Barack Obama - Elitist Snob

The best part about following politics is when one of these idiots running for public office slips up and actually tells you what they really think about the voters they're trying to woo, and you get to sit back and watch them try to deal with the fallout. And now, much to the pleasure of this blogger, Mr. AudacityOfChangeHopeSunshinePuppiesAndUnity, Barack Obama, has done us the courtesy of providing such a viewing opportunity.

To quote Obamarama himself from a fundraiser he recently held among his true kindred, San Francisco multi-millionaires:

"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing’s replaced them. And they fell through the Clinton administration, and the Bush administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are going to regenerate and they have not. And it’s not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

Yes, small-town America, you heard that right - Barack Obama thinks not only that you're bitter xenophobes, but that your beliefs in God and your 2nd Amendment Rights are merely a crutch that you hold onto because, well, you're just too stupid to see how enlightened and wonderful the US of A would be if we were all just anti-gun, open-borders, atheists.

To be fair, you honestly can't blame him for thinking that religion is a crutch for bitter people; afterall, he did spend 20 years listening to that preacher of his who thinks that 9/11 was a government conspiracy to keep black people oppressed (or something like that). If I went to that Church, I'd probably associate religion with bitterness too. Which is really too bad, because, at its core, the true message of Christianity is one of the least bitter and most genuinely hopeful messages the world has ever heard. But hey, what would I know, I'm just one of those immigrant-hating, gun-loving rednecks who has to use the Christian faith as a crutch to help me overcome my bitterness. So I probably can't provide any real perspective....

As a side note, for your own enjoyment, it's absolutely hysterical that Obama included "anti-trade sentiment" as one of the things that us bitter rural people cling to, given that one of the major parts of his platform has been his stringent denouncement of things like NAFTA and the Colombian Free-trade deal. In other words, he's upset that they're holding the exact same positions as his campaign.

However, the real key, in my opinion, to Barack's remarks though is the part where he mentions guns; because this is, far and away, the most revealing and disturbing part of his comment. To Obama, guns are just a crutch that people lean on when they are bitter about losing their job - or, to turn that around and put it a different way, if everybody was happy, and the world wasn't so screwed up, rural folks wouldn't need or want guns. And herein lies the ultimate problem with Obama and the rest of the anti-gun lobby; to them, guns are not enjoyable or respectable or useful in any way. As far as they're concerned, guns are just things purchased by stupid rednecks with inferiority complexes because they either don't know any better or just have an innate desire to kill people. It never occurs to them that guns might actually be useful in deterring/preventing crime, or that some folks might actually enjoy hunting or taking a trip down to the local shooting range without having it give them the desire to shoot up their local high school the next morning.

No, in their minds, guns are bad; and if we just banned guns, we'd reduce crime to nothing. In other words, to Obama, guns are yet another example of something that, were you to just let him and all the other bureaucrats in Washington take care of, could be taken care of. It's very European, if you think about it; for, deep down, Obama believes he knows what's best for these rural voters. But why, you ask, does Obama think he knows this? Simple. In his mind, these voters are too blinded by their own damn bitterness to understand the 'reality' surrounding gun ownership, and thus unable to know what's best for them.

How very telling a glimpse into the deepest, darkest parts of Barack Obama's political soul.

Not only is it a revealing glimpse of the real Barack Obama, but it is indeed a reminder of why the man is truly unfit to be President, and just how far outside the mainstream of American political thought he is. It reminds of this because it highlights that Barack Obama is not an average American left-winger, but a European, Social Democratic one. The Barack Obama's of the world think that you and me are just a bunch of sheep who have gone astray and need to be led back to the correct path by a well-trained government elite who know what's best for us and will surely make things work the way they ought to. They are, more or less, Socialists.

Some of us, however (and in America, I think it's actually 'most of us'), still believe in what the Founding Fathers taught us all those years ago. We know that government is not best administered from the top down, but rather, from the bottom up; and furthermore, we know that, ultimately, people are better suited to make decisions for themselves, not their governments (especially one run by a one-term Senator and his favorite bureaucrats).

Indeed, in America, Constitutional and Natural Rights matter - too bad Obama hasn't figured that out.

