October 31, 2008
Yesterday afternoon I sat down with the kids to complete one of those tasks that turn out to be a lot more work than they should be: carving the Jack-O-Lantern. If you’re reading this and you have small children, you know exactly what I’m talking about. After much heated debate (on three parts) about whether the pumpkin should be happy or mad, the eyes should be circles or triangles, and other highly important details, it was finally completed. Not too bad, either. It brings out the kid in me, though, which is one of the many great things about being a parent. I’m really not sure I’d carve a pumpkin on Halloween if I didn’t have kids.
Once it got dark, we had to light him up, to Linus’s great delight. The next hour was punctuated with frequent trips to the porch to visit the Great Pumpkin.
And yes, I’ll tow the kids around tonight to go trick or treating, although this is a bigger job than I would like, as we’re country dwellers, and getting in and out of the carseats multiple times with complete pirate and princess paraphernalia is a “trick” in itself. (Esp. by myself, as David will be picking corn.)
I’m slowly getting my flower beds cleaned out, a task that I kind of enjoy. But it’s always a bit melancholy as well, especially considering the long, icy winters we’ve had the last two years.
On this Halloween-related note, I’m posting—right here—a few articles that are too good to put over on the Too Good page!
The race is very tight. This comes as little surprise to those of us who remember 2004, amidst all the “landslide Kerry” talk. Exit poll, schmexit poll. Just go vote, for crying out loud.
Young Voters and the Great Pumpkin by Andrea Tanteros
Plundering the Plumber’s Records by Michelle Malkin –Where’s the ACLU?!?!
October 30, 2008
A probable transcript has been found of the Obama-Khalidi tape, go here to read it.
For those Obama supporters who cannot detect satirical overtures, let me spell it out for you: As long as the LA Times refuses to release the tape, all sorts of speculation may abound, hence this “probable transcript.”
Oh, so true.
Well, if this is the case, I’ve been out of the closet for some time.
I’ve gotten several comments on this dear old blog from people who have known and fled Communist regimes, who are terrified of Obama being elected for fear of more of the same.
Now, Cuban voters in Miami are concerned about Obama as well.
McCain was in Little Havana yesterday, where he encountered a great number of Cuban-Americans who see Obama “as a combination of Fidel Castro, Hugo Chávez and any other Latin leader who ever nationalised a business” (above link). One man had this to say:
“Comunismo,” said Michael Garcia, 30, the son of Cuban émigrés who works at his family-owned accounting business. “I shouldn’t have to pay more taxes because I work harder than other people,” he said. “The things that Obama say scare me because that’s everything that Fidel said. These things are associated in my mind with going down the path to communism.”
What would Jesus do? For Obama, it’s apparently more like “What would Fidel do?”
And how could we forget the man who exposed the ugly truth of Obama’s socialistic plans to the nation, Joe the plumber. Hard-working Americans love this guy because he asked Obama a good question (not “What’s your favorite cereal?”) and he’s similarly regarded by the Cuban-Americans in Miami, who refer to him as “Pepe el plomero.”
Of course, none of this should come as any surprise to those of you who don’t rely solely on CNN for your “hard-hitting” news. (Or the LA Times, for that matter.) And it doesn’t really help Obama much when Hugo Chavez himself is stumping for him. (Along with endorsements from Hamas and Ahmadinejad, among other savory characters.)
Under the “double standards” headline, can you imagine for a moment the nonstop media hayday if such characters were stumping for McCain/Palin?
As for the ultimate in media bias, how about this Rashid Khalidi tape that the LA Times refuses to release? You know, as long as they don’t, they’re inviting everyone to speculate the worst. What we do know is that Barack Obama is toasting Khalidi, a former PLO operative, at some big, swanky Anti-Semitic dinner party. Others in attendance? Bill Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.
We the people have the right to know this stuff. Again, imagine if there was some incriminating video of McCain or Palin toasting some Nazi sympathizer, and some newspaper refused to release it.
