We know it isn't fair to call Obama a Communist until after he takes our property away, so we'll stay mum...
Friday, October 31, 2008
Obama's Red Star
Doug Ross has a post today showing the picture below of the Obama banner with the red star. He has a good write-up too.
We know it isn't fair to call Obama a Communist until after he takes our property away, so we'll stay mum...
We know it isn't fair to call Obama a Communist until after he takes our property away, so we'll stay mum...
Useful Idiots No Longer?
The Obama campaign dis-invited three reporters from their plane today. Drudge reports the NY Post, Dallas Morning News and the Washington Times - all papers that endorsed McCain - will no longer be allowed to ride with the campaign.
Our reaction to this makes us think of a man on the deck of the sinking Titanic saying to another, "I'm glad I ordered the Lobster tonight." It is coming to an end, but somehow we can still joke about it.
Think about it. The media, even the papers above, have given Obama a full pass this election year on major issues ranging from Ayers, to unanswered questions about gun control, to the effects of redistributive policies. No media outlet, including FOX News, has led, and pushed, with any of the critical issues to bring awareness and transparency. The next four years may be a disaster that dwarf Carter's epic failures thanks to the MSM, yet the humor will be rich: the MSM will join the rest of us when we are told what to think, where and where not to work, and how much of our property belongs to the state.
Lenin was right - Useful Idiots Indeed.
Our reaction to this makes us think of a man on the deck of the sinking Titanic saying to another, "I'm glad I ordered the Lobster tonight." It is coming to an end, but somehow we can still joke about it.
Think about it. The media, even the papers above, have given Obama a full pass this election year on major issues ranging from Ayers, to unanswered questions about gun control, to the effects of redistributive policies. No media outlet, including FOX News, has led, and pushed, with any of the critical issues to bring awareness and transparency. The next four years may be a disaster that dwarf Carter's epic failures thanks to the MSM, yet the humor will be rich: the MSM will join the rest of us when we are told what to think, where and where not to work, and how much of our property belongs to the state.
Lenin was right - Useful Idiots Indeed.
Karl's Weekend Reading
Andrew Walden reviews the Obama-Communist past at the American Thinker, Barack Obama: Red Diaper Baby.
Paul Kengor, also at the American Thinker, returns to two articles written by Obama's mentor, and known communist, Frank Davis Marshall. Dreams from Frank Marshall Davis:
And, the Heritage Foundation published a comparison between Obama's and McCain's tax plans. Here are their summary points and conclusion (with our emphasis), and one of the article's graphs.
Barack Obama is a "red diaper baby" who has spent his formative years -- literally from the moment of his birth -- interacting with members and sympathizers of the Communist Party, USA.
Paul Kengor, also at the American Thinker, returns to two articles written by Obama's mentor, and known communist, Frank Davis Marshall. Dreams from Frank Marshall Davis:
Obama's recent remarks on wealth redistribution made me think of two Davis columns in particular, both for the Honolulu Record:
The first was Davis's January 26, 1950 piece, "Free Enterprise or Socialism?" Davis hoped that America and its economy were at a turning point, as if a kind of perfect storm was brewing that could at last allow him and his comrades to realize their dreams of a socialist America. They would need to trash the current free-enterprise system and argue for a change to something else. Of course, they could not fully disclose themselves, their beliefs, and their intentions, although any thinking observer could easily read between the lines. The key was to gain the support of the people who didn't know any difference.
---
[article #2] For Davis, the only hope was a huge, emboldened federal government that could save Americans from the capitalists, that could rein in fat-cat corporations, that could slap down Wall Street and its excesses, that could spread the wealth, and that could ensure that the poor could buy a home.
The first was Davis's January 26, 1950 piece, "Free Enterprise or Socialism?" Davis hoped that America and its economy were at a turning point, as if a kind of perfect storm was brewing that could at last allow him and his comrades to realize their dreams of a socialist America. They would need to trash the current free-enterprise system and argue for a change to something else. Of course, they could not fully disclose themselves, their beliefs, and their intentions, although any thinking observer could easily read between the lines. The key was to gain the support of the people who didn't know any difference.
---
[article #2] For Davis, the only hope was a huge, emboldened federal government that could save Americans from the capitalists, that could rein in fat-cat corporations, that could slap down Wall Street and its excesses, that could spread the wealth, and that could ensure that the poor could buy a home.
And, the Heritage Foundation published a comparison between Obama's and McCain's tax plans. Here are their summary points and conclusion (with our emphasis), and one of the article's graphs.