Michael Monsoor - American Hero

Michael Monsoor, a Navy SEAL, has become the 4th American to win the Congressional Medal of Honor for his service in the War on Terror; when, earlier today, President Bush presented our Nation's highest Military Decoration to his parents at the White House. Monsoor received the Medal for action he took on Spetember 29, 2006 which ultimately cost him his life. To quote:

"...Monsoor was part of a sniper security team in Ramadi with three other SEALs and eight Iraqi soldiers....an insurgent fighter threw [a] grenade, which struck Monsoor in the chest before falling in front of him. Monsoor then threw himself on the grenade....'He never took his eye off the grenade, his only movement was down toward it,' said a 28-year-old lieutenant, who suffered shrapnel wounds to both legs that day. 'He undoubtedly saved mine and the other SEALs' lives, and we owe him.' "

I should note that, after the grenade was thrown, Petty Officer 2nd Class Monsoor could have escaped and saved his own life; but instead chose to remain, and sacrifice himself for his comrades-in-arms.

The only thing I can think of to say is; 'Thank you, Good Sir, and may God bless your family and friends.' Aside from that, words simply fail me.

(The video of the entire ceremony is linked here, if you would like to watch it.)

Reality Punches Hillary In The Face - She Fails To Notice

You just gotta love listening to Democrats talk about the economy; I mean, even someone like me, who's economic knowledge is pretty basic, can find these huge gaping wholes in the very premises of their arguments. Exhibit A, today, is none other than everyone's favorite sniper-fire dodging, former First Lady, Hillary Clinton. Last night, in an appearance on Leno, she was talking about why she continues to keep on truckin' with this campaign of hers, and she told some sob story about a little boy who's mother makes minimum wage; and how she keeps on going on because she knows she can "really help" people like this mom.

(Here's the actual video. If you really feel like watching, the story starts at about 3:23 in; otherwise, I've summarized it below.)



Basically, this little boy told the Hildabeast that even though the Democratic Congress recently raised the minimum wage, his mother still wasn't making anymore money because - get this - they cut her hours after the minimum wage increased! After saying this, in almost those exact words, Hillary goes on, unfazed, to some new point - completely unaware of the fact that she just got smacked in the face by a perfect example of why raising the minimum wage doesn't work; and why it doesn't actually increase people's overall earnings.

You see, an employer already has a specific budget for employee salaries that is calculated into his overall budget; and he's not just going to increase that budget in direct proportion to every single increase in the minimum wage; afterall, he's trying to make money and turn a profit in his own right. Thus, a minimum wage increase leads to one of two outcomes in a typical workplace: either A) the employer will have their employees work less time, for the same amount of pay; or B) they will fire some employees and give those that remain higher pay, but with longer hours.

Most employers choose Option B) because it makes things easier for them, which is why increasing the minimum wage will generally cause increases in the unemployment rate. In the case of the young Hillary supporter's mom, it seems the employer didn't want to fire anyone, so he chose Option A); which, if you think about it, could be beneficial to this woman - if she were to use the extra time she now has to, say, get a second job. Working more! Now there's a sure-fire way to make more money! Of course, that's not how Hillary (or any welfare liberal, for that matter) sees things. Heck, she's probably already formulating some new 'free' handout, 'free' training program, or other ill-conceived piece of Legislation to 'solve' the problem.

Reagan once said the 9 scariest words in the English language are "I'm from the government and I'm here to help" - but, personally, I think "Don't you worry, Hillary Clinton is here to help" sounds infinitely more frightening.

Hey, At Least 15 Of Them Are Responsible

Just recently, Citizens Against Government Waste came out with its annual report detailing the cost and exact number of pork-barrel projects each member of the House of Representatives and the Senate received (You can see the info yourself here); and I am proud to report that one of my Senators, Jim DeMint, was one of only 5 Senators to waste $0 of your tax money on pork-barrel projects.

(Unfortunately, the other two members of my Congressional delegation didn't do quite as well: my other Senator, Lindsey Graham, was 67th in terms of dollar amounts, and had his 59 projects total $99.2 million; and my Congressman, Henry Brown, had only 17 projects for $31.5 million, and managed to be in the top third of the House's porkers.)

However, you'll also be happy to know that another one of those 5 Senators who didn't request pork money was the Republican nominee for President, John McCain (who has never requested a pork-barrel project during his entire Congressional career); a fact which should indicate to you that the man does have a pretty decent sense of fiscal responsibility about him - something which we could use in the Oval Office come next January.

