to slide into the most absolute and abject slavery. These elements existed in Nazi Germany, they existed in Soviet Russia, and they exist in our free democracies today. What are the characteristics of the Orwellian state?

Start with God. He must go. The great Russian novelists knew this: “Without God, everything is permitted.” In Oceania, God simply does not exist. The Nazis bragged that they would raise a generation “…without ever having heard of the Sermon on the Mount or the Golden Rule, to say nothing of the Ten Commandments.” The Soviet persecuted anyone who followed the God of Jews and Christians. God is hounded in our world today. A generation of Orwell’s Children are growing up without thinking about God at all or thinking that God is a silly idea cherished by sillier old fogies.

Truth must go too. Nazis embraced the “Big Lie.” Soviets denied that honesty, per se, mattered. In Orwell’s Oceania, the Inner Party members learn to even lie to themselves and to hold utterly contradictory beliefs at the same time. Truth and honesty have little meaning to Orwell’s Children in our world. All truth is relative, all honesty a sham.

Language must be brought to heel. The Nazis did this by inventing meaningless words like “Aryan science.” Marxism foisted upon us words like “capitalism,” which means nothing at all but which has so infected our minds that we reflexively use this silly nonsense word instead of freedom. Politically correct language is rampant. We come to view words like “discriminate” as inherently evil, and other words like “viable fetal mass” have replaced the reality of murdered babies.

Image and symbols replace words. Hitler, whose disciples seldom recalled what Hitler said, always recalled the raw imagery of their leader. Stalin’s portrait was as inescapable in the Soviet Union as the portrait of Big Brother in Oceania. We live in a word of symbols and images. Conservatives succeed in books and talk radio, media that deal in words. Orwell’s Children live in the realm of symbols and images.

The books of the Nazis and Soviets were unreadable tomes like Mein Kampf, The Myth of the Twentieth Century (the two Nazi “masterpieces”) or vast empty volumes of Marxist-Leninism. Is it an accident that the giant who most resisted this evil, Solzhenitsyn, was a devout Christian who mastered the written word better than any stooge of Hitler or the Politburo ever could?

Immutable oppressors are the final nasty element in dystopia. Hitler blamed Jews for everything. Stalin blamed kulaks and his enemies in the party for everything. Subjects of Orwell’s Oceania saw Emmanuel Goldstein as the eternal, immutable enemy of the party. Today there is a drearily predictable list of oppressors. Christians, men, white people, the “rich” (whatever that is supposed to mean), America, and Israel are oppressors and nothing can ever change that.

Orwell even told us, by name, the professionals who would lead us into the nightmare of 1984: “sociologists,” “teachers,” “bureaucrats,” “journalists,” “professional politicians,” “scientists,” “trade union organizers,” “publicity experts,” and “technicians.” (The term “community organizer” was unknown to him.) Those who enslave were those who taught students, who created the news, who sat in the halls of government power, and who defined official “truth” (at least truth de jour.)

Orwell’s Children live among us now, not in tiny numbers in weird Marxist cults like Jim Jones’ People Temple, but as leaders of Congress, as the establishment of academia, as the producers of news and entertainment, as the administrators of public schools, as the “experts” in a thousand myriad and odd fields of putative “expertise.” They infatuate our bored children with the only reality and the only diversion that many can find. They wait for the rest of us to grow older and to die.

Will these children inherit the earth? History, not theology, has shown a single defense against the spreading contagion of Orwell’s Children. Solzhenitsyn found God in the godless Gulag. Michael Power in early 1939 wrote: “In the Christianity of the German people, the National Socialist has found the one enemy it could not vanquish” – and Christians in Germany, alone, chose to voluntarily seek death before selling their souls to Nazism.

The Jewish refusniks proved indigestible to the brutal Soviet police state. When all else failed the Jewish people under the Nazis, devout Jews like my wife’s mother clung to the Blessed Creator and survived the Holocaust. God can touch us all. God can protect us all from evil (not from harm – we all suffer and we all die – but from the much greater danger of the sort of evil Orwell described.)

Education, science, technological gadgetry, good medical care – all of this can not stop us from sliding into a massive Jonestown, a realized Oceania, a place marked by Dante’s grim caution “Abandon hope, all you who enter here.” We are all anchored in belief, but it is what we believe that matters. We can believe in the lies of Big Brother, which change each day with the needs of the party or we can believe in the truth of a living God. We can become the children of Orwell or the special creatures of God. Everything — our nation, our world, our families, our communities — flow from that choice.

Bruce Walker is the author of two books: Sinisterism: Secular Religion of the Lie, and his recently published book, The Swastika against the Cross: The Nazi War on Christianity.

Page Printed from: at November 16, 2008 – 11:52:23 AM EST

Wash Post concedes bias for Obama


Jennifer Harper (Contact)
Monday, November 10, 2008

Wash Post concedes bias for Obama

The mainstream press have been accused of being biased in favor of President-elect Barack Obama for months – a phenomenon now acknowledged by one of the nation’s media heavyweights.

On Sunday, The Washington Post’s ombudsman, Deborah Howell, offered evidence of an “Obama tilt” in her own newspaper.