1. Jobs respond more to McCain's plan than to Obama's.
2. Overall economic activity more vigorous under McCain's plan.
3. More after-tax spending potential under McCain than under Obama.
Conclusion
The economy improves under each plan as compared to the baseline. The baseline forecast assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts disappear, which raises the cost of capital and marginal tax rates. Both candidates plan to reduce taxes com pared to this scenario.
Senator McCain's plan is substantially better at spurring economic growth than Senator Obama's. This is not surprising, since Senator McCain focuses on economic growth and job creation while Senator Obama focuses on the redistribution of income. As Tax Policy Center Director Len Burman states, "the major themes of the two plans are, in the case of Senator McCain's plan, that the major emphasis is on economic efficiency—cuts marginal tax rates, improves economic incentives…. In the case of Obama's plan, the goal is primarily to improve pro gressivity…to lower tax burdens on low-income people and raise them on higher-income people."[10] Each presidential candidate achieves his stated goal,with Senator McCain generating the most new jobs, growth, and additional income for individuals. Senator Obama's plan drives up the tax rate for individ uals with annual incomes above $250,000 and redistributes money to workers with lower incomes.
2. Overall economic activity more vigorous under McCain's plan.
3. More after-tax spending potential under McCain than under Obama.
Conclusion
The economy improves under each plan as compared to the baseline. The baseline forecast assumes that all of the Bush tax cuts disappear, which raises the cost of capital and marginal tax rates. Both candidates plan to reduce taxes com pared to this scenario.
Senator McCain's plan is substantially better at spurring economic growth than Senator Obama's. This is not surprising, since Senator McCain focuses on economic growth and job creation while Senator Obama focuses on the redistribution of income. As Tax Policy Center Director Len Burman states, "the major themes of the two plans are, in the case of Senator McCain's plan, that the major emphasis is on economic efficiency—cuts marginal tax rates, improves economic incentives…. In the case of Obama's plan, the goal is primarily to improve pro gressivity…to lower tax burdens on low-income people and raise them on higher-income people."[10] Each presidential candidate achieves his stated goal,with Senator McCain generating the most new jobs, growth, and additional income for individuals. Senator Obama's plan drives up the tax rate for individ uals with annual incomes above $250,000 and redistributes money to workers with lower incomes.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
The Second Bill of Rights
Sweetness & Light Blog has the list of 'new' rights. Rights proposed by members of the same political party that Barack Obama belongs to. Liberal, Progressive, Communist.
Click to see the full blog post.
U/T: Sweetness & Light
The right to a useful and remunerative job in the industries or shops or farms or mines of the nation;
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
The right to earn enough to provide adequate food and clothing and recreation;
The right of every farmer to raise and sell his products at a return which will give him and his family a decent living;
The right of every businessman, large and small, to trade in an atmosphere of freedom from unfair competition and domination by monopolies at home or abroad;
The right of every family to a decent home;
The right to adequate medical care and the opportunity to achieve and enjoy good health;
The right to adequate protection from the economic fears of old age, sickness, accident, and unemployment;
The right to a good education.
All of these rights spell security. And after this war is won we must be prepared to move forward, in the implementation of these rights, to new goals of human happiness and well-being.
America’s own rightful place in the world depends in large part upon how fully these and similar rights have been carried into practice for our citizens.
Click to see the full blog post.
U/T: Sweetness & Light
Monday, October 27, 2008
Obama a Marxist?
How dare the biased conservatives in the media compare Obama's compassionate policies with the teachings of Karl Marx! The political discourse has just been lowered another level at the expense of the little people proletarian masses.
BTW, Commie Obama hats are flying off the shelves! Buy today, or wait in line next year...
UPDATE 9PM: Biden steps in it again:
BTW, Commie Obama hats are flying off the shelves! Buy today, or wait in line next year...
UPDATE 9PM: Biden steps in it again:
Friday, October 24, 2008
New Survey
The mortgage crisis wins hands down in our last survey which asked what crisis will the Democrats use as an excuse to take power. This survey was posted prior to the $700 billion bailout - before an actual crisis was apparent. Interestingly, the mortgage crisis has not helped Obama, who remains a couple points ahead of McCain despite the crisis and 2x-3x in campaign spending. Will they manufacture a new crisis in the coming days?
Our thanks for those who participated in the survey!
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Soon We'll Make Our Own Jokes
The bright side of an Obama presidency is that the former Soviet citizens will lose their monopoly of communist humor.