On the other hand, you'll be disappointed to know that, well, only 5 out of 100 U.S Senators didn't request pork projects. Oh, and you'll be further disappointed by the fact that this 5% success rate is actually the higher of the two houses of Congress; as only 10 out of the 435 members (a measly 2.3%) of the House of Representatives were able to refrain from wasting your tax dollars.

But hey, a few million here, a few million there, what's the difference, right?

Blinded By Love Of Bipartisanship

Earlier this month, I authored a nice little post on how Bill Richardson was smoking something strong when he said that Barack Obama's foreign policy would be a return to the bipartisan, universal-love-fest, audaciously hopeful, unifying foreign policy of a bygone era; and now it seems its time to write a quick follow up to that since, as of this past weekend, that bullshit line is now being parroted by the candidate himself. Yes folks, Mr. AudacityOfHopeMan has claimed that his foreign policy platform is:

"...actually a return to the traditional bipartisan realistic policy of George Bush's father, of John F. Kennedy, [and] of, in some ways, Ronald Reagan." [emphasis added]

Yea, right.

I think the Gipper will forgive me for paraphrasing one of his old lines when I say: Senator Obama, you're telling people that you've got a foreign policy that's like Ronald Reagan's. Well let me tell you something, Senator. I knew Ronald Reagan. He was a friend of mine. And Senator, you're no Ronald Reagan!

Seriously, as I've said before, Reagan's foreign policy was not the kind of bipartisan yuck-fest that Senator Obama is trying to make it out to be.

As I noted while raking Governor Richardson over the coals, President Reagan's foreign policy was laughed at by most Democrats - that is, until it worked, and the Soviet Union fell, and Communism was reduced to the "ash heap of history," just like Reagan said it would be. Causing the Democrats to do a little 'revisionist' history and pretend like they were on board all along.

Thankfully, most of us know better.

Furthermore, in this little speech, Senator Obama praises H.W. Bush's handling of the First Gulf War; but, as no less an authority than Margaret Thatcher has noted, it was H.W's failure to remove Saddam the first time, when he had the chance, that created the set of circumstances which led to the Second Gulf War. If Pops had finished the job - and not stopped halfway - then W never has to invade Iraq in 2003. But hey, Obama-rama's got an agenda to push, so why bother to think things through, right?

The next point to be made about these remarks is to, again, reiterate that there was nothing warm, fuzzy, and bipartisan about a great deal of Cold War policy. It, too, was a product of politics (hence the word: policy); and thus, while the personalities may not have been as memorable, it was still every bit as partisan as the foreign policy we have today.

Finally, I want to note one last thing about Obama's statements and point out why, aside from the matter of partisanship, his 'return to a traditional foreign policy' is an incredibly stupid idea. And that is simply this: The Cold War is over, as is the lovefest of 90's idealism. The world is a different place now than it was then, and while 9/11 certainly has made this especially so, this fact would be true even if 9/11 had never happened. Interacting with Nations, IGOs and NGOs on an International level means being flexible and, while learning from your past, living, thinking, and, most importantly, acting in the present (with the future in mind). Using the 1960's foreign policy to respond to the 2000's problems would be the height of both ignorance and arrogance; primarily because, and you would think this would be obvious; the 2000's are not the 1960's. The times change, and thus American Foreign Policy should too.

It's too bad Senator Obama is to naive to understand something as basic as that.

I Love My State

Where else in the country would an add like this:



...even get airtime, much less actually be a smart politcal move?

South Carolina: where George W. Bush still isn't political poison, and an anti-war protest against the unpopular Iraq War, on that war's 5-year anniversary, considers 70 people a "larger than expected crowd."

The funny thing is, according to the article, most of those 70 who bothered showing up for the protest were calling "for a quick - but not immediate" [emphasis added] troop withdrawal from Iraq. Yes, folks, that's right, even our anti-war protesters have conservative streaks.

We have our problems down here in Redneck paradise, but it's still a pretty nice place to call home.