Let’s pretend for a moment that there’s nothing incriminating on the video (aside from the fact that Obama was THERE and didn’t LEAVE once he knew what it was about, presuming he did not going in.) So, what’s with the holding back? Nothing wrong? Everybody’s satisfied. Let this be further illustration that we don’t know the HALF of the character of the real Barack Obama.
Did I watch the big prime-time Obama infomercial last night? No, I did not. I had more pressing, enjoyable tasks to complete, like cleaning the space between the toilet tank and the seat, and spit-shining the little pipe that connects the toilet to the wall.
October 29, 2008
Notice to all the Obama “tax the rich” people: It’s just not rational.
Read this short article: Taxing Times by Thomas Sowell.
“[T]hroughout history when dangerous, radical men have offered themselves up for leadership, their moderate supporters have rationalized their early support by hoping that the dangerous man is really a sensible man like them and doesn’t believe some of those wild things he has said to his more fervent followers. But as the campaign clock ticks down to its last days and hours, prudent people have to consider the possibility that beneath that easy manner and calming voice [of Barack Obama] is the pulsating heart of a genuine man of the radical left.” —Tony Blankley
Do you want to get to know Barack Obama a little better before the election? I would strongly suggest visiting Dan Caplis Reports: The Obama Tapes. They are excerpts from his book, Dreams From My Father, complete with audio recordings of Obama reading them.
Obama and his campaign are continuing to dismiss the socialism allegations, and with good reason. The majority of Americans deplore the tenets of socialism. The ones left are the college professors, Hollywood actors, and “intellectual” elites who have never quite set foot in the real world. The rest are blinded by the Obama star and have no idea what socialism even means.
So, of course Obama is trying to distance himself from this (until after he’s elected). Just like he has had to distance himself from a variety of people and institutions (ACORN, Ayers, Wright, Khalidi, you get the idea.) It’s the same story, told again and again. To anyone with a genuine concern for the future of America as we know it, to anyone who believes that the US Constitution is sufficient unchanged, and to anyone who balks at the thought of such a man with so many radical connections leading the free world, Barack Obama is a real problem.
One excerpt from Obama’s book has come up of late. Obama says:
“To avoid being mistaken for a sellout, I chose my friends carefully. The more politically active black students. The foreign students. The Chicanos. The Marxist Professors and structural feminists and punk-rock performance poets.”
Okay, so Obama carefully chose his friends. Interesting choices. I’m always drawn to Marxists, myself.
Then I got to wondering, what in h3ll is a structural feminist? Here is a short definition (as opposed to about thirty other derivatives of feminism):
“Structural feminist theory focuses on social structures, notably patriarchy and capitalism that oppress women. Theorists in this tradition emphasize the dominating influence of these social structures, but by doing so they also tend to construe women as passive. Despite their somewhat deterministic view of women’s circumstances, structural feminists nevertheless call for resistance toward the mechanisms in families, schools, and workplaces that serve to reproduce oppressive relations of power.”
Of all the different types of feminists he could have chosen to hang out with, he narrowed it down to the one that thinks capitalism is oppressive. Got it.
This takes me back. I have known these types. I went to a liberal arts (read, liberal) four-year private college. I was an english major. (Not quite as bad as a sociology or philosophy major as far as that goes, but really, there were plenty of Birkenstocks in my department.) I sat through four long years of such academic tripe. Oppression, dominating hegemony, status quo, blah blah blah blah blah. Enough, already! I recall thinking, “Yeah, what a shi!!y deal, that you people can sit around with your lattes at the coffee shop, discussing how oppressive this country is.”
I’m not black, so I can’t talk about that. But damn it, I’m a woman, and you wanna know something? Patriarchy? I’m OVER IT. Most people, the people who make this country work—no matter what their race or sex—don’t sit around griping about past oppression. They don’t flock to the coasts and to the universities to live in alternate universes of their own creation. They just go out and live life.