5 minutes of the great one:
5 minutes of the great one:
General Powell - Some Thoughts
One. We are disappointed that the General would endorse a candidate that espouses 'Reward first, work second' when Powell himself achieved a level in the Army, and later our government, that can only be attained by effort, judgement and achievement. Three things the Democratic candidate lacks.
Two. We lose sleep when old men do things like this. Will we live a life of values and integrity, establishing consistency and predictability in our decisions and motives, only to throw it all away one day?
Three. We are glad we left the Army at Captain. Looking at Powell and W. Clark for example, it appears to go further up the ranks is to compromise principle. (Looking at Generals Franks, Petraus and the many others, we know Powell and Clark are the exceptions.)
Four. Rush Limbaugh asked: "When was the last time Powell endorsed an inexperienced white candidate?"
Five. Bret Stephens provides his list in his Tuesday WSJ article, Powell Catches the Beltway Breeze. (Picture above is from his article). The conclusion of this wonderful article:
The standard view of Mr. Powell's tenure at State is that he had a diplomat's brain but a soldier's heart, and soldiers ultimately do as ordered. Maybe. Another view is that he is a man with an unfailing sense of the political breeze, like a kite. His endorsement of Mr. Obama sends his reputation aloft again, floating high above a record that stands for nothing.
Karl's Weekend Reading
Three great picks from this week's rags:
Laura Hollis at Townhall uses the "C" word!!
A well-earned Ushanka Tip to Laura!
Adam Lerrick asks, "What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes?" From his Wednesday WSJ article, Obama and the Tax Tipping Point:
Kimberly Strassel at the WSJ shares the circus atmosphere in her article, Obama's Magic:
Laura Hollis at Townhall uses the "C" word!!
I am tired of all the dancing around the subject with respect to Barack Obama’s political, social, and economic views. He’s not a “liberal,” or a “Democrat,” or a “progressive,” or even a “socialist.” Let’s call it what it is, shall we? It’s time to use the “C” word. His policies are communist, pure and simple.
---
It’s not that Obama is ignorant, or misguided. He knows – as do his Red backers – that the policies he espouses will cause further economic trauma. This is deliberate. Because the worse things get, the more receptive the public will be to Obama’s & Co.’s honey-tongued assurances that the government will step in and “make it all better.” Look at Hurricane Katrina, and the recent financial crisis: how many people were clamoring for the government to “do something”? And that’s nothing compared to what we’re going to face when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collapse.
---
It’s not that Obama is ignorant, or misguided. He knows – as do his Red backers – that the policies he espouses will cause further economic trauma. This is deliberate. Because the worse things get, the more receptive the public will be to Obama’s & Co.’s honey-tongued assurances that the government will step in and “make it all better.” Look at Hurricane Katrina, and the recent financial crisis: how many people were clamoring for the government to “do something”? And that’s nothing compared to what we’re going to face when Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid collapse.
A well-earned Ushanka Tip to Laura!
Adam Lerrick asks, "What happens when the voter in the exact middle of the earnings spectrum receives more in benefits from Washington than he pays in taxes?" From his Wednesday WSJ article, Obama and the Tax Tipping Point:
In 2006, the latest year for which we have Census data, 220 million Americans were eligible to vote and 89 million -- 40% -- paid no income taxes. According to the Tax Policy Center (a joint venture of the Brookings Institution and the Urban Institute), this will jump to 49% when Mr. Obama's cash credits remove 18 million more voters from the tax rolls. What's more, there are an additional 24 million taxpayers (11% of the electorate) who will pay a minimal amount of income taxes -- less than 5% of their income and less than $1,000 annually.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
In all, three out of every five voters will pay little or nothing in income taxes under Mr. Obama's plans and gain when taxes rise on the 40% that already pays 95% of income tax revenues.
Kimberly Strassel at the WSJ shares the circus atmosphere in her article, Obama's Magic:
To kick off our show tonight, Mr. Obama will give 95% of American working families a tax cut, even though 40% of Americans today don't pay income taxes! How can our star enact such mathemagic? How can he "cut" zero? Abracadabra! It's called a "refundable tax credit." It involves the federal government taking money from those who do pay taxes, and writing checks to those who don't. Yes, yes, in the real world this is known as "welfare," but please try not to ruin the show.
---
Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do.
---
Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies. Hocus Pocus!
---
Mr. Obama will now demonstrate how he gives Americans the "choice" of a "voluntary" government health plan, designed in such a way as to crowd out the private market and eliminate all other choice! Don't worry people: You won't have to join, until you do.