The Success of Partisanship

Not to long ago, before the Democratic Presidential contest had become the Hilldabeast-Obamarama dogfight that it is now, I used to tune in and watch some of those old Democratic Debates, with all umpteen of the candidates, to give myself a good laugh. When I did that, no one was able to provide bigger laughs than New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson, whose wildly (and in some cases, disturbingly) idealistic view of the world made him a ready source. The Governor was back on TV today, giving his endorsement to Barack Obama, and while watching him speak, I was given a nice chuckle or two and again reminded of his general, all-around stupidity.

At one point during this speech the Governor was talking about foreign policy, and he went into the standard Barack Obama talking point about how, after 8 years of W, the country needs someone who is a "uniter" and who can "repair America's image" in the rest of the world. Then, in order to prove his point, he harkened back to the Cold War, and talked about how, back then, we had this policy of Containment which, in his words, was not "Democrat or Republican, but American." In other words, in Gov. Richardson's mind, the Cold War was a time when the country never, ever, but never had partisan disagreements about foreign policy.

Right.

First of all, lets just get one simple thing straight - Containment was a Partisan policy, as it was created and first used by President Harry S Truman, a Democrat. Sure, it was later adopted by Republican Presidents Eisenhower and Nixon, but it was, originally, Truman's policy - something which shows you how stupid Richardson really is; as it would have been better, if he was going to praise Containment, to point out its roots in his own party.

Secondly, I find it incredibly ironic that Gov. Richardson, he of the 'I'll have us entirely out of Iraq in 30 days' (or whatever it was), would praise Containment. Afterall, it was fear of Communism spreading to the rest of Southeast Asia and LBJ's desire to contain it within North Vietnam that got us involved in the Vietnam War. And as we all know from the last 3+ years of Democratic talking points, Iraq is bad because it's Vietnam, and nothing in history was worse and more misguided, evil, stupid (etc., etc.) than American involvement in Vietnam. But hey, when you're Bill Richardson, why not come out and praise the policy that got us involved in a war which you feel is exactly like the 'misguided' one we're in now; it's not like the media is going to call you on it. Afterall, you're a minority and a Democrat - hell, you could probably join Eliot Spitzer in the prostitution scandal business and they would still try and avoid asking you questions that might be a bit too hard. But I digress...

The final point I'll make about the good Governor's dim-witted reference to Containment is the most important; and that is that, ultimately, for all the bi-partisan goodness that it may (or may not) have been, the policy of Containment failed. It was a failure because, in the end, the guy who won the Cold War, Ronald Reagan, won it not by sitting back and simply trying to 'contain' the Soviet Union but by calling it the "Evil Empire" and doing everything possible to defeat and destroy it. During the 1960's and 70's, something like 13 countries had become new Communist nations; but Reagan, with the Grenada invasion in 1983, began toppling Communist regimes. For decades we'd been told the Soviet Union was here to stay, Reagan told us it could be gone in our lifetimes.

Now, I could go on about how Reagan's foreign policy was different from Containment, but in doing so I (again) digress from my original point. You see, when Reagan was in office, implementing his new strategy for dealing with the U.S.S.R, the Democrats were kicking and screaming at every turn, and saying all sorts of nasty things about his intelligence along the way. Most importantly, however, they didn't believe what he was doing would work; meaning that they made Reagan's Cold War policy a partisan issue. And this brings us to the hillarity of Bill Richardson, who wants us to get excited about Containment, which didn't work, simply because it was 'non-partisan' and fully approved by the French - despite the fact that the evil, divisive partisan strategy was the one that ultimately won the War.

Makes for an ironic analogy to the present day - don't you think?

Boycotting Beijing?

As the current violence in Tibet worsens, and the Chinese authorities there become more oppressive in their attempts to stifle the residents there, it is becoming clearer to many in the West that awarding China the 2008 Olympics was, indeed, a terrible idea. Moreover, it seems that this realization has also begun inspiring quiet rumors about some European countries potentially boycotting the Olympics.

The Olympic boycott was a tactic that was employed by the U.S and the U.S.S.R in the 1980 and 1984 Summer Games, respectively; and, while it certainly has the effect of casting a certain degree of public humiliation on the boycotted host Nation, the tactic is, by and large, rather ineffective. Obviously, this is true for a number of reasons (chief among them the fact that an Olympic boycott doesn't have any real effect on the internal politics of the boycotted country); however, there is one significant reason that I find worth mentioning. That would be the simple fact that a team or athlete has the opportunity to make a much bigger statement through their actual presence and participation.

