Back then he was honest about it

October 26, 2008

Here’s a recording of the Prophet Barack discussing the need for wealth redistribution:


Here are the key points to take from this:

  • Obama does not think the courts went far enough by ensuring civil rights for all citizens: they ignored the problem of wealth redistribution, which has been an error in the Constitution since the Founding. Wealth redistribution is a tool to bring about racial justice.
  • He also thinks the courts are not the best vehicle for redistribution: legislation can handle it. It isn’t a question of "should we do it," but "how we do it."

In the 1990s, Obama was a member of the Socialist New Party. He has been raised all his life, from Hawaii to his rise through Illinois politics, surrounded by people on the Hard Left of politics. Economic redistributionism is as natural to him as breathing, although it is massively opposed by Americans across almost all political stripes.

I don’t know how the McCain people missed this. They must be the world’s worst researchers. It fits perfectly with their current campaign themes and should be blasted in every commercial they have.

Let’s hope the message gets out in spite of them. On the phone

(hat tip: LGF)

LINKS: Ace, Tigerhawk, Flopping Aces, Ed Morrissey.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin quotes Jeff Goldstein’s comment on one of Obama’s statements in this radio show:

In Obama’s America, we’ll finally be able to break free of the “constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution” — and in so doing, achieve “social justice” through “redistributive change.”

Well, then. Fine .

But this is not the America I knew…

It’s a cliché to say something is "chilling," but that’s exactly the word to describe how Obama’s desire to break free of what the Founders intended makes me feel. I revere the Founders and count our nation especially lucky to have had such men available at its birth who could work two miracles in Philadelphia: first the Declaration of Independence, and then the Constitution. That Barack Obama thinks we need to break free of what they accomplished … well, the hubris in that belief is breathtaking.

Ace gives this the flaming skull. This means it’s serious, folks. GIRD YOUR LOINS!

A fight in California

October 26, 2008

One of the touchstones of this election year, I thought, was that California would vote for Obama. It’s been a mainly Blue state since Earl Warren became governor, going Republican only a few times since then. If I had a thousand dollars to risk, I’d be tempted to bet on an Obama win here as the closest thing to a sure-win there is.

But, maybe it’s not….

AJ Strata continues his series on the accuracy of polls this year with the startling news that the Democrats have only a slim lead in the number of early and absentee ballots already submitted:

The results are simply shocking. The polls showed Barack Obama with an 18 point lead in California just a few days ago. The results thus far are the complete opposite. In the most liberal state in the entire country,the results are that 99,000 Republicans have voted and 96,000 Democrats voted. In the mail-in balloting the results so far are that 9,000 Democrats sent in their ballots and that 5,000 Republicans did so. So with nearly 210,000 people having voted,the Democrats have only a 1,000 vote advantage !

The Obama campaign has counted on a massive early turnout to lock in votes, but, so far, the results have to be disappointing to The One. And, something else to bear in mind: While I think it’s safe to assume the vast majority of Republican ballots are for McCain-Palin, a significant number of the Democratic votes could be from angry PUMAs getting revenge for their candidate’s ill-treatment at the hands of Obama and the DNC.

And that might explain why I’ve been seeing so many Obama commercials here, when common wisdom says it’s a waste of money to buy ads in an expensive state you’re sure to win … unless the campaign’s internal polls show a worrisome weakness?

Anyway, I agree with AJ: if California is a fight, then the whole nation is a fight. Not good for Obama, and very good for McCain.

Addendum: A commenter in an earlier entry writes:

But since you live in California, your vote does not count.

I’m inclined to agree as far as the Electoral College goes, but maybe, just maybe…. Praying


Meanwhile, back in the war…

October 26, 2008

Two items of note from The Long War Journal:

First and most dramatic, US Special Forces launched a helicopter-borne raid into Syria today, killing what Syrian television (an unbiased and independent source, I’m sure) described as "construction workers."

Syrian officials claim the US military conducted a cross-border raid into Syria from Iraqi territory.

The raid was reportedly carried out in the town of Sukkariya near Abu Kamal in eastern Syria. According to witnesses, four US helicopters crossed the border and two of the helicopters landed to drop off special operations forces.

Syrian television claimed nine people were killed and 14 were wounded during the raid. Syria claimed of those killed and wounded were construction workers.

The raid occurred close to the main border crossing point between Iraq and Syria. Al Qaeda declared an Islamic Emirate in Al Qaim right along the Iraqi border during the spring of 2005. Al Qaeda terrorized the local tribes and attempted to institute a Taliban-like rule. Al Qaim was the main infiltration route into Iraq until US Marines and Iraqi troops launched a campaign to dislodge al Qaeda from the region.

The US has neither confirmed nor denied the operation took place. If the attack occurred, it would have been carried out by Task Force 88, the special operations hunt-killer teams assigned to target al Qaeda operatives as well as Shia terrorists in Iraq.

The US has shied away from conducting strikes inside Syria in the past. If confirmed this would be the first such strike inside Syria since the US invaded Iraq in March of 2003.

And it’s long overdue. Syria has been facilitating the movement of terrorists into Iraq and supplying them with equipment for years. As far back as 2004, I was advocating raids and airstrikes against Syria, in order to "educate" the leadership there; I think our restraint only bought us more trouble.

Still, one wonders what was going on there. If we simply wanted to kill some brave, brave jihadis, we could have fired off Hellfire missiles, as we regularly do against the Taliban hiding in Pakistan. A helicopter assault, especially one that puts boots on the ground in hostile territory, is much riskier. I can only think there was something or someone very valuable there. Was this a raid to capture or kill a very high-value target? Who knows? The US as of now isn’t doing much talking. But those "construction workers" were hiding something big, of that I’m certain.