---
Moving along to a little ventriloquism. Study his mouth carefully, folks: It looks like he's saying "I'll stop the special interests," when in fact the words coming out are "Welcome to Washington, friends!" Wind and solar companies, ethanol makers, tort lawyers, unions, community organizers -- all are welcome to feed at the public trough and to request special favors. From now on "special interests" will only refer to universally despised, if utterly crucial, economic players. Say, oil companies. Hocus Pocus!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Joe the Proletariat
It was not supposed to be like this. A plumber refusing to participate in the dictatorship of the proletariat? Questioning why the American Dream is only valid up to $250k. We're sure Obama's team is sending someone over right now to explain to Joe the economic plan in detail, as there has clearly been a mis-understanding.
Here are the related videos, and the graphic of the 2008 election. U/T: Our comrades at the People's Cube.
A compilation of clips that includes the "Spread the Wealth" statement:
Link to Joe's interview with ABC
Here are the related videos, and the graphic of the 2008 election. U/T: Our comrades at the People's Cube.
A compilation of clips that includes the "Spread the Wealth" statement:
Link to Joe's interview with ABC
Karl's Weekend Reading
We are posting our Weekend Reading list early, as we'll be offline this Thursday and Friday.
The campaign is turning harsh, with the standard Republican accusation that the Democratic Party's nominee is a "Socialist" or "Communist". This drives the political discourse into the mud, especially when the accuser is wearing one of our incredible and furry Commie Obama hats! Get yours today for only $29.99 at CommieObama.com!
Silly conservative, it is not fair to call Obama a communist until AFTER he takes your property away. Remember, it has to be fair.
We saw two excellent articles this past week that expand on this topic:
Author Paul Kengor writes in the American Thinker, Why Obama's Communist Connections Are Not Headlines. He argues our education system has let down its students when it comes to the history of communism. Further, he addresses faculties' revulsion to anti-communist speech:
They aren't communists. They are anti-anti-communists. Or as we say, they are "communist inspired". More Kengor:
Good stuff. We read his book on Reagan - The Crusader
And we look forward to reading his book, The Judge
, about Reagan advisor William Clark.
James Lewis, also writing in the American Thinker, On Bill Ayers and Small 'c' Communists. He explains the difference between six million (holocaust deaths) and one hundred million (communism), and why those numbers matter. He begins this discussion:
If you're interested - a related AFP article about the Communist Party USA's anticipation for the coming election.
Go, Commie, Go!
We'll be back online no later than Sunday. Have a nice weekend.
The campaign is turning harsh, with the standard Republican accusation that the Democratic Party's nominee is a "Socialist" or "Communist". This drives the political discourse into the mud, especially when the accuser is wearing one of our incredible and furry Commie Obama hats! Get yours today for only $29.99 at CommieObama.com!
Silly conservative, it is not fair to call Obama a communist until AFTER he takes your property away. Remember, it has to be fair.
We saw two excellent articles this past week that expand on this topic:
Author Paul Kengor writes in the American Thinker, Why Obama's Communist Connections Are Not Headlines. He argues our education system has let down its students when it comes to the history of communism. Further, he addresses faculties' revulsion to anti-communist speech:
These professors glare at me as if the ghost of Joe McCarthy has flown into the room and leapt inside of my body. In fact, that's the essence of their criticism: It is not so much that these professors approve of communism as much as they disapprove of -- actually, utterly despise -- anti-communism. They are anti-anti-communist more so than pro-communist. Conservatives need to understand this, so as to avoid broad-brushing and losing credibility. Sure, a lot of professors are Marxists, and many more share the utopian goals of Marxism, but the vast majority are simply leftists.
They aren't communists. They are anti-anti-communists. Or as we say, they are "communist inspired". More Kengor:
What's more, aside from failing to instruct their students in the crass facts about communism's unprecedented destruction -- its purges, mass famines, show trials, killing fields, concentration camps -- these educators are negligent in failing to teach the essential, non-emotional, but crucial Econ 101 basics that contrast capitalism and communism and, thus, that get at the heart of how and why command economies simply do not work. Each semester in my Comparative Politics course at Grove City College, it takes no more than 50 minutes to matter-of-factly lay out the rudimentary differences. Whereas capitalist systems are based on the market forces of supply and demand, which dictate prices and production levels and targets, communist systems are based on central planning, by which a government bureau attempts to manage such things. Capitalism is based on private ownership; communism on public ownership. Capitalism thrives on small government and taxes; communism on large government and taxes, typically progressive income-tax rates and estate taxes -- both advocated explicitly by Marx -- and much more.