For example: while Jimmy Carter may have been awfully proud of his boycott of the 1980 Moscow Summer Games; I think its safe to say that the U.S Men's Hockey team, which played in the Winter Games that same year in Lake Placid, had a much more significant political and cultural impact on the U.S-Soviet Cold War rivalry. I mean, afterall, who doesn't believe in Miracles?



Heck, for an even better example, who do you think ultimately made a bigger political statement at the 1936 Berlin Games: Adolf Hitler, with his 'Aryan Supremacy' propaganda; or Jesse Owens, a black man, and his 4 Gold Medals?

The point is that skipping out on the Olympics is a stupid idea; because, among other things, it pre-empts any opportunities one might have to attain the greatest of feats in amateur athletics - that being those victories which transcend sports, entirely.

In The Footsteps Of Fidel

With the recent retirement of Fidel Castro from his long held position of Dictator in Cuba, there was, in some respects, an important and symbolic change in the International political system of the Western Hemisphere. This is not to say that there will be any genuine regime change in Cuba anytime soon - there won't be, Raul will ensure the continuation of Communism - but rather, that Fidel Castro's long-standing grip on power has made him more than just another Communist tyrant; he has become an institution, and, more specifically, an institution of Anti-Americanism in Latin America.

For over 45 years now, Fidel has been the leader of any and all anti-American sentiments in this region. Any Latin American political or rebel leader looking for inspiration for, or affirmation of, an anti-American platform could look confidently to Fidel Castro, who stood defiantly against the United States, year after year, despite his location a mere 90 miles off its coast. Now, with his departure, that clout, that image, is gone. Sure, Raul will likely continue to inundate Cubans with anti-American propaganda, and, sure, he'll likely continue at least the basics of Fidel's anti-American foreign policy; but at the end of the day, Raul simply does not command the attention of his older brother - nor, more importantly, does he have anywhere close to the same aura about him. Thus, with the departure of Fidel, a new page really is being turned over in the politics of the Americas.

Enter, Hugo Chavez.

With the slow, drawn-out exit of Castro from the world stage, Chavez has recently been trying hurriedly to step up and fill Fidel's old shoes. He's doing this because he knows that, in much of Latin America, there are few better ways to build a quick consensus than to loudly and violently beat the anti-American drum. Indeed, thanks to decades of CIA/Cold War meddling and some of the strangest love-hate relationships in the International system, anti-Americanism has a built-in, Latin American support block that anyone of modest political talents might easily summon.

However, tapping into anti-Americanism to win a particular election or policy referendum is an entirely different beast from building a dictatorship off such sentiment - and the latter is the field in which Fidel Castro has written the book. Between demagoguing U.S-supported neighbors and constantly raising the specter of a possible American invasion, Fidel was able to maintain power in the face of a collapsing economy (and society) thanks, in part, to his tactic of overwhelming Cubans with a fear of the monstrosity and evil of American power. That the world might not have been as Fidel portrayed it was, of course, utterly irrelevant.

Thus, with a keen eye towards history, and a thorough understanding of this fact, Chavez, earlier today, must have done Fidel proud when he ordered Venezuelan troops to his nation's Colombian border; for, by doing so, he gets a nice two-for-one on the anti-American front. First, since he can portray Colombia, a U.S ally, as an American puppet regime, he can easily assert that Colombian opposition to FARC - a rebel group which Chavez, naturally, supports - is something the government is doing, not because it's in Colombia's best interests, but because of requests form its American masters. The second thing he does by generating a military standoff on the Colombian-Venezuelan border is to create a nice little win-win situation for himself. If Colombia heeds Venezuelan troop's presence, the FARC can quickly retreat into Venezuela, where Chavez can help support them in their efforts to destabilize Colombia's democratic government. On the other hand, if Colombian forces decide to pursue FARC rebels into Venezuelan territory - even if it's just 1 mile in (as it was in Ecuadur) - Chavez would be able to counter-attack; an action which would likely provoke American involvement, since we have a security agreement with Colombia.

Translation: In the event of a Venezuelan attack, the U.S Navy would likely end up lobbing Cruise Missiles at Caracas to get Chavez to back down; an act which would hand Hugo the biggest propaganda coup in Latin America since the Bay of Pigs Invasion - a disaster which, oddly enough, was a propaganda coup for none other than Hugo's predecessor in the role of Chief Latin American, anti-U.S agitator: Fidel.