“Readers have been consistently critical of the lack of probing issues coverage and what they saw as a tilt toward Democrat Barack Obama. My surveys, which ended on Election Day, show that they are right on both counts,” Ms. Howell wrote in her column.

“Now Howell gives the mea culpa in her first column after Election Day, when it’s far too late to do anything about it. Where was Howell during the last three months? Why wait until the election is over to speak up? That’s an answer in itself,” countered Ed Morrissey of Hot Air.

“Now she tells us,” quipped Byron York of National Review.

Revelations of a pro-Obama press are not new.

A Pew Research Center survey released in late October found, for example, that 70 percent of voters agreed that the press wanted Mr. Obama to win the White House; the figure was 62 percent even among Democratic respondents. The same analysis found a Democrat-friendly press dating back to the 1992 presidential election.

A current Harvard University analysis revealed that 77 percent of Americans say the press in politically biased; of that group, 5 percent said it skewed conservative.

With the help of an assistant, Ms. Howell examined The Post’s political coverage since Nov. 11, 2007. “Numbers don’t tell you everything, but they give you a sense of The Post’s priorities,” she said.

The number of Obama-centric stories was 946, compared with 786 centered on John McCain until the presidential nominations were completed in June, she found. From then to Election Day, the tally was 626 stories for Mr. Obama, 584 for Mr. McCain.

Mr. Obama was on the front page 176 times, Mr. McCain, 144 times; 41 stories featured both candidates.

“The op-ed page ran far more laudatory opinion pieces on Obama, 32, than on Sen. John McCain, 13. There were far more negative pieces (58) about McCain than there were about Obama (32), and Obama got the editorial board’s endorsement,” Ms. Howell said.

The Post also ran more photographs of Mr. Obama. Since June 4, Mr. Obama was in 311 Post photos and Mr. McCain in 282. The Democrat also got splashier treatment, garnering larger pictures (133 to 121, respectively) and more color shots (164 to 133).

She compared her results to a study of the national news media conducted by the Project for Excellence in Journalism, which found that from June 9 to Nov. 2, two-thirds of the campaign stories were about Mr. Obama compared with 53 percent for Mr. McCain.

Waltzing on the Titanic


November 15, 2008

By Larrey Anderson

America’s young people helped elect Barack Obama. Way to go kids! This article is for you. Let’s take a look at your future.

We won’t need a time machine. We will just need to visit Europe and talk to the youth of France, Italy, and Greece. Don’t worry. They won’t mind. They have plenty of time to talk. They don’t have jobs.

Young people in Western Europe tend to sit around, smoke  Marlboro cigarettes, drink espresso (and Coca Cola), and (at least until this election) bitch about America.

They have been taught, since their first day in school, that capitalism is evil — that the government can, and should, provide health care, employment, and eventually, guaranteed retirement benefits for everyone.

In their leisurely conversations when they have finished condemning capitalism, they go on to praise the idea of socialism. They do not praise their own countries. They are not stupid. The health care stinks. (Young people don’t care much about that.) There are no jobs. (But there are unemployment benefits.) And the retirement systems are bankrupt. (But old age is way, way, way in the future.)

So, they argue, in the next election they are going to replace the loser socialists who currently run their countries with some real socialists — politicians who will finally keep their promises. I heard this discussion in France thirty years ago. I heard it the last time I was in Italy. It is taking place in Greece right now.

The last time I was in Rome I listened as a very bright young man explained to his friends, over lunch at a sidewalk café, what was really going on: Most European countries have become, essentially, plutocracies. The socialist governments give lip service to wealth redistribution but they are tightly interwoven with the “old money” in the banking system and in big business.

This came as no surprise to his educated friends. Their response was (same as it always is): Of course the system is corrupt. We will throw out the old socialists and put in some new ones. It played in their minds like a broken record. I have heard it for years and years and years.

The only thing that stopped the conversation from becoming a perpetual loop was that one of the conversationalists eventually proclaimed, “Ah. But at least we are not America!” The Marlboros got lit up. The espresso amd Coca Cola were sipped. And they got back to the serious business of bashing capitalism.

Well, not all of them. It turned out that the bright young man who had so eloquently described the current corruption was the bus boy at the café. He had a university education … and a job!

I had the opportunity to speak with one of these young people alone. Actually, this fellow was not so young anymore. He was thirty-four. He still lived with his parents.

He could not afford his own place. His family was having problems even paying their electrical bills.

The reason the price of electricity was so high was that the “greens” had for years stopped the Italian government from building nuclear power plants.

He drove a taxi a few days a week (the only job he could find). He had a girlfriend but could not afford to marry her. He was not planning on having children. But in the next election, he assured me, a brand new socialism was coming. He started to rattle off the names of the experts he had read in the newspapers (and he had studied in the university) who had told him so.

I felt sorry for him. I had had this exact conversation many times before. He was brim full of hope and change.

Listen up young Americans: What is coming to the United States is what has been happening in Europe for decades. The ships of state have smashed into an iceberg called socialism and they are sinking.