As for universities selling themselves as places that invite “diversity of ideas,” I found out first-hand that diversity and tolerance extend only so far. The classroom as a place for objectivity? Only if you’re praising Karl Marx or bashing Christianity (especially Catholicism.)
I recall one situation in particular. It’s truly the one time I wish I was one of those students who brought recording devices to lectures in lieu of taking notes. It was my sophomore year, (required) African American Literature. The professor, an African American woman and decent enough educator, came in one morning, twenty minutes late, and came unglued on us. I’m not kidding, it was a full twenty minutes of nonstop lunacy. She was unhinged. She swore at us, talking about oppression and our ancestors, throwing in some truly awful language, pacing around the room, turning suddenly around and picking out certain students and getting in their faces. Looking back, we were all stunned, I think. No one wanted to make eye contact with her for fear of being singled out.
As I said, this went on for a solid 20 minutes before she left the classroom. She went on a leave of absence for the rest of the semester (hopefully to a good psychiatrist), and damage control was promptly called in the following day. We were encouraged to “talk about it,” and the university president, and president of student affairs, along with some more university higher-ups were present as well. I’ll never forget it.
Why am I relating this episode? To me, for a man who aspires to be the POTUS to align with and purposely form friendships with these types of people, who are caught up in a theoretical and radical world where the only thing that matters is so-called racial, social and economic “justice,” is a scary proposition. While the rest of society has moved beyond these injustices, people like Reverend G-D America Wright, for example, simply fare better as long as oppression still exists, and they’ll play it up as much as they can. What would they do without it?
In short, it appears that these types of people all have a grudge. And I believe that Obama has one, too.
Barack Obama: A man who laments that the Constitution places limits on government and regrets that courts aren’t radical enough. A man—a lawyer, community organizer, and university professor—who chooses to work with these types of radical ideologues, sit on boards with them, dine with and toast them, and listen to them preach every Sunday for twenty years. A man with a grudge who aspires to be the next president. All necessary ingredients for disaster are present and accounted for.
October 28, 2008
In the past I have talked about Obama’s “Zero to Five” plan, which seeks universal preschool, including government-run boarding schools and in-home parenting courses, among other things. As if that weren’t bad enough, here’s a new one.
I’ve noticed before that the left seems to have an affinity for attempting to subvert the minds of young children and teenagers, and to turn them against their parents. This is true of Planned Parenthood, for instance. It is wrong, it’s despicable, and it scares this concerned parent. I suppose that wanting to teach my own children the principles that are important to me is aligned with my abhorrence of government intrusion into aspects of life where it doesn’t belong.
I have a subscription to Mothering magazine. They lean left, of course, but it hasn’t gotten to the point where I’ve decided to discontinue it. (I’m getting closer by the day.) Of late, though, there’s been a push to limit the advertisement of certain products to children 12 and under. Products like junk food, candy, toys, etc… (Interesting to note: Many of these same people who don’t want their kid to see a commercial for a candy bar openly invite the introduction to condoms and other graphic sex-ed for their kindergartners. Go figure.)
But what is really interesting is that many of these concerned parents are Obama-supporters. And if you go to the official Obama website, you’ll notice a “Kids” section, complete with instructions on how to get your parents or grandparents to vote “O”. Here is an excerpt (see here for more on this):
The one thing most grandparents have in common is that they have the most wonderful grandchildren in the world – so clever, so handsome, so pretty, ever so precious. Even if you are still unsure of your path in life, and even if your parents and friends occasionally wonder about you, your grandma and grandpa love you and have faith in you.This is just a sample script. You know what it takes to get to them.
That is your weapon! “Precious” needs to get on the phone and say, “Grandpa, Grandma, I am asking you to vote for Barack Obama. This is really important to me. It’s about my future. It’s about the world I will be living in. It’s about the world I want for my future children. (They will love that one!) Please! Do it for me!”
Put some urgency in your voice. Sound very disappointed in them if they give you excuses. Come back again, even harder. “This is about my future – my ability to get a good job, to live a healthy life, to have the same (or even more) opportunities than you had to succeed. I have never felt more strongly about anything. I am begging you to vote for Barack Obama. I need you to do this for me!”
I’m sorry, but since when do children need a “weapon” against their parents or grandparents? According to the above, use their unconditional love for you to advantage. I think I’m going to be sick. Notice especially the “let’s get them on the future grandchildren” bit. Slick.
I’d tend to call this sort of thing “target marketing” at its worst. Only this time, it’s being used to get children to employ emotional manipulation on their own parents who are NOT Obama supporters. Mothering crowd, are you upset at this? Dr. Slogan (above link) puts it this way:
“What does our government think about this? Are they ok with targeting children with propaganda? As it turns out, they are not. When it comes to commercial advertisement, government bodies such as FDC and FDA have been going after marketers who target children age 12 and under. Yes, it’s exactly the same age group that Sen. Obama targets so explicitly. Just last year FDC along with its European counterpart pushed Masterfoods to stop marketing of its products (e.g. Snickers, Milky Way and Twix) to kids. Apparently, from the government’s perspective, kids age 12 and under are not mature enough to figure out whether Snickers are good or bad for their health, and thus can be misled by advertising. But of course, figuring out where a presidential candidate stands on taxes, abortion, education and national security is much easier. So why would the government have any problem with that?”
But if you want ultimate irony, take note of the “Babies for Obama” movement, where mothers dress their infants in pro-Obama onesies and such. Babies for Obama? The guy who voted FOUR TIMES to deny them medical care if they were born alive after an attempted abortion? The most radical pro-abortion candidate to come along, probably ever? The leading proponent of the so-called Freedom of Choice Act? Come on, moms. Shake yourself out of your Obama-induced stupor and think through that one for a moment.
I know many Obama supporters are apparently dazzled by the idea of the government doing everything for them, but as for me, I’ll keep the title of “parent” for myself.
October 27, 2008
More on the 2001 DAMNING Obama audio.
Excerpt from American Thinker:
Ed Morrissey draws some conclusions:
The government does not exist to determine the acceptable level of wealth of its individual citizens. For government to assume that role, it would have to end private property rights and assume all property belonged to the State. That is classic Marxism, and as Barbara West of WFTV noted, it runs in Marx’s classic philosophy of “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs”. That economic direction has been an abject failure everywhere it has been tried, and in many cases resulted in famines that killed millions of people.
The RNC and the McCain campaign has to get these quotes out to the American public in the final week of this election.
Update: One more clarifying thought is in order. Barack Obama complains that the Constitution is a “charter of negative liberties”. That’s because the Constitution was intended as a limiting document, to curtail the power of the federal government vis-a-vis the states and the individual. The founders intended at the time to limit the reach of the federal government, and built the Constitution accordingly.
Barack Obama wants to reverse that entirely. And that’s radical change you’d better believe in, or else.
Obama wishes to scrap the limits placed on government powers because they get in the way of his redistributive schemes.What powers are we talking about? Private property rights for one. Since property is distributed “unequally” in Obama’s world, policies must be shaped and laws passed to deal with that situation. While he’s at it, Obama would like to trash the Bill of Rights by tossing the 9th and 10th Amendments which specifically limit the government’s powers vis a vis the people and the several states.
This is me, now.
For a “constititutional lawyer,” Obama leaves much to be desired. For instance, one must be an abject moron to believe that the Constitution does not protect the right to life. A moron, or a dangerous, radical ideologue!
Diane over at onfreedomswings nailed it: “It is not a document of ‘negative liberties.’ The Constitution protects us from a tyrannical government. Only someone who wants to lead a tyrannical government would say the above words.”
There’s still time. We cannot count on the mainstream media to get this out. It’s up to us. We need to spread the word about Obama’s spreading the wealth. The fate of the country as we know it is at stake.