All this means that the American Government will have to tread carefully when dealing with these Colombia-Venezuela tensions; because, after Fidel, the last thing we need in Latin America is become a political tool of his potential protege.

To Stand "Athwart History, Yelling Stop"

A Titan has passed. William F. Buckley, Jr., founder of National Review, and the leading Conservative intellectual of the 20th Century, died today at the age of 82.

Determined, as he wrote in 1955 in the first edition of National Review, to stand "athwart history" and yell "stop" at the, seemingly inevitable, left-wing onslaught, Mr. Buckley re-cast Conservatism as an intellectual movement; thus providing the ideological basis for the political movement that culminated with the Reagan Revolution.

To quote George Will:

"Before there was Ronald Reagan, there was Barry Goldwater, and before there was Barry Goldwater there was National Review, and before there was National Review there was Bill Buckley, with a spark in his mind."

Indeed. Rest in Peace, good sir - and thank you.

Change You Can Be Scared Of

Finally, something from a Barack Obama stump speech that I can believe! Apparently, yesterday at an event in Austin, Texas, Obama was trying to fend of the label of 'liberal' that he has been pegged with. In doing so, he put forth this whopper of a line:

"There's nothing liberal about wanting to make sure everyone has healthcare."

And you know what, folks? He's right; there is nothing liberal about 'Universal Health Care' - only something Socialist.

But hey, we shouldn't say things like that, because, they wouldn't be nice, and they would tear down the facade that has been Mr. Obama's entire campaign. I mean, Obama is nothing more than a master masquerader, who has donned the cap of 'uniter' just long enough, and well enough, to gain a serious following of folks who actually believe his empty-yet-grandiose rhetoric.

The emptiness of this rhetoric was perhaps epitomized by his wife, Michelle, a few days back, when she claimed that Barack Obama was the only man who could "save our souls;" a statement which makes her sound like one of those idiots from the Bible helping to proclaim one of the many false prophets that God warns of.

(As an aside, if I'm looking to have my soul saved, I'd sooner ask the homeless drunkard on the street corner than a freakin' politician.)

Sadly, the analogy is more accurate than laughable, because a false prophet is exactly what Obama has become (or perhaps always was). He walks around telling us how he will bring back hope, bring people together, work across the aisle, and, most importantly, bring about "change;" but, in reality, he has the most left-wing and the most partisan voting record of anyone in the Senate. If Obama gets to the White House, he'll be as much of a uniter as George "I'm a uniter not a divider" W. Bush has been. He will be, as some on the right have described him, the next Jimmy Carter - just with more nice and a little more socialism.

In a sense, it's a good thing Obama's campaign has "hope" as its main selling point; because after 4 years of an Obama Presidency, Americans would be needing a lot of it - it's not like they'd have much else worth bragging about.

For those of you who do give a rat's behind about where your country might be in 4 years, here's some actual facts on some of Obama's, uhh, more interesting positions, that you should be aware of:

-He supports 'Universal Health Care' (a.k.a Socialized Medicine) with all the fervor of a good socialist.
- He wants to sit down and have direct talks with people like Iranian President Ahmadenijad. ('Peace through conversation,' maybe....???)
- He was a very strong advocate of gun-control while a State Senator in Illinois, and has not changed his position on that issue one bit since then.
- He didn't have to flip-flop on Drivers Licenses for Illegals (like Sen. Clinton did) because he had already come out in full support of such measures.
- He has always gotten the full 100% rating from Planned Parenthood, and while still a State Senator, he voted against a law requiring life support for fetuses that survived abortion procedures.
- He was "extremely concerned" by the Supreme Court's decision to ban partial-birth abortion, and has consistently voted against banning it.
- He has voted against lowering taxes every single time the issue has come up during his short stay in the United States Senate. This includes votes against repealing the Death and Alternative Minimum taxes; as well as votes against extending tax cuts on Estate, Capital Gains, and Dividend taxes.

...and I could go on; but I won't. Instead I'll just say that, ultimately, the conclusion you'd have to reach after looking at this man's actual positions, beliefs, and principles would be this: Barack Obama is not a great unifying force who can lift up America. Rather, he is a genuine Democratic Socialist (in the European sense of the term) who would be better suited to bring about the political unification of France than of the United States.

Oh no, wait a minute, I forgot, even the French were smart enough to reject this kind of smooth-talking, empty-suited, hard-left bullshit.

Dear God, stick that in you pipes and smoke on it for a minute: a year from now, we (The United States!) could have a President who is more liberal than the President of France!

Conservatives who continue to hold a grudge against John McCain for various reasons ought to think about that before November rolls around. In the meantime, I think I'm gonna be depressed.

The Case Against Kosovo

For those of you who haven't been following the news recently, earlier this week a tiny little region of Serbia (which you may remember from a little bombing a few years back) named Kosovo declared its independence. The announcement, coming after 9 years of UN/NATO administration (which hasn't stopped, by the way), was welcomed by all of the usual suspects in the "West," including the U.S, and openly disdained by the various Slavic Nations in the "East," most notably, of course, Russia. Indeed, with separatist rebels of their own to worry about in Chechnya, Putin's men have been out and about condemning the independence declaration and promising to veto any sort of international recognition for Kosovo that might come up for a vote at the U.N.

In other words, Russia is doing what Russia does best, obstructing Western interests - and the scary thing is that, for once, I agree with them.

Kosovo should not be an independent state and the most important reason for this is precisely the one that the Russians have been giving in all of the Pressers they've been holding the last 3 days; namely, the potential snowball effect that Kosovo's independence can have on all of the various ethnic minority regions in Europe and Central Asia. Indeed, given all the various ethnic minorities that live in countries throughout the Balkans and Central Asia, from the Checheyens, right on across the board, the declaration of Kosovoian (?) Independence has far greater ramifications than just the writing of an additional chapter to the tumultuous story of Albanian-Serb relations.

But come now, you insist, who are we to step in and try to prevent these folks from having their Democratic rights? Indeed, you might have an argument, if it weren't for the fact that this declaration is motivated largely by a desire for some kind of ethnically pure (a.k.a non-Serbian) country. Oh sure, they'll probably talk about things like the principle of self-determination; but at the end of the day, Kosovo wants independence because it's full of Albanians and they don't want to be under a government that's largely made up of, and run by, Serbs. I mean, let's face it, like most other ethnic groups in the Balkans, the Serbs and Albanians hate each other, and have killed enough of each other over the last decade or so make that obvious even to the most ardent of peace-loving Hippies. But them hating each others' guts to the point of killing each other is not, in this case, a very good justification for independence. Here's why: you see, the dirty little secret of territorial-ethnic conflicts like this is that, no matter how hard the do-gooders at the EU, UN, and NATO try, the problem of ethnic minorities can never be fully resolved. There's always some ethnic group who gets left behind after the partition, and ends up becoming the new dissatisfied minority.

And, alas, such is the case in an independent Kosovo; where not all of the population is, in fact, Albanian. Oh, sure, 90% of it is - but, uh, that other 10% is still Serbs; which means that all the creation of this new country does is turn the tables around by making the Serbs the ethnic minority.

In other words, the Albanian Kosovars aren't really solving the problem; they're just making sure that they have a better hand to play when the game re-starts. Indeed, unless these people want to keep dividing up their part of the world until it's in small, Medieval-style fiefdoms, they will continue to have this same problem - if on a somewhat smaller scale.

Here, of course, is where we encounter a second problem with the new nation of Kosovo: its size. Because, as these various 'rebel' regions in Europe and Central Asia try to (or do) break away from their mother countries, they become smaller and smaller; and thus, by extension, weaker and weaker. Now, certainly there are countries like Luxembourg, Monaco, and Switzerland who fare quite well despite their size; but those guys have something that neither Kosovo nor any of these other new-nation wannabes do - money. This means that these are small, essentially defenseless countries who, in addition to coming from countries that weren't particularly wealthy to being with, have the added bonus of being dirt poor.

In other words, we're allowing the creation of new, additional countries that we're going to have to help finance the security and basic economy of. To put it another way, we're basically taxpayers sitting around watching welfare recipients breed, and actively encouraging the process.

Thus, at the end of the day, Kosovo's declaration of independence will just make the Balkan situation that much more complex, and, perhaps not surprisingly, create a good deal more problems than it solves.

It's kind of depressing when you think about it.