This is not a Republican versus Democrat thing. Republicans had ten years to clean up the mess. They made it worse. I don’t blame you for wanting to throw the bums out. I did too.

But putting in a new and improved and ever more aggressive socialist like Obama is not the answer. (Don’t argue about his socialism. Go to his website and show me some free market proposals.) They have been trying this in Europe for three generations. It has not worked.

That trillion-dollar “bi-partisan” bailout passed by our Congress did not go to the people who cannot make their house payments. It is being handed out to the big bankers and to big business.

That is how socialism works. Politicians, bankers, and big businessmen do an age-old dance in triple time. There is no trickle down economics in socialism. Almost all of the money stays at the top.

America will soon be, like Europe has been, waltzing on the Titanic. Thanks for the dance.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved.
Page Printed from: at November 15, 2008 – 10:19:25 AM EST

Why Europe is secretly afraid of a socialist America


November 14, 2008

Why Europe is secretly afraid of a socialist America

By James Lewis

Suppose you’ve been living under the protective wings of a benevolent superpower for sixty years. And suppose you’ve used that big half century to take off on an endless vacation — spending all your tax money to buy votes for the socialist Ruling Class. It’s been one long, grand, drug-infested, sex-drenched, self-indulgent, tabloid party scene. Any time danger threatens you look to Washington for protection. The rest of the time you noisily abuse those Yankee imperialists, merely to boost your fragile ego.  Corruption has become pervasive

That’s Europe today.

What a sweet deal.

But now you see your guardian superpower electing a guy who wants to follow your example. Whooops! Time to sober up. Fast.

Yes, you went hoarse cheering Obama’s ego trip at the Berlin Victory Monument, because you love the idea that O will teach America to love Eurosocialism forever and ever. But shivers are running up and down your spine — because if he is what you think he is, America won’t be there any more to save you. It will just slide into vegetarian nihilism and leave Europe to the New Soviet Empire.

Europe would crumble like a soggy crouton without America’s commitment to its defense. We saw that happen three times in the 20th century, and the bad news is that it’s starting again. Real danger is at the gates; Europe’s Ruling Class is in denial; and half of it is preparing to surrender to the Russians or the Muslim fascists, whichever gets there first

The Archbishop of Canterbury welcomes a future of Sharia for Britain. Prime Minister Gordon Brown wants to cannibalize your dead body for parts for the National Health Service without your prior consent.  Two years ago the European Union solemnly promised to supply six helicopters to save endangered Africans in Chad — and they haven’t been able to get those choppers going yet. Those African civilians are long dead, and the Eurocrats are still dithering.

Shakespeare had it in Henry VIII, “Farewell, a long farewell to all my greatness!” Except that Europe always dreams of its own greatness. While we were having the most mendacious election in history, Europe chose Beethoven’s Ninth Symphony, the Choral Movement, to be its new national anthem. But Europe’s latest imperial illusion is Obama, a Eurosocialist to the core. Europe would love to control US policy; and in the O years it might succeed. Yet by itself it plays helpless.

The tales of Europe’s futility are endless, because its actions have no visible consequences. Dead fetuses don’t raise a fuss. Dead Africans in Chad and the Sudan never show up on BBC TV. Neither do HIV victims of the sexual revolution, burned-out junkies of the drug revolution, or assisted suicides of the elderly, thanks to the national health-care revolution. It’s a Progressive’s Dream Come True. All the failures and mistakes are ignored by the Leftist media.

Sound familiar?

Well, if America becomes O-merica, the consequences will finally arrive with a loud thud in London, Paris and Berlin. Europe may have to grow up. Because America will no longer have the power or the will to act. It will be Carterized

So the Euro-Left is sounding scared.  Take the Guardian, the noisy cabal of anti-Americans who went into shrieking paroxysms when George W. Bush overthrew the bloody tyrant of Baghdad. The Guardianistas were shocked by America’s willingness to fight for a cause that Winston Churchill would have considered to be civilized and honorable. The Brit Left hasn’t seen that much heterosexual gumption since World War Two. They were appalled, my dear.

But today, one week after the O Revolution in America, the Guardian suddenly sounds like the Wall Street Journal — telling its readers not to worry, that nothing is going to change.

We see headlines like:

“Why America will not turn to the left”

Hold the red carpet: amid the euphoria, states find their own reasons for doubt.

The Guardian sounds worried that under Obama America might leave the Philippines to its Muslim rebels, or that it might stop defending free capitalist trade in the world’s oceans.

Those headlines come from the same scribblers who soft-pedaled Putin’s brutal invasion of Georgia just six months ago.  The same folks spent years noisily sneering at the danger of Iranian mullahs armed with nukes. Every single day of the Bush years the Guardian ripped us another one.  For decades they peddled multiculti nonsense to browbeat their domestic enemies and smeared dissenters as racists. They went weak in the knees for radical chic, Islamofascist style, and scoffed at democracies under deadly assault, like Israel, the elected governments of Iraq and Afghanistan and most recently Georgia. They imposed a Politically Correct speech code on everyday life in the United Kingdom.