This stuff isn't rocket science. It is easy to teach, if the professor desires. The problem is that it isn't being taught. Consequently, Americans today do not know why communism is such a devastating ideology, at both the level of plain economic theory and in actual historical practice. It is a remarkably hateful system, based on literal hatred and targeted annihilation of entire classes and groups of people. (Nazism sought genocide based on ethnicity; communism sought genocide based on class.)
This stuff isn't rocket science. It is easy to teach, if the professor desires. The problem is that it isn't being taught. Consequently, Americans today do not know why communism is such a devastating ideology, at both the level of plain economic theory and in actual historical practice. It is a remarkably hateful system, based on literal hatred and targeted annihilation of entire classes and groups of people. (Nazism sought genocide based on ethnicity; communism sought genocide based on class.)
Good stuff. We read his book on Reagan - The Crusader
And we look forward to reading his book, The Judge
, about Reagan advisor William Clark.
James Lewis, also writing in the American Thinker, On Bill Ayers and Small 'c' Communists. He explains the difference between six million (holocaust deaths) and one hundred million (communism), and why those numbers matter. He begins this discussion:
I know goofy liberals who moan about all the good intentions demonstrated by Karl Marx, Lenin, and Trotsky. They're all Obama voters, for some reason. They are the same kinds of people who think Jesus was a communist, and that George W. Bush is Hitler. They are often the kind of people who try desperately to be completely nice in their lives, especially to designated victims. But often they harbor a belly full of rage -- against conservatives, or big corporations, or fundamentalist Christians, or anybody who challenges their belief in their own saintliness.
If you're interested - a related AFP article about the Communist Party USA's anticipation for the coming election.
"We can afford to be less on the defensive for the first time since Ronald Reagan, and we can say our word in rebuilding America on a new basis, rebuilding a better world, instead of one based on the greed of the few."
Go, Commie, Go!
We'll be back online no later than Sunday. Have a nice weekend.
Sunday, October 12, 2008
The Socialist Tsunami
An IBD editorial says it all.
Read it. Twice.
The Crash: "Why has the market dropped so much?" everyone asks. What is it about the specter of our first socialist president and the end of capitalism as we know it that they don't understand?
What is that agenda? It starts with a tax system right out of Marx: A massive redistribution of income — from each according to his ability, to each according to his need — all in the name of "neighborliness," "patriotism," "fairness" and "justice."
Read it. Twice.
Friday, October 10, 2008
Karl's Weekend Reading
The other Karl, Karl Rove, comments about the second debate and the remaining challenges for Obama. Thursday's WSJ, Voters Haven't Decided Yet.
Dorothy Rabinowitz points out the obvious in her WSJ opinion piece, News Flash: The Media Back Obama.
Speaking of a biased press, WSJ's James Taranto has buried his fangs into their latest misleading game - the all pure "Fact Check" reporting. In his Thursday Best of the Web, James presents a fact, and how two leading news agencies can draw different conclusions to benefit their bias. He sums it up well:
Remember not to question their patriotism when you read American Thinker's piece, Shocking Revelations about Biden in Soviet-Era Documents. Quoting from Hot Air:
WSJ's Mary Anastasia O'Grady suggests tripling the US support to Columbia in response to Chavez's latest posturing, and asks Democrats to answer "whose side they are on", in her Monday article, Democrats Shouldn't Coddle Chavez.
Mr. Obama's test is that voters haven't shaken deep concerns about his lack of qualifications. Having accomplished virtually nothing in his three years in the Senate except to win the Democratic nomination, Mr. Obama must show he is up to the job. Voters like him, conditions favor him, yet he has not closed the sale. He may be approaching the finish line with that mixture of lassitude and insouciance he displayed in the spring against Mrs. Clinton.
Dorothy Rabinowitz points out the obvious in her WSJ opinion piece, News Flash: The Media Back Obama.
The single constant in the eternal election remains the media, whose activist role no one will seriously dispute. To point out the prevailing (with honorable exceptions) double standard of reporting so favorable to Mr. Obama by now feels superfluous -- much like talking about the weather. The same holds true for all those reports pointing to Mr. Obama's heroic status outside the United States -- not to mention the cascade of press analyses warning that if he fails to win election, the cause will surely be racism.