Rah, Rah, Wake Forest, Rah.....

86-73 - Read it and weep Dookies.



Yea, that makes for a pretty darn good day, if I do say so myself.

Oh, and just for the heck of it:



Go. Deacs.

A "Political Stimulus Package"

Once again, Jim DeMint gets it right:



Indeed. It's just too bad that no one else in our government seems to have the guts to stand up and say this kind of stuff. But, I suppose that's just the wacky world of the welfare state - once you start giving people money from the public treasury, you just can't stop; everybody loves 'free' handouts. Besides, most of these people begging for 'stimulus packages' are too stupid to realize they're bankrupting the Country anyways.

1984 2008

As we've noted before in this forum, one of the key issues surrounding the Democratic Presidential primaries this year is the question of which candidate has the most awesomest Orwellian plan for "Universal Health Care." Indeed, the issue has become front-and-center in the Democratic debates with Mr. Obama and Mrs. Clinton duking it out for the right to be the "I-care-for-you-the-mostest" candidate. The only real substantive difference between the two's policies is that Mr. Obama's apparently allows a few blessed souls to avoid the impending 'U.H.C' catastrophe while Mrs. Clinton's takes the more communistic approach and vows to leave no one behind. The only problem, of course, is that Mrs. Clinton has failed to specify exactly how she plans on enforcing the Health Care mandates that her system promises.

(Gosh, who'da thunk, a politician with a plan and no explanation as to how it might actually work.....)

Thankfully though, Mrs. Clinton was on ABC yesterday to assure all of us in the proletariat that she most certainly "[has] an enforcement mechanism" in mind for this (surely genius...) health care plan of hers - and she was even willing to expound upon this rhetorical talking point (unusually rare for the current meaningless platitude war that is the '08 Dem Presidential primaries). On tap for Mrs. Clinton's potential enforcement plans were "[garnishing people's wages], some other mechanism through the tax system, or automatic enrollments."

Because clearly the best way for us to try and stave of a possible recession is to jack up taxes on the middle-class workers who refuse to voluntarily accept her health care mandates. Alas, with these pro-"Universal Health Care" folks, raising taxes is always fair game - never mind the fact that some of these people probably can't afford health insurance on their current salary because their taxes are too high as it is.

Obviously, Mrs. Clinton's answer was, to be blunt, not particularly heavy on specifics (a fact which Mr. Obama was quick to point out), but let's be fair; she was indeed justified in claiming that "there are a number of mechanisms" which could be used to bring her plan to fruition. Indeed, this, sadly, is the reality of social democracy - the government is big and powerful enough to coerce a good deal out of you, including money for misguided "universal health care" programs.

But hey, it's for your own, personal Health Care for godssakes - so don't mind the dark beady eyes and toothbrush mustache staring down at you from the telescreen; afterall, he's there for your own personal good!

Here, naturally, we hit upon the reason that Mrs. Clinton refuses to directly articulate her means for enforcing these Health Care mandates - because the only agency that can enforce these mandates is the Government; and this would deny her the facade of claiming, as she has in the past, that the program is "not government run." Indeed, it would, in effect, be an admission that the program is not "universal health care;" but full-blooded Socialized Medicine. Moreover, as she learned in 1994, most Americans aren't willing to accept Socialized Medicine; they're smart enough to know that socialism is a bad idea. This is why, in the aftermath of the massive failure of HillaryCare I, the socialized medicine movement here in the United States cleverly changed its rhetoric. No more would Americans be asked to suffer European-style, Socialized Medicine. No, instead, they would be asked about "universal health care" and told of the "millions of uninsured" (especially children!!!) who desperately needed help - it would be presented to them as a sob story.

No longer would it be, as it was in Europe, a top down movement forced upon the majority of citizens "for their own good;" but rather, it would be portrayed as a great, grassroots effort by the lower class to get what they rightfully deserved - indeed, were owed - in this, the wealthiest Nation in history.

And this was the story that Americans would slowly buy into.

Never mind that, even if under different pretenses, they were actually being sold the same damn bill of goods (by the same saleswoman, no less!); the marketing was different, more likeable, so they bought it. Thus proving, with all due respect to Shakespeare, that, in American politics, what's in a name does matter - at least to the many gullible voters we have.

Ignorance is strength, if you will....