Second, we struck the Taliban and their al Qaeda allies in Pakistan again today,  hitting what sounds like a training camp:

US unmanned Predator aircraft have struck again inside Pakistan’s tribal areas. The latest attack occurred in the Shakai region north of Wana in South Waziristan. This is a region under the control of Pakistani Taliban leader Baitullah Mehsud.

Eight people were reported killed after missiles struck what a Pakistani security official described as a "facility." The Taliban and al Qaeda are known to have numbers camps and support facilities in South Waziristan. There are no reports of senior Taliban or al Qaeda leaders killed or wounded.

The US has targeted Baitullah’s tribal areas at least three times this year. The US military targeted Baitullah Mehsud in his hometown of Makeen on June 14.

The LWJ article points out that this is part of an accelerated series of attacks against the Taliban and al Qaeda, who are hiding in Pakistan’s Northwest Frontier Province, over most of which the Pakistani government has abandoned all but the flimsiest pretense of sovereign control. In 2006 and 2007, we staged a total of ten attacks. This year alone, we’ve struck the enemy in Pakistan 25 times. I think it’s a reflection of both concern over the Taliban and al Qaeda’s resurgence in their safe havens and of us gaining access to better intelligence regarding their movements and activities. This year, we’ve sent three of al Qaeda senior leaders to meet Allah. That and the increased pace of attacks should worry bin Laden and his toad, Zawahiri.

Something that should worry us: al Qaeda has 157 known training camps in the NWFP, and US intelligence believes the next major strike against the West will come from this area. Nailbiting

Oh, and nuclear-armed Pakistan is falling apart. NailbitingNailbiting

LINKS: More at Power Line and Hot Air.


Pondering polls

October 26, 2008

AJ Strata, continuing his musing over polls and whether they’re really accurate this year, passes on the following intriguing anecdote:

I was having dinner a night ago with a friend of mine who is a statistician for a well-regarded private polling company. They do some work for Republicans in California, but most of the work they do is for Democrats or Democrat-leaning operations (Unions, etc.). Anyway, her shop was retained to do a few Presidential polls for targetted states on behalf of a union so the union could decide where to spend their ad dollars for the last week. They did Ohio, Florida, North Carolina, New Hampshire, Pennsylvania, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada and Missouri. After mocking the hell out of the voter id spreads used by Rassmussen, Zogby, etc. (and this is coming from a committed Dem who will be voting for Barry O) she said the results of their polling lead her to believe that McCain will definitely win FL, OH, NC, MO and NV. She says Obama definitely wins New Mexico. She said that Colorado and New Hampshire were absolute dead heats. She said she thinks there is a 55% chance Obama holds on in Pennsylvania and a 75% chance McCain wins Virginia. She absolutely laughed at the public polls showing Obama leading Virginia–and pointed out that all of those polls rely on Dem turnout being +4 and as much as +7, when in 2006, Republicans actually had the advantage by +3. She also pointed out that the numbers for Obama in SWVA look absolutely awful and that McCain is running 10 points better then Allen did in NoVa.

Anyway, her companies conclusion is that the election will come down to Colorado, New Hampshire and the Republican leaning district in Maine, which in her opinion might very well decide the Presidency (apparently the district in Nebraska that Obama thought he might be able to get is now off the table). She said she has very little doubt that the public polling is part of a “concerted voter suppression effort” by the MSM. She said IBD/TIPP was the only outfit doing public polling that was “worth a bucket of warm piss”.

(Strata’s emphasis.)

This is good news, if the unknown statistician is right. One thing I’d add to this is my hunch that McCain-Palin will take Pennsylvania. The western portion of the state went massively for Hillary in the Democratic primary in the wake of Obama’s Bittergate fiasco, overwhelming Obama’s base in Philly, and Jack Murtha’s remark that western Pennsylvanian voters were racists must have cost The One some votes. Plus, let’s not forget the PUMA effect: Hillary voters who, angry at Obama and the Democratic National Committee for what they see as cheating, will not vote in November or will even vote for McCain. Call me crazy, but I think the Keystone state goes Red this year.

Read the rest of AJ’s post for interesting thoughts on the questionable methodology of most public polls these days.


Sunday morning humor

October 26, 2008

Saturday Night Live goofs on two goofballs, Senator Joe Biden and Congressman John Murtha:


Is this a satire or a documentary? Hee hee

(via Hot Air)


Voting for McCain

October 26, 2008

I believe that one should be able to articulate why one is voting for a candidate, not against another. I call the latter "negative voting" and, in the end, I think it's harmful to the political process. (Just why is an essay for another day.) Even if one decides to vote for Candidate A because she'll do less damage than Candidate B, that's still a positive reason, albeit a sad one.

With that in mind, I set out to explain why I support John McCain, not just oppose Barack Obama. But the ever-incisive Charles Krauthammer beat me to it and said it better than I ever could:

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

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

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

There's just no comparison. Obama's own running mate warned this week that Obama's youth and inexperience will invite a crisis — indeed a crisis "generated" precisely to test him. Can you be serious about national security and vote on Nov. 4 to invite that test?

My main concern is foreign affairs. We're in the midst of World War IV, a multi-generational struggle against a jihadist Islam that wants nothing less than our submission or destruction. Tinhorn dictators the world over are seeking nuclear and other horrific weapons to threaten us and our allies. Great powers such as Russia and China are becoming more and more aggressive and threatening to the liberal international order we thrive in. Outside of a small circle of like-minded liberal democracies, the world is a dangerous place, existing in a Hobbesian state of nature — bellum omnium contra omnes.

Does that scare you? It should.

In such a world, of the candidates we have to choose from, there is no other reasonable choice. I want John McCain.