Speaking of a biased press, WSJ's James Taranto has buried his fangs into their latest misleading game - the all pure "Fact Check" reporting. In his Thursday Best of the Web, James presents a fact, and how two leading news agencies can draw different conclusions to benefit their bias. He sums it up well:
It is fine, indeed quite useful, for reporters to present relevant facts that voters can use in evaluating candidates' campaign claims. In this "fact check" form, however, journalists play prosecutor, judge and jury, deciding what evidence to present, what evidence to admit, and what it all means (CNN actually calls the conclusion a "verdict"). Why not just report and let the reader decide?
Remember not to question their patriotism when you read American Thinker's piece, Shocking Revelations about Biden in Soviet-Era Documents. Quoting from Hot Air:
According to internal Soviet Union documents from the SALT-2 negotiations in 1979, Joe Biden effectively told Soviet negotiators not to worry about American rhetoric about human-rights concerns. In fact, Biden also told the Soviets that the Senate didn't really care about European security, but only in giving the appearance of caring about it.
WSJ's Mary Anastasia O'Grady suggests tripling the US support to Columbia in response to Chavez's latest posturing, and asks Democrats to answer "whose side they are on", in her Monday article, Democrats Shouldn't Coddle Chavez.
The strongest immediate signal the U.S. could send Mr. Chávez and Latin American democracies is unequivocal support for Colombia. President Bush has tried to do that but the effort is being undermined by Congressional Democrats.
---
The FARC also expressed faith in Mrs. Pelosi as someone who "helps" in its effort to undermine Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Mr. McGovern said in a letter to this newspaper that the FARC was engaging in fantasy. But maybe instead the rebels put their faith in Mrs. Pelosi because they perceive a common friend...
---
The FARC also expressed faith in Mrs. Pelosi as someone who "helps" in its effort to undermine Colombian President Alvaro Uribe. Mr. McGovern said in a letter to this newspaper that the FARC was engaging in fantasy. But maybe instead the rebels put their faith in Mrs. Pelosi because they perceive a common friend...
Thursday, October 09, 2008
Obama & The New Party
We would say "We told you so", but as an avid Ushanka.us reader you were already 'in the know'. Click anywhere - this site's whole purpose for existing is to connect the Democrat dots with the Commie dots. It's just a coincidence that the current Democratic nominee for president is
Our fellow bloggers have run wild with this latest story about Obama's connection with the marxist New Party (NP) and the Democratic Socialists for America (DSA). We have read everything we could find, and are providing you an executive summary on the topic along with links to the blog posts with original content and expert analysis.
Background:
The DSA established the NP to move their socialist principles forward through elected officials.
Membership in the NP was the method for Democrats to convey their leftward intentions, to differentiate from the moderate Democrats.
A tactic of the NP, and other groups, was called "Fusion", which allowed a Democrat to join the New Party and combine the votes from both parties in a primary. This allowed a NP candidate to defeat their moderate opponents who ran only on the Democratic ticket. It appears Obama benefitted from Fusion in his 1996 win. The Supreme Court ruled Fusion unconstitutional in 1998, and the NP dissolved shortly thereafter.
The DSA exists today.
Obama's Links to DSA and NP:
The news that put this topic back on the blogosphere front page: Obama signed a contract with the New Party promising "a visible and active relationship with the NP". The controversy - back in June the Obama campaign, along with the DSA and NP, denied NP or DSA membership. Ever. Blogger Politically Drunk on Power found a deleted, yet archived, NP webpage from October 1996 announcing member Obama's recent primary victory - link.
The same blogger also found recognition in the "Progressive Populist" magazine from November 1996 that states Obama was a NP member - link.
Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker digs deeper and finds evidence of Obama's NP membership from 1995 in the DSA's publication, New Ground 42 - link.
The DSA has endorsed Obama
Conclusion:
Obama is a closet commie, and our fellow bloggers are starting to take notice.
Ushanka Tips to the bloggers with original content and analysis:
American Thinker
Doug Ross
Sweetness & Light
Politically Drunk On Power
Yid with a Lid
ONE
BIG
DOT!
Our fellow bloggers have run wild with this latest story about Obama's connection with the marxist New Party (NP) and the Democratic Socialists for America (DSA). We have read everything we could find, and are providing you an executive summary on the topic along with links to the blog posts with original content and expert analysis.
Background:
The DSA established the NP to move their socialist principles forward through elected officials.
Membership in the NP was the method for Democrats to convey their leftward intentions, to differentiate from the moderate Democrats.