It would be poetic justice for the European Left to get exactly what it’s been asking for. Unfortunately that would be bad for the United States and the civilized world. If the US withdrew from Europe, would you trust them to behave decently? I wouldn’t. They would instantly sell out to the nearest Putinista or the richest Saudi Prince, or both.

That’s the real American dilemma when it comes to the Left, here and abroad. The big question about the radical Left is always – should grownups let them cross the street alone? Can you ever trust them?

We will find out the answer very soon.

If there are any grownups in Washington in the coming administration — a very big “if” — they will have to answer that question every single day. If the Left follows its instincts and the American military are systematically weakened, cut down and demoralized, Europe may realize its fondest wish.

No more American guardian angel.

It’s what they secretly fear.

James Lewis blogs at

Page Printed from: at November 14, 2008 – 10:01:31 PM EST

An Uninformed Vote They Will Regret


November 13, 2008

How the voters bought into Obama

By Lauri B. Regan

“And you may ask yourself
Am I right?…am I wrong?
And you may tell yourself
My god!…what have I done?”
  – Once in a Lifetime
     Talking Heads

As the end of this never ending presidential campaign approached, I kept my faith that Americans would select the candidate that represented “Country First” over the one representing “Change We Can Believe In”. While my faith in Americans proved naively misplaced, I fear that the electorate’s faith in the One promising change was disastrously misplaced.

After a week and a half of digesting the post-election coverage, I still cannot comprehend how Americans elected the ultra-left candidate with no experience and a sobering view of America. He has spent his entire professional life campaigning for his next political office and has done so by allying himself with nefarious and radical individuals.

It is not surprising that the mainstream media fawned all over the anti-Bush candidate, refusing to question his past, his associations and his positions. It does, however, amaze me that the American public did as well. Just seven years after 9/11, Americans elected a man who raised his family in a church led by a hateful, anti-American zealot and surrounded himself both personally and professionally with unrepentant terrorists and Palestinian sympathizers.

While much of the post-election analysis centers on the economy — McCain was in the race until the markets crashed –I also fail to understand how the electorate was so blind as to risk a repeat of the failures of the economic policies that Obama proposes.

As Steven M. Warshawsky wrote the day after the election:

“Perhaps most amazingly, Obama openly campaigned on a promise to use the power of government to take from the ‘rich’ (now apparently meaning anyone who earns more than $120,000 per year) and give to the poor and middle-class – and the American people rewarded him with a decisive victory in both the popular and electoral votes. Who would have believed that the philosophy of Karl Marx — ‘from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs’ — would triumph so spectacularly in the United States of America?”

As a proud American, I was repulsed when Michelle Obama arrogantly announced to the country that the first time she was proud of her country was when her husband was nominated. Since last Tuesday, however, I am not feeling as proud. I thought Americans were smarter, more patriotic, hard-working individuals who couldn’t be brain-washed by the rhetoric of an Alinsky-trained socialist. I thought that Americans would ultimately see through the Greek columns and the ridiculous sound bites and would not allow the presidency to be purchased with the tainted money of illegal campaign contributions. I believed that Americans would be offended by the arrogance and narcissism pervasive in Obama’s campaign and would ultimately reject the candidate with the overblown ego.  

So in an attempt to figure out how I misjudged the electorate, I’ve divided the Obamaniacs into five categories:

Ignorance is Bliss

Several months ago I asked a relative why she supported Obama. Not surprisingly, she could not provide one substantive reason. The only response that I got with a condescending smirk was “We’ll see.”

We’ll see?! What does that mean?  I spent the next five months forwarding information to her that was not readily available in the mainstream but she never read any of it. She had the time; she just didn’t want to leave her comfort zone.

Month after month people would say to me “Bill Ayers? ACORN?  McPeak, Malley and Powers? The Times never mentioned that. You must be watching Fox.” 

Bush Derangement Syndrome

I have one liberal friend that claims to have read my emails. The day of the election she responded, “You failed to convince me that McCain is better than Bush.” Huh? I realize that Obama’s strategy was to convince the electorate that he was running against a third Bush term, but I was surprised to learn that my friends bought into it.

Obama has no experience – “Bush lied, people died.”

Obama has associated with terrorists – “The terrorists hate us because of Bush.”

Obama is a socialist – “Bush is evil.”

But McCain’s not Bush – “McCain voted with Bush 90% of the time.”

One Jewish friend, conveniently ignoring the history of his ancestors and the civility of his synagogue, suggested that Reverend Wright’s rantings were justified because his ancestors were slaves. How did he reach this conclusion? “We barely survived eight years of the Bush/Cheney horror show.”

The age of reason apparently died when Bush “stole” the presidency.

Mob Mentality

Obama supporters drank the Kool Aid because others in their community also did. In particular, this addresses the Jewish vote. While the anti-Semitic views of Obama’s pastor and his flip flop on the status of Jerusalem reluctantly made it to the mainstream, many other important facts foreboding a lack of support for Israel did not. 

So again, I sent my Jewish friends and relatives articles about Obama’s pro-Palestinian advisors, his relationship with Khalidi, Biden’s record on Israel and other warning signs that his administration would likely be one less supportive of Israel. Time and again, I’d hear, “But every Jewish person I talk to is supporting him so he must be a friend of Israel.”

I’m reminded that “We are the ones that we have been waiting for.”  


A cousin recently said to me, “Obama’s not far-left enough for me, I’m actually anti-capitalism.” And as the Bill Ayers controversy brought to light, there are plenty of people that philosophically agree with these radical, socialist views. Many of us thought that the Joe the Plumber revelation that Obama wants to share the wealth would offend most hard-working Americans. Instead we found that academia jumped on board to support Ayers and that the majority of Americans don’t fear Obama’s nanny state proposals. 


While Howard Stern’s street interviews with African Americans responding to questions about whom they were voting for were amusing, they were also enlightening. Many black people voted for Obama without even knowing what his policies were, who his running mate was, or anything else about him. 

Furthermore, Shelby Steele wrote after the election:

“[Obama’s] talent was to project an idealized vision of a post-racial America — and then to have that vision define political decency. Thus, a failure to support Obama politically implied a failure of decency.”

How much of the electorate voted for Obama for racial reasons may not easily be quantified but it was clearly a defining factor for some. 

While the foregoing analysis is not complete, it has helped me rationalize the results of the election. It has not, however, made me feel better about the prospects for the future of the country. We are a country at war, in economic distress, and facing potential international crises across the globe. Our president-elect has absolutely no foreign policy experience, proposes economic policies that have proven historically disastrous and, based on his voting record, is unable to make a decision. 

Our future vice president Joe Biden has been wrong on almost every major foreign policy decision, does not have one significant piece of legislation with his name on it, and has taken the wrong position on just about every foreign policy decision he’s ever made. 

We’ve heard the names Hagel and Lugar as potential cabinet members and we know that Obama’s advisors are sympathetic to the Palestinians. For anyone who cares about America’s only ally in the Mideast, this is far from comforting. 

I expect that the citizens of this country that voted for Obama based on the blissfulness of empty rhetoric and the dreams of hope and change will very soon be saying, “My god!…what have I done?” We’ll see.

Lauri B. Regan is an attorney at a global law firm based in New York City.

Page Printed from: at November 13, 2008 – 09:29:04 PM EST

Why McCain Lost

I realize that the massive financial backing of Obama (include the Socialist, transnationalist anti-American George Soros), the recemt economic tsunami, the predictable overthrow of a two term incumbent and the all-out, uncritical advocacy by the main press, are the main explanation.

But I find it cathartic to believe that Conservatives may finally realize they can’t continue believing that principle, hard work and niceness alone will win the day. They are so loathe to confront Progressive strongholds in the media, educational system and judiciary and incapable of restoring majorities in the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government and help restore our culture. I do realize that most of the Conservatives who got reelected/elected this week were rather moderate (Michael Medved believes Conservatives have to be moderate My grandmother used to call these linguini-spined men “mousy”.

I don’t want Conservatives to attempt to induce the Obama-thrill that tingled up Chris Matthew’s leg, but a Conservative Presidential candidate is going to have to be somewhat eloquent, audacious, shrewd, aggressive and charismatic like Obama.

I’m sick of Conservatives who can’t take the fight to the Progressives, who are too nice to confront the Liberal worldview, too feminized to call out Political Correctness (which also permeates the Right) and yet are still as humble and winsome as Reagan. I believe Guiliani would have wreaked havoc with Obama’s corrupt affiliations, dearth of experience and socialist ideology/policies. I think our Norm Coleman (who I’ve talked to twice) merely tied the most unqualified candidate for the Senate in history (Franken), because Coleman is too moderate (especially on illegal immigration).

My remaining hope for McCain vanished in that third debate when the perfect baseball pitch was delivered right through the strike zone of McCain’s home plate, enabling him to expose why and who caused the credit crisis and the ensuing economic disaster (that will take years to resolve) — when all he did — was pathetically attempt a bunt. I could hardly watch any more of the debate.


November 05, 2008

Why McCain Lost

By Jewish Odysseus

John McCain’s incoherent, C- campaign did not deserve to win the Presidency this year. On the other hand, America doesn’t deserve the punishment an Obama presidency is about to inflict upon us. Unfortunately, as a great Democrat once said: Life isn’t fair.

John McCain, a genuine American war hero with a long, moderate-to-conservative voting record, has just been trounced by the callowest, least-accomplished, most far-left candidate in modern history. It is important to understand how we got here.

The first thing that needs to be said is this: John McCain is really a Reagan Democrat. He joined the Republican Party in Arizona years ago because people like him (patriotic, military background, self-consciously anti-Communist) had no future in the Democratic Party, and he remained a Republican since then, but anyone who watches his demeanor and speeches cannot avoid the conclusion that this is a man much more comfortable with traditional lunch-bucket arguments and policies than the generally more abstract, data-based analyses favored by Republicans.

Conservatives must understand McCain’s candidacy in its full context: McCain’s nomination represented the joint successes of two independent and mutually hostile projects — the Media/Political Left’s project, and McCain’s own.

McCain represented a shrewd strategic choice by the leftist “hive”-he nearly won the nomination in 2000, when he had half as many GOP votes in the GOP primaries as Bush did. That near-death experience should have been a wakeup call to our slumbering “state party activists” to vaccinate their parties against any future Democrat pollution/manipulation. But, unfathomably, they stayed in their comas, and, sure enough, in 2008 the GOP primary candidate who got the 2d most GOP votes became the GOP candidate. He repeatedly positioned himself as “the anti-Republican Republican.” And now we wonder why he had trouble making Republican arguments while running as a Republican?

McCain’s own project planned to draw massive numbers of “moderate” Democrats and independents over to the Republican side. He had been calculating and executing this strategy since at least as far back as the early 1990s (when he and John Kerry were allies in normalizing relations with Vietnam). McCain’s uber-rationale was this: America wanted a moderate leader who would seek out support from the other side, a task which in theory should have been made much easier if the Democrats nominated a far-left candidate.

Sure enough, the Democrats did. Unfortunately, the far-left candidate had two unusual, (but by March 2008 easily foreseeable) advantages: he had no recognizable voting record in higher office to hang around his neck to define him; and he had a gigantic money advantage (well over 2-1) with which to savage McCain and glorify himself. This was a completely unprecedented situation, since by definition newcomers are generally unable to drum up the funds to compete with entrenched powerful pols. Obama in fact outspent McCain by a ratio heretofore reserved for shoo-in incumbent Presidents over mismatched challengers.

With these advantages, Obama was able to attack McCain’s strategy directly, by in fact making McCain out to be the “risky,” even “ideological” choice versus the reasonable, moderate, bi-partisan Obama. Result: McCain was unable to get independents or centrist Democrats not named Lieberman to support him (or at least get them known!) And, quite foreseeably, the media hive has been bursting with stories about “lifelong Republicans who are planning to vote for Obama.”

Speaking of the hive, it needs to be said the 2008 election actually saw the culmination of two of their long-term projects, with McCain’s nomination being the first. To a lot of media/political types, the Clintons represented a heart-breaking concession to evil capitalism. The Clintons gladly partnered with big business, and almost never manifested the type of red-meat soak-the-rich attitude that had energized the Democrat left for decades. Not only did the Clintons win twice, but they explicitly, smugly, repeatedly lectured the Left that that was the only way Democrats could possibly win. The Left hates, hates, HATES being told that undiluted Leftism is a political loser. Therefore, their second project was to ensure the nomination of a genuine leftist for the Democrats.

History will show that Hillary Clinton was an eminently suitable candidate for the Left, but through a combination of shrewd analysis and execution by Obama’s campaign and frankly astounding incompetence, over-confidence and lack of discipline by her own, all topped off by some mischievous and fickle big-money Hollywood backstabbing, the Hillary candidacy finished as nothing more than high-priced roadkill: the most inevitable nomination in modern times was aborted, and the far-left was energized in a way not seen since LBJ withdrew in 1968.

With both the media/political hive projects of 2008 successfully completed, the media/left effectively held a “checkmate” position since March — no matter what happened, they would get their way in November. Of course, they would do everything to make sure their true choice was elected, but even a docile McCain “who knew his place” and would sign off on Democrat legislation would be acceptable to them. This understanding was what had conservatives so dispirited until August 29.

Enter Sarah Palin. The Palin choice represented an unthinkable occurrence to the hive: McCain had forgotten who his benefactors were, and was instead listening to Republicans. The energizing of the right and the demonizing by the now-wounded hive were almost physically equal-and-opposite effects. The Palin choice restored a strategic parity to the campaign, wherein McCain had a strong, viable shot at repeating Bush’s previous electoral wins, and appeared to even open up a few Dem-leaning states such as Pennsylvania and New Hampshire.

But McCain the Reagan Democrat zoned out and failed a critical test a few weeks later. What was he thinking when he declared on September 15 when he declared the US economy “fundamentally strong”? What was he thinking when he announced on September 24 he was suspending his campaign, including the upcoming September 26 debate appearance, after the financial crisis broke? Did he think the majority democrats would cave in and make him a conquering hero? Did he think it was a one-day crisis that would blow over, and make him look as if he had worked some magic on it? Indeed, as the Obama ads relentlessly drilled, he appeared confused, erratic, and out of touch — his big moment of crisis in the middle of the campaign, and he blew it.  He choked.  And everyone forgot about Obama’s horrendous response to Russia’s Georgia invasion just a month earlier.

At that point, McCain had a month to restore his campaign, but being avalanched by paid Obama ads and the unpaid hive ads (remember the 2004 comment by Newsweek’s Evan Thomas that the liberal media support is “worth maybe 15 points” in the polls), he would need to do it the unfamiliar way — he’d need to argue for it, using information and persuasion, and punchy confrontations in the remaining debates. So how did he use those weeks?

– 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, McCain never mentioned Obama’s “bitter clingers” comment

 – 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Jeremiah Wright’s incendiary sermons.
 – 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama’s breaking his word to use public campaign financing (a McCain signature issue on which he had relentlessly beat up fellow Republicans!) 
 – 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama’s plan to “bankrupt” the US coal industry. (and where was McCain’s research staff on that San Francisco interview, which had been posted on the internet for 9 months before they noticed it?!  Simply inexcusable.) 

 – 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never mentioned Obama’s “price of arugula” comment, a nice populist dig waiting to be made. 

 – 3 debates, 4.5 hours on national TV face-to-face with Obama, never cited the Clinton campaign’s many tough arguments against Obama — he could have just quoted Hillary!

That was McCain’s (and our) downfall: You can’t bring moderation to an ideology fight. An honorable, sincere moderate who is behind really hasn’t a chance against a cynical ideologue who is ahead. Obama simply dissembled at the debates, while McCain’s tongue-tied references to Ayers, ACORN, Khalidi, “most liberal senator,” etc., sounded unfairly abrupt, even desperate. Maybe they were? To the bitter end, McCain refrained from “bringing Jeremiah Wright into the campaign,” even though Hillary had…Why not?

It wouldn’t have looked moderate enough.

So here we are, on the verge of the greatest accomplishment by the American Left since…Well, maybe ever. To them, the Clintons represented the Menshevik phase, while Obama represents the seizure of power by the Bolsheviks. So, to quote the original Bolshevik himself, what is to be done?

First, the Republican Party needs to relentlessly reform its state electoral rules to ensure that those voters choosing the Republican candidate are genuine Republicans who have the best interests of the Republican Party at heart. This self-evident corrective of course should have been completed by early 2001. It wasn’t, so here we are, with a self-admittedly weak-on-economics candidate trying to talk his way through a financial meltdown. It has been pathetic.
Second, we as voters and activists need to re-examine the emphasis we place — or don’t place — on communication skills. Conservatives need to rediscover the importance of communication and argument in our representatives. It is important to note that the only Republican in recent history who received any compliment from the media hive was Ronald Reagan, who they labeled “The Great Communicator.” This was of course an apparent put-down, since they were writing off Reagan’s successes as the result only of his hypnotic, inscrutable speeches. But that non-compliment-compliment was the hive’s acknowledgment that Reagan had been effective against them.

Going back to Bush 41 in 1988, the Republican’s have nominated a string of candidates who have been at best “poor” in communications. As the 1960’s Left demographic takes its seats in the highest offices of the media, academia, entertainment, arts, “public policy” think tanks, polling organizations, even business and finance, we have to assume that every one of our initiatives will be maligned, marginalized and targeted for oblivion, while the most crackpot schemes of the Left will be given respectful and favorable commentary. In this environment, we simply cannot afford any more tongue-tied leaders who are unable to argue their way out of a paper bag.

The author blogs at

First Assignment for Fiscal Conservatives


First assignment for fiscal conservatives in Washington:

1) Oppose the Democrats’ next stimulus boondoggle.
2) Oppose Obama’s windfall profits tax proposal.
3) Oppose new bailouts for states deep in debt.
4) Oppose new foreclosure prevention measures that will simply provide perverse incentives for borrowers to walk away and delay a needed market correction.
5) No more federal loan guarantees for corporations (especially in light of this.

Obama Will Harm the Cause to Protect the Preborn, Traditional Values, American Exceptionalism and Individual Freedom

Progressives, please don’t damage our country the way Jimmy Carter did, forcing Conservatives (like Reagan) to reverse what was inflicted on our economy, the decimatation of our military and enabling Iran to start global unchecked Islamic terrorism starting in 1979.

Haven’t we learned from the havoc wreaked on our education system, the affirmative action stigmatization of Blacks, over-reaching government, overtaxation, judges legislating from the bench, a weakened military/CIA, 50 million aborted children and the failed-disincentivizing welfare state?

If Obama Wins … or if McCain Wins

November 04, 2008

By Larrey Anderson

“Gird up your loins, son.” That’s what my dad used to tell me when I was facing a tough test as a kid. Well, “gird up your loins” conservatives. No matter what happens in today’s election America is gonna need us.

One of two things is going to happen today. Either John McCain or Barack Obama will be elected president. Neither result looks promising for our future. Here is why.

If Obama Wins

There are three distinct possibilities of what might happen to America under an Obama administration. Believe it or not, one of them is not all that bad.

(1) Obama rules as the divisive, race baiting, wealth redistributionist that he is. This is the worst of all possible worlds. Obama will have more than willing accomplices in Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.

If the Democrats move full steam ahead (what is going to stop them?) with their proposals on health care, banking, education, regulation, immigration, cap and trade, energy, and more, America will be on its way to becoming a third world country faster than you can say “sharing the wealth.” This is a terrifying possibility. America is inches away from it becoming a four-year reality.

But I am less worried about the economic devastation that will result from this scenario than I am about the cultural and moral havoc that will take place in our country. We can recover from an economic crisis. We have done it before. But the retooling of our judiciary (it will be swift and it will be total) into an offshoot of the ACLU will take us decades to repair.

(2) Obama plays the moderate and he reaches across the aisle. Obama may make some gesture at reconciliation. (He has no track record for doing this — but who knows?) He may wish to look “presidential” and throw a few crumbs to the Republicans.

This might slacken the pace of the socialization of America (and it would be a good strategy for Obama to pursue to grab that second term.) In the long run, this scenario could have even more tragic consequences for America than the “get it while the getting’s good” approach that I outlined in (1).

Republicans in Congress have shown little spine. (In 1994, after the Republicans took control of Congress with the “Contract for America,” for two years, and only two years, the Republicans actually governed like … Republicans.)

There is a chance that Obama will negotiate, with the southern Democrats and the Republicans in Congress, creeping (as opposed to rampant) socialism. In short, Republicans may facilitate the downfall of America. I can already hear Republican Minority Leader John Boehner’s excuse, “It’s a crap sandwich, but we have agreed to nationalize the banking system at 5% a year … instead of 10%.”

(3) Here is the only glimmer of hope. Obama, like Bill Clinton, might simply decide that he enjoys being president — and that he must do everything he can (like taking public opinion polls) to be reelected.

There is very little evidence to suggest that Obama is in this race more for his ego than for his ideology. But America’s best chance for surviving an Obama administration is for Obama to fall in love with the job.

Don’t get me wrong. Almost all politicians are ego driven borderline narcissists. Obama is far more full of himself than he is full of “hope and change.” America’s real hope for change is in the prospect that Obama will discover that he likes flying around in Air Force One more than he likes hanging with Bill Ayers.

This is, of course, a remote possibility. Obama could ride in Air Force One with Bill Ayers if he chooses.

If McCain Wins

Things look dismal for America if McCain wins too. Not as dismal. Not nearly. But bad, nevertheless.

If McCain wins in a squeaker (and winning in a squeaker appears to be the only way that McCain will win)[i] two things are all but certain: (1) The Democrats will control both Houses of Congress. (2) The left in this country will be seething.

If this is the outcome of today’s election, from a conservative standpoint, John McCain will have been the worst possible Republican nominee (of all of the top tier primary contenders) that the Party could have chosen.

President Bush bragged about his ability to compromise with the Democrats when he was Governor of Texas. McCain is obsessed with compromise — far more than Bush. Should McCain win in a close election he will not only be inclined to “reach across the aisle” — he will feel duty bound.

He will also be pressured. The mainstream media, and a host of this country’s intellectuals (including many conservative elites), will hound McCain with the notion that it was his status as a “maverick” that won him the race.

They will insist that “middle of the road” voters put him into office because of his stands on MMGW, immigration, and his “courageous” efforts to help pass the trillion dollar bailout bill. And McCain will want to believe them. He is, after all, human like the rest of us. In his mind his “maverick” (left leaning) idiosyncratic Republicanism will be fully vindicated.

America will need two things after this election. First, America as a culture will need healing. Barack Obama has divided this country along racial and economic lines. It will be John McCain’s duty as president to fix Barack Obama’s mess.

Second, just as important, America’s economic and governmental institutions will need tough love. America has put off meeting our energy needs, fixing our broken retirement system and our semi-nationalized and bankrupt medical system for far too long. It would be all but impossible for the greatest of statesmen to both heal the culture and also enforce long ignored fiscal discipline on the federal government. John McCain will start with the healing first. He will have no other choice. I fear that the tough love McCain has promised to finally bring to the White House will be lost in this healing process and in the “necessary” political compromises that the left will demand of McCain as part of the payment for that healing.

Once again, the thing that worries me the most is not the economic crisis that we are facing (under either McCain or Obama), it is the moral one. McCain is a decent man. He has promised to appoint decent judges. But the Democrats will see to it that this does not happen.

McCain said, as a senator, that he had “serious reservations” about voting for a strict constructionist like Justice Alito. He will not fight to appoint another Supreme Court justice in that mold. Under a President McCain our federal judiciary is likely to slide (however slowly) to the left.

I am known as the skeptic (I am called “the cynic” — sometimes worse) here at American Thinker. I have never thought (or written) that John McCain was a good choice for conservatives.

But I am voting for him. So should you. Obama cannot be given control of this government. We will regret it. Our children will pay for it.

In fact, we must vote for John McCain even if he loses. Even if we know he has already lost as we (on the West coast) step into the ballot booth.

Here is why: Should Obama win the Electoral College, we must not give him a popular mandate. The only chance we have of helping Obama choose (3) — that is making sure he thinks more about the trappings of the president than the power of the president — is to minimize his claims to a mandate.

We can do this. No matter which state you live in, no matter how large the majority of the vote in your state is for either McCain or Obama, conservatives must vote for John McCain.

Larrey Anderson is a writer, a philosopher, and submissions editor for American Thinker. His latest award-winning novel is The Order of the Beloved.

[i] McCain could win in a landslide and bring Republican majorities to both Houses of Congress with him on his huge coattails. But I am not going to discuss that possibility in this article. I could win the lottery 50 times in a row.

Page Printed from: at November 04, 2008 – 06:12:01 PM EST