This is shameful . . . trusting statists with power

This story out of Ohio is disturbing. I'm trusting that Liberals across the U.S. are decrying these actual (as opposed to imagined--see, "Patriot Act") abuses of gov't power to invade the privacy of citizens:

"A state agency has revealed that its checks of computer systems for potential information on 'Joe the Plumber' were more extensive than it first acknowledged.

Helen Jones-Kelley, director of the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, disclosed today that computer inquiries on Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher were not restricted to a child-support system.

The agency also checked Wurzelbacher in its computer systems to determine whether he was receiving welfare assistance or owed unemployment compensation taxes, she wrote."

Demand proof of Obama . . .

Here's one of Obama's laugh lines/efforts at distraction on the stump these days:

“He's called me a socialist for wanting to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can finally give tax relief to the middle class. I don't know what's next,” Obama said at a rally at the Halifax mall here.

“By the end of the week, he'll be accusing me of being a secret communist because I shared my toys in kindergarten. I shared my peanut butter and jelly sandwich.”

Forget about getting a look at Obama's actual birth certificate . . . from what I've heard about his charitable giving and stories about his flesh and blood living in slums and shacks, I want to see proof that Obama ever shared his toys.

"Privatize" . . . you mean as opposed to "socialize"?

Yes, it's election year and as sure as bogeyman appear on Halloween, the Democrat candidate for president, Barack Obama is trying to scare people about Republican (and McCain) plans for "privatizing" parts (actually, teeny weeny parts) of Social Security.

But the opposite of "privatiz[e]" is "socialize."

Pushing Obama?

Just looking over some of the polling data, given discussion that Obama might win the popular vote and still lose the election, I looked over one of the seeming outlier polls (The Pew poll reflecting a whopping 15 point lead for Obama) and saw this interesting question:

Q.23 For each statement that has been made about the candidates, please tell me if you agree or disagree with it:
a. Barack Obama would do too much for African Americans
b. John McCain would do too much for wealthy Americans

Sorry, but that sounds like a push poll to me . . . which might explain the results.

Let's not mix religion and politics

Michael DelGiorno is talking this a.m. about an article by Joseph Farah ("Obama: Never a Christian") in which Farah makes the argument that Senator Barack Obama is not a Christian. I'm glad that this issue was raised, not because it might hurt Obama's campaign for president (I'm definitely not a supporter of most Democratic Party policies), but because there are some things more important than politics. You need to read the op/ed to understand the rest of my post . . .

First of all, it is ironic to hear a 20-year parishioner of Jeremiah Wright's church claim to be a, "big believer in separation of church and state." Black Liberation Theology is the FUSION of religion and politics, to the point that the religion has no meaning at all.

But secondly, Farah is absolutely correct in concluding that Obama is not a Christian. Obama's religious beliefs do not square with any credible interpretation of what Jesus said about being a Christian or Follower of Christ. It's not about the good works--Obama has some character qualities that are consistent with Christian character qualities, and only God can judge the heart of a man. Rather, it is about what Obama believes or says he believes. And I think there are only a handful of public policies that are directly contrary to Biblical principles, so this isn't saying that support for a "progressive" income tax, for example, is "unChristian."

Next, it is important to plainly state that the fact that someone is not a Christian (by which I do not mean someone-who-lives-in-an-historically-Christian-culture), does not mean that I cannot or would not cast a vote for him or her. A person not being a Christian also has little to do with how I would treat them--certainly under the law, but even in a relationship.

Lastly, I'm not saying that Obama is a Muslim. In fact, I am confident that he is NOT a Muslim; rather, I believe either he is an agnostic--who doesn't really know what he believes, a universalist--who has a definite belief that is broad enough to encompass most religions and subjective enough to mean nothing, or at the worst, a secularist who uses religious talk/verbiage to attract the "clingers".

As a Christian, I would be remiss (and I think that Farah is similarly motivated) if I allowed politics to muddle something as important as a person's beliefs that have eternal consequences.

Busted! Obama the Marxist

Here's a great report and analysis of the Barack Obama interview wherein he fleshes out his views on socialism.

I must point out that some people on talk radio are misinterpreting Obama's statement about "negative rights" inasmuch as they (certain Conservative pundits) don't realize the generally Conservative (jurisprudentially speaking) nature of that term. Indeed, Obama was bemoaning the fact that the Warren Court had not found very many "positive rights" despite all its activism. Of course, the distinction between positive and negative isn't always a clear one . . . but we know what BO meant.

Betting on elections . . .

Lately I've heard several Libs wanting to bet on the Presidential election. It is an interesting Liberal tick--very adolescent, as if politics is a big game or as if a Conservative's unwillingness to enter a bet with a blustery bonehead proves something . . . I guess they think they're calling our bluff (after all, EVERYone knows this election is in_the_bag!) or that they can dispirit us.

Well, not that Libs will care, but while looking over Tennessee election law this evening, I came across this statute which prohibits betting on an election.

§ 2-19-129. Betting; on election

A person commits a Class C misdemeanor if such person makes any bet or wager of money or other valuable thing upon any election.

Obama's economic agenda

There's a great analysis over WSJ about Barack Obama's economic agenda ("How's Obama Going to Raise $4.3 Trillion?" - WSJ.com). Here's one excerpt:

A trillion here, a trillion there, and pretty soon you're talking about real money. Altogether, Mr. Obama is promising at least $4.3 trillion of increased spending and reduced tax revenue from 2009 to 2018 -- roughly an extra $430 billion a year by 2012-2013.

How is he going to pay for it?

Raising the tax rates on the salaries, dividends and capital gains of those making more than $200,000-$250,000, and phasing out their exemptions and deductions, can raise only a small fraction of the amount. Even if we have a strong economy, Mr. Obama's proposed tax hikes on the dwindling ranks of high earners would be unlikely to raise much more than $30 billion-$35 billion a year by 2012.

The reality is that any promises by Obama to "cut taxes" (actually, Obama is disingenuously labeling "tax credits" as "tax cuts"--newsflash: Democrat doesn't know the meaning of a tax cut) are swallowed up by the INEVITABLE growing tax burden that will be necessitated by his agenda.

The Krauthammer nails Obama for President

In all candor, I had been out of sorts with Charles Krauthammer because of his--as I perceived it, hyper-critical view of the Palin pick. But this column is excellent. ("McCain for President") Here's an excerpt:

The case for McCain is straightforward. The financial crisis has made us forget, or just blindly deny, how dangerous the world out there is. We have a generations-long struggle with Islamic jihadism. An apocalyptic soon-to-be-nuclear Iran. A nuclear-armed Pakistan in danger of fragmentation. A rising Russia pushing the limits of revanchism. Plus the sure-to-come Falklands-like surprise popping out of nowhere.

Who do you want answering that phone at 3 a.m.? A man who's been cramming on these issues for the past year, who's never had to make an executive decision affecting so much as a city, let alone the world? A foreign policy novice instinctively inclined to the flabbiest, most vaporous multilateralism (e.g., the Berlin Wall came down because of 'a world that stands as one'), and who refers to the most deliberate act of war since Pearl Harbor as 'the tragedy of 9/11,' a term more appropriate for a bus accident?

Or do you want a man who is the most prepared, most knowledgeable, most serious foreign policy thinker in the United States Senate? A man who not only has the best instincts but has the honor and the courage to, yes, put country first, as when he carried the lonely fight for the surge that turned Iraq from catastrophic defeat into achievable strategic victory?

Caught on Tape: ACORN and Democrat GOTV efforts

Here's some disturbing video of GOTV efforts by ACORN and the Obama campaign.

Election "fraud" fog in Nashville

Mark at "Dork Nation" (Republicans Allege Vote Fraud in Nashville) is sifting through a report (here) of a report about a recent dust up at a Davidson County early voting site (via A.C. Kleinheider). It should go without saying that the organic, real time, unedited, entertainment-focused medium of talk radio is a messy venue for sorting out the facts in such a situation, but here goes . . .

Actually, the problem (based on my conversations with Election Commission insiders) was that a person (an interpreter) was claiming authority to accompany voters into the polling booth to assist them with voting . . . that's not legal, unless the Officer of Elections concludes the voter is unable to vote without assistance and unless the voter requests that the person accompanying him/her be allowed to assist him/her. And the law only contemplates illiterate or some other physical disability, but I guess illiteracy can reasonably be construed to include persons "illiterate in English." T. C. A. § 2-7-116. That's a debate for another day.

Also, though Mark (and ACK) imply that the statute summarily dispenses with claims that ID is required to cast a ballot, completing an affidavit of identity (in lieu of proper ID) is only one step in the process of determining if the person can vote. The code further requires that the information on the affidavit be compared with the information on file (his/her signature and other info collected when a person registers). If everything is perceived to be on the up and up, they're given a normal ballot; if not, they're allowed to vote with a provisional ballot. T. C. A. § 2-7-112

But something that needs to be pointed out in this whole debate is that one means of undermining ballot integrity is by flooding a polling place with potential voters who require special treatment. Given the histrionics about voter suppression and other forms of "disenfranchisement," poll workers are often motivated to give the demanding party (e.g., the ACORN or La Raza rep. or the friendly ACLU lawyer-on-loan) whatever they demand rather than wait for confirmation from Election Comm. HQ or rather than go through all the steps that are required for determining the person's eligibility to vote. One clever trick I've heard of (I think in PA in 2006) is to swamp a polling place (which invariably has a limited number of provisional ballots) with "ineligible" voters who ultimately are allowed to cast normal, untraceable ballots rather than be turned away because of a shortage of provisional ballots.

Complicated and rife with technicalities, you say? No doubt; but it is difficult to conduct a fair ballot (actually, it is almost impossible, especially if you expect it to be simple and easy) when determined persons have concluded that the end of winning an election justifies even immoral means.

Election fraud(s) in TN!!!

You'd think the computer whizzes brilliant enough to hack computers and thereby steal (Presidential) elections from (only) Democrats would be smart enough to have the software do it without making a big show of the whole scheme. ("The BRAD BLOG : Election Integrity Filmmaker Sees Own Vote Flipped on ESS Touch-Screens in TN"). And how cool is it that someone who tries to make documentaries on this stuff actually has a first-hand experience of it and that this happened in little ol' (navy blue) Nashville!?!?

In Dubya's defense

I heard something yesterday regarding some of the ill-considered policies of George W. Bush, all the Leftish ideas that were intended--at best, as efforts to reach across the aisle, or--at worst, as coalition builders: NCLB, Medicare prescription coverage, absolving more and more Americans from paying taxes. BTW, Dubya gets a lot of credit from the Left for compromising with them on all those issues, huh? Not.

In any event, it's going to be difficult to ever go back on those policies, and their moral consequences are not positive.

That being said, I enjoyed this imaginary resignation speech that someone wrote for Bush.

BUSH'S RESIGNATION SPEECH

The following 'speech' was written recently by an ordinary Maine-iac [a resident of the People's Republic of Maine ]. While satirical in nature, all satire must have a basis in fact to be effective. This is an excellent piece by a person who does not write for a living.

The speech George W. Bush might give:

Normally, I start these things out by saying 'My Fellow Americans.' Not doing it this time. If the polls are any indication, I don't know who more than half of you are anymore. I do know something terrible has happened, and that you're really not fellow Americans any longer.
I'll cut right to the chase here: I quit. Now before anyone gets all in a lather about me quitting to avoid impeachment, or to avoid prosecution or something, let me assure you: There's been no breaking of laws or impeachable offenses in this office.

The reason I'm quitting is simple. I'm fed up with you people. I'm fed up because you have no understanding of what's really going on in the world. Or of what's going on in this once-great nation of ours. And the majority of you are too damned lazy to do your homework and figure it out.
Let's start local. You've been sold a bill of goods by politicians and the news media.

Meanwhile, all you can do is whine about gas prices, and most of you are too damn stupid to realize that gas prices are high because there's increased demand in other parts of the world, and because a small handful of noisy idiots are more worried about polar bears and beachfront property than your economic security.

We face real threats in the world. Don't give me this 'blood for oil' thing. If I were trading blood for oil I would've already seized Iraq's oil fields and let the rest of the country go to hell. And don't give me this 'Bush Lied...People Died' crap either. If I were the liar you morons take me for, I could've easily had chemical weapons planted in Iraq so they could be 'discovered.' In stead, I owned up to the fact that the intelligence was faulty.< /I>

Let me remind you that the rest of the world thought Saddam had the goods, same as me. Let me also remind you that regime change in Iraq was official US policy before I came into office. Some guy named ' Clinton ' established that policy. Bet you didn't know that, did you?

Now some of you morons want to be led by a junior senator with no understanding of foreign policy or economics, and this nitwit says we should attack Pakistan , a nuclear ally. And then he wants to go to Iran and make peace with a terrorist who says he's going to destroy us. While he's doing that, he wants to give Iraq to al Qaeda, Afghanistan to the Taliban, Israel to the Palestinians, and your money to the IRS so the government can give welfare to illegal aliens, who he will make into citizens, so they can vote to re-elect him. He also thinks it's okay for Iran to have nuclear weapons, and we should stop our foreign aid to Israel . Did you sleep through high school?

You idiots need to understand that we face a unique enemy. Back during the cold war, there were two major competing political and economic models squaring off. We won that war, but we did so because fundamentally, the Communists wanted to survive, just as we do. We were simply able to out spend and out-tech them.

That's not the case this time. The soldiers of our new enemy don't care if they survive. In fact, they want to die. That'd be fine, as long as they weren't also committed to taking as many of you with them as they can. But they are. They want to kill you, and the bastards are all over the globe.

You should be grateful that they haven't gotten any more of us here in the United States since September 11. But you're not. That's because you've got no idea how hard a small number of intelligence, military, law enforcement, and homeland security people have worked to make sure of that. When this whole mess started, I warned you that this would be a long and difficult fight. I'm disappointed how many of you people think a long and difficult fight amounts to a single season of 'Survivor.'

Instead, you've grown impatient. You're incapable of seeing things through the long lens of history, the way our enemies do. You think that wars should last a few months, a few years, tops.

Making matters worse, you actively support those who help the enemy. Every time you buy the New York Times, every time you send a donation to a cut-and-run Democrat's political campaign, well, dang it, you might just as well Fed Ex a grenade launcher to a Jihadist. It amounts to the same thing.

In this day and age, it's easy enough to find the truth. It's all over the Internet. It just isn't on the pages of the New York Times, USA Today, or on NBC News. But even if it were, I doubt you'd be any smarter. Most of you would rather watch American Idol or Dancing with Stars.

I could say more about your expectations that the government will always be there to bail you out, even if you're too stupid to leave a city that's below sea level and has a hurricane approaching.

I could say more about your insane belief that government, not your own wallet, is where the money comes from. But I've come to the conclusion that were I to do so, it would sail right over your heads.

So I quit. I'm going back to Crawford. I've got an energy-efficient house down there (Al Gore could only dream) and the capability to be fully self-sufficient for years. No one ever heard of Crawford before I got elected, and as soon as I'm done here pretty much no one will ever hear of it again. Maybe I'll be lucky enough to die of old age before the last pillars of America fall.

Oh, and by the way, Cheney's quitting too. That means Pelosi is your new President. You asked for it. Watch what she does carefully, because I still have a glimmer of hope that there are just enough of you remaining who are smart enough to turn this thing around in 2008.

So that's it. God bless what's left of America .

Some of you know what I mean. The rest of you, kiss off.

Senators O'Biden dressing as Conservatives for Halloween

Senators Biden and Obama have been working overtime to appear Conservative on a host of issues in the run up to the general election, and a great example of this masquerade is on the issue of homosexual/gay/same-sex "marriage."

A few weeks ago at the Vice Presidential debate Gov. Palin and Sen. Biden had this exchange with the debate moderator.

GOV. SARAH PALIN: ...I will tell Americans straight up that I don't support defining marriage as anything but between one man and one woman...I'm being as straight up with Americans as I can in my non-support for anything but a traditional definition of marriage...
IFILL: Let's try to avoid nuance, Senator. Do you support gay marriage?
BIDEN: No. Barack Obama nor I support redefining from a civil side what constitutes marriage. We do not support that.

But last week Biden told a reporter in Los Angeles that he opposes Proposition 8, California's marriage protection amendment. And yesterday on the "Ellen" show, Biden again stated, "If I lived in California, I'd clearly vote against Prop 8."

Now which is it, O'Biden?

WFB's son is a putz

I'm even less impressed with WFB's son now that he is whining about the flak he's getting for endorsing (if that's the right word: "endorsement" implies significance) Barack Obama. But this quote was rich . . . a guy claiming Republicans don't have a big tent because they're shunning a guy who endorsed a Democrat. From the the Daily Beast piece:

So, I have been effectively fatwahed (is that how you spell it?) by the conservative movement, and the magazine that my father founded must now distance itself from me. But then, conservatives have always had a bit of trouble with the concept of diversity. The GOP likes to say it’s a big-tent. Looks more like a yurt to me.

Considering voting for Obama . . .

Marxist "fairness"

Here's a friend's insightful analysis of Obama's encounter with everyman "Joe the Plumber":

[Joe] brought out of Obama what years of campaigning and 3 debates could not. One phrase, 'we need to spread the wealth around to give the people below you a fair shake.' Sounds great, unless you actually think about it. Fairness? It's the government's job to make things fair eh?

Let's look at it like this. I work my butt off to get a good grade in one of my several colligiate classes, sacrificing some television, socialization, and entertainment to attain my grade. However some of my classmates 'were busy' playing video games, partying, sleeping, etc. which 'prohibited' them from working as hard on the class. Mid-terms come by, I get an A, my 'busy' (slacker) classmate gets a D. Now, getting a better grade will usually open more doors for opportunity than getting a poor grade. So, to give people below me a 'fair shake' why don't we give some of my points to the other guy and give us both a C+. Wouldn't that be fair?

Screw fairness.

We all started at the same point, I worked harder, I got a better grade.

That's justice.

If I received only the mean grade from any of my classes I would never score higher than a C, why work hard? If a university did this to any of us, we would all be up in arms!

And speaking of Capitalism . . . my friend also has some nice t-shirt designs for sale. I like the "Senator Government" one.

At least he "sounds" Conservative . . .

This op/ed obliterates the disingenuous assertion by Obama that he will cut taxes for 95% of Americans. (The American Spectator: "Searching for Obama's 95 Percent"). From the article:

HEMPSTEAD, N.Y. -- "We are going to cut taxes for 95 percent of Americans," Barack Obama's campaign manager, David Plouffe, said in the spin room here at Hofstra University following the final debate of the 2008 presidential election.

Plouffe was repeating one of the boldest claims made by the Obama campaign. It's a claim that the Wall Street Journal editorial board dubbed 'Obama's 95% Illusion,' noting that more than a third of Americans don't pay any income taxes, and that what Obama's plan does do is offer a raft of subsidies and government payments to individuals and families that he redefines as "tax cuts." His proposal looks more like a redistribution scheme than an honest effort to reduce taxes -- as he revealed on Monday when he told a now famous Ohio plumber that his plan aimed to "spread the wealth around."

Biden was only quoting Obama . . .

"Present" but unconvincing

As I watch the Tampa Bay Rays struggle to finish off the Boston Red Sox (after blowing their 7th inning, 7-run lead), I was thinking about the difficulty Senator "Present" is having in finishing off John McCain. Obama Hasn't Closed the Sale - WSJ.com