A tactic of the NP, and other groups, was called "Fusion", which allowed a Democrat to join the New Party and combine the votes from both parties in a primary. This allowed a NP candidate to defeat their moderate opponents who ran only on the Democratic ticket. It appears Obama benefitted from Fusion in his 1996 win. The Supreme Court ruled Fusion unconstitutional in 1998, and the NP dissolved shortly thereafter.
The DSA exists today.
Obama's Links to DSA and NP:
The news that put this topic back on the blogosphere front page: Obama signed a contract with the New Party promising "a visible and active relationship with the NP". The controversy - back in June the Obama campaign, along with the DSA and NP, denied NP or DSA membership. Ever. Blogger Politically Drunk on Power found a deleted, yet archived, NP webpage from October 1996 announcing member Obama's recent primary victory - link.
The same blogger also found recognition in the "Progressive Populist" magazine from November 1996 that states Obama was a NP member - link.
Thomas Lifson at the American Thinker digs deeper and finds evidence of Obama's NP membership from 1995 in the DSA's publication, New Ground 42 - link.
The DSA has endorsed Obama
...DSA believes that the possible election of Senator Obama to the presidency in November represents a potential opening for social and labor movements to generate the critical political momentum necessary to implement a progressive political agenda.
Conclusion:
Obama is a closet commie, and our fellow bloggers are starting to take notice.
Ushanka Tips to the bloggers with original content and analysis:
American Thinker
Doug Ross
Sweetness & Light
Politically Drunk On Power
Yid with a Lid
Thursday Afternoon Cigar
We smoked a CAO Brazilia while we read-up on the latest Obama-New Party news. We'll add a post on the subject later tonight.
Monday, October 06, 2008
A Glimpse Into the Future
A prescient look at Karl in the near future:
Our preemptive apology to our Dear Leader Obama, assuming he wins.
Our preemptive apology to our Dear Leader Obama, assuming he wins.
Sunday, October 05, 2008
Sunday Afternoon Cigar
We burned another Camacho SLR Maduro after watching the new movie American Carol. We highly recommend both the cigar and the movie!
Karl's Weekend Reading
The $750 billion bailout was the main event of the week, with the Pelosi-whatshisname debate a strong second. There was plenty of great commentary on both, but only one worth passing on. We're supplementing this short list with three bailout-related videos.
Mary Anastasia o"Grady at the WSJ writes in Monday's paper, What We Can Learn From Chile's Financial Crisis. She writes before Friday's bailout bill that an alternative similar to Chile's would be better for America, namely government loans to the banks rather than government taking responsibility for managing the assets.
So true. We first mentioned this solution in a list of suggestions by Newt Gingrich, September 24th.
Bill O'Reilly goes off on the culprit of the financial disaster, Barney Frank. This is mild compared to the appropriate response:
We nominate the National Republican Congressional Committee for the best political commercial - ever.
And Saturday Night Live comes pretty close to the facts in last night's skit. U/T Babalu.
NBC pulls the controversial clip. See it here. U/T: SondraK
UPDATE - 15 minutes later: Found a video of proud Ushanka owner Ann Coulter suggesting war-crimes tribunals! U/T: Sweetness & Light.
Mary Anastasia o"Grady at the WSJ writes in Monday's paper, What We Can Learn From Chile's Financial Crisis. She writes before Friday's bailout bill that an alternative similar to Chile's would be better for America, namely government loans to the banks rather than government taking responsibility for managing the assets.
It took several years for Chile to recover from its banking crisis and the U.S. will also need time to work off its credit mania. Federal assistance may be required. But that doesn't mean that we need to hand a blank check to the government that will allow it to expand its powers yet again.
So true. We first mentioned this solution in a list of suggestions by Newt Gingrich, September 24th.
Bill O'Reilly goes off on the culprit of the financial disaster, Barney Frank. This is mild compared to the appropriate response:
We nominate the National Republican Congressional Committee for the best political commercial - ever.
And Saturday Night Live comes pretty close to the facts in last night's skit. U/T Babalu.
NBC pulls the controversial clip. See it here. U/T: SondraK
UPDATE - 15 minutes later: Found a video of proud Ushanka owner Ann Coulter suggesting war-crimes tribunals! U/T: Sweetness & Light.
Friday, October 03, 2008
Mac vs. PC: I'm a PC
Would you agree there are too many PCs in the world, and not enough MAC's?
Our thanks to the following PCs: Al Gore, Keith Olberman, Nancy Pelosi, Lenin, Dukakis, Rachel Maddow, Joe Biden, Trotsky, John F. Kerry, Lloyd Bentson, Harry Reid, Stalin, Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton, Campbell Brown, Walter Mondale, Khrushchev, and, uh, Barack Hussein Obama.
Our thanks to the following PCs: Al Gore, Keith Olberman, Nancy Pelosi, Lenin, Dukakis, Rachel Maddow, Joe Biden, Trotsky, John F. Kerry, Lloyd Bentson, Harry Reid, Stalin, Howard Dean, Jimmy Carter, Hillary Clinton, Campbell Brown, Walter Mondale, Khrushchev, and, uh, Barack Hussein Obama.
Children O' Mao
We're not the only ones that see through this charade. We heard Mark Levin play the audio of these kids singing their Obama song, and his first thought was of Mao. Nice to see someone added the proper perspective in this video remix:
Thursday, October 02, 2008
The New Standard
We regret we have to use the word "New" in this post title. In a perfect world, this would be the "Usual Standard" and probably wouldn't warrant a blog post. But in a perfect world, we wouldn't be asking the taxpayers for a bailout.
U/T: Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI for speaking for the people.
U/T: SondraK for video
U/T: Rep. Thaddeus McCotter, R-MI for speaking for the people.
U/T: SondraK for video
Hugo-Glover Pictures Presents
There are some in Hollywood that are uncomfortable with how the town has become a bastion of right wing neo-cons. Danny Glover is one such celebrity.
His solution is to go to the source, as former SAG President Ronald Reagan would put it. Danny Glover has penned a financing agreement with Hugo Chavez for two movies - $20 million. Both movies will be about Latin American revolutionaries.
We were hoping Glover could work on a couple sequels:
U/T to Sweetness & Light for the story and picture.
His solution is to go to the source, as former SAG President Ronald Reagan would put it. Danny Glover has penned a financing agreement with Hugo Chavez for two movies - $20 million. Both movies will be about Latin American revolutionaries.
We were hoping Glover could work on a couple sequels:
U/T to Sweetness & Light for the story and picture.
The Bias in the MSM
We've saved several links from the past days that all seem to fit in this post about the liberal bias in the MSM. Normally we pass on posting content like this, as we prove the MSM bias beyond any shadow of the doubt each and every day on our home page. But today we're motivated by the MSM's unprofessional coverage of Gov. Palin leading up to the debate. It is a clear attempt to discredit her, and to fill the liberal minds of mush among the Democrat pawns out there with mindless talking points.
From Instapundit, Sept. 29:
From HotAir, Oct. 1, a video showing the MSM's contempt for Gov. Palin:
The story came out this week that Gwen Ifill, the moderator of tonight's VP debate, has a book coming out in November called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Bill Dyer at Hugh Hewitt's blog responds to her deception, and PBS's bias by ignoring the conflict of interest, with this suggestion:
And today, Mike Allen at Politico writing on this story, writes this nonsense:
Not anymore, Mike.
Jim Treacher offers some suggested questions for the debate.
From Instapundit, Sept. 29:
A READER AT A MAJOR NEWSROOM EMAILS: "Off the record, every suspicion you have about MSM being in the tank for O is true. We have a team of 4 people going thru dumpsters in Alaska and 4 in arizona. Not a single one looking into Acorn, Ayers or Freddiemae. Editor refuses to publish anything that would jeopardize election for O, and betting you dollars to donuts same is true at NYT, others. People cheer when CNN or NBC run another Palin-mocking but raising any reasonable inquiry into obama is derided or flat out ignored. The fix is in, and its working." I asked permission to reprint without attribution and it was granted.
From HotAir, Oct. 1, a video showing the MSM's contempt for Gov. Palin:
The story came out this week that Gwen Ifill, the moderator of tonight's VP debate, has a book coming out in November called The Breakthrough: Politics and Race in the Age of Obama. Bill Dyer at Hugh Hewitt's blog responds to her deception, and PBS's bias by ignoring the conflict of interest, with this suggestion:
...if for no other reason than the potential appearance of a conflict of interest, Gwen Ifill should publicly disclose her book's impending release and title to the entire nation at the very beginning of tomorrow night's debate. To do anything less would be unethical.
And today, Mike Allen at Politico writing on this story, writes this nonsense:
Ifill is moderator and managing editor of "Washington Week" and senior correspondent of "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer." She is viewed as one of Washington's fairest journalists.
Not anymore, Mike.
Jim Treacher offers some suggested questions for the debate.
Wednesday, October 01, 2008
The Obama Debate, Uh, Drinking Game
UPDATE 10/2: YouTuber barackhObamadotcom posted this similar video on Sept. 26: