US Elections Archives

Barack Obama: Natural Born Liar

Filed under: US Elections

Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer had a devastating piece last week exposing the torrent of lies issuing recently from the mouth of Barack Obama:

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

The Devil and Mr. Obama: A Tragicomedy in Three Parts

Filed under: US Elections

PART I - Mr. Obama Goes Back to Church

So, Barack Obama makes his first visit to a church over the weekend after throwing his old church (of two decades) under the bus when it became politically inconvenient. One must wonder, of course, what else he'll be prepared to throw under the bus when it suits him -- our country, for instance? Does he, in fact, actually believe anything at all, other than that (just like Bill Clinton) he really wants to be president?

And while speaking at this church in Chicago, he declares that black fathers are "missing from too many lives and too many homes, they have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it."

I'd be genuinely interested in being educated by readers who are more expert in Obama's past than I am:

(1) In his pre-presidential career, what has he done for black folks? What, specifically, has he done to improve the lives of American blacks, either on a local or, more importantly, on a national scale? Because, if it's nothing, that would imply that black people are voting for him based on the color of his skin -- and as far as I'm concerned, that's racism.

(2) Has Obama ever said anything about negative about black fathers before he decided he wanted to be president? Has he ever said it to a room full of black voters during a campaign? More important, has he actually done anything to crack down on these irresponsible fathers? Because if he hasn't, that would imply he's only making this remark because he hopes it will play well among white voters -- a group he has substantial trouble with.

(3) Do black people take Obama seriously when he says things like this? Because if Obama really believes what he said, that should mean any number of people will come forward now to attack him as an "Uncle Tom" selling out to "whitey," the way they attacked Bill Cosby for saying similar things, the way they attack personages like Condi Rice, Clarence Thomas and J.C. Watts. Is that happening? Because if not, that would imply Obama is so sure of his black constituency that he believes they will blindly vote for him no matter what he says. In that case, see (1) above, and it would make his statement seem like a cosmic joke of truly epic proportions.

PART II: Mr. Obama Steps in it . . . Again!

Recently I reported on the fact that Obama's very first act in setting his presidential campaign in motion had been a total disaster leading to a humiliating resignation, and that this was pretty damning since Obama had specifically told us that, since he lacks executive experience, we must judge him by the quality of his campaign.

Again, leave aside how simply insane this position is. It means that, in Obama's view, anyone who manages to get elected president is therefore qualified to be president.

Amazingly, in his second major decision, he's blown it again. This time he has attempted to appoint a former campaign manager of Hillary Clinton's to chair his vice presidential nominee's staff before that nominee has even been selected. In other words, Obama is denying his own nominee the chance to have input as to who will lead the nominee's own staff! Even the Daily Kos, fanatically pro-Obama, is dumbfounded by this outrageous and arrogant misstep.

Two pitches, two strikes. Need we say more?

PART III: They Call Him Mr. Smear

The Chicago Sun Times reports that Obama has formed a new website to fight "smears" against his campaign. And how does he start things off? By smearing Rush Limbaugh with an utterly false accusation. Obama also claims that conservative bloggers started the rumor that his wife had used a racist term for whites while at church with Jeremiah Wright, a rumor Limbaugh specifically questioned. In fact, that's also totally false. A liberal blogger started the rumor, and left-wing journalists then turned around and blamed it on conservatives. Time magazine's Jay Carney was forced to apologize, but Obama still hasn't said a word.

Seems that rather than fighting smears with truth, Obama prefers to fight the truth with smears. how ironic!

« Close It

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

They Want to Destroy us, so They Love Obama

Filed under: US Elections

This chart shows the results of a recent survey conducted by the Pew Research Center.

On page 26 of the report, it states that of the nearly two dozen countries surveyed only Russia, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordon, Egypt, China and Pakistan had a larger group of respondents say the U.S. was an enemy rather than a partner. Of those, in only Turkey and Pakistan was the larger group a majority.

70% of the people in Turkey see the U.S. as an enemy. In the chart, they prefer Obama to become president by a margin of 4-1. 60% of Pakistanis say the U.S. is an enemy, and they prefer Obama nearly 2-1. 39% of Egyptians view America as a foe, and they preferred Obama by a 3-2 margin. 34% of Russians and Chinese respondents said the U.S. was an enemy, and Russians preferred Obama 39-22 while Chinese liked him slightly less well, 36-31. Obama has also been endorsed by the America-loathing terrorists of Hamas and the U.S.-despising Fidel Castro of Cuba.

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Watch Out! Everyone's an American, Now

Filed under: US Elections

The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed down its decision in the Boumediene case. With a 5-4 vote, just one unelected Supreme Court judge, the moderate Anthony Kennedy (shown above, he wrote the decision), who sided with the court's four left-wing liberals, suddenly discovered, after more than 200 years of the U.S. Constitution's existence, that it applies to people who are neither (a) American citizens nor (b) even located on American soil. The court's four conservative judges harshly rejected the decision.

The case involves prisoners of war who are housed at the U.S. military base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The court ruled that they have the right to invoke the "writ of habeas corpus" provision in the Constitution that lets a court set someone free from illegal arrest prior to trial. Writing in opposition to the decision another judge, Antonin Scalia, stated: "Today, for the first time in our Nation's history, the court confers a constitutional right to habeas corpus on alien enemies detained abroad. The writ of habeas corpus does not, and never has, run in favor of aliens abroad." Scalia notes five incidents of radical Islamic terror against the U.S. that have cost 3,434 American lives in just the past few years.

Scalia condemns "the game of bait and switch that today's opinion plays upon the Nation's Commander in Chief" and warns that it will make the war on terrorism "harder on us" and "almost certainly cause more Americans to be killed" since they will be less able to defend themselves. He says that the decision "warps our Constitution" and "blatantly misdescribes important precedents" to "break a chain of precedents as old as the common law that prohibits judicial inquiry into detentions of aliens abroad absent statutory authorization."

And he warns: "Most tragically, it sets our military commanders the impossible task of proving to a civilian court, under whatever standards this Court devises in the future, that evidence supports the confinement of each and every enemy prisoner."

The world should be shocked and outraged by this decision, for two reasons.

First, it implies that the U.S. Constitution applies to the whole world. It follows that American governance does too.

Second, it tells the U.S. military in no uncertain terms that it should not take prisoners. It should simply kill all enemy combatants on sight, or face bankruptcy trying to prove their need to be imprisoned -- and face barbaric terrorism if forced to free them into our midst.

This is the result of so-called liberalism. The world seems not to understand that it is the party of the right in America which favors governmental restraint, and the party of the left which favors unbridled governmental ambition. If George Bush took an action like this, the mootbats of the Daily Kos for instance would condemn it, but when it comes from "their" judges apparently it's just fine and dandy.

Unelected judges, even nine in agreement, can't make military policy. When just a single judge tries to do so, the result can only be catastrophe. First the California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage, and now the U.S. Supreme Court extends the U.S. Constitution to the whole world. It seems America's courts are doing all they can to assure Republican victory in November.

« Close It

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

The Dumbocrats vs. the Filibuster: Let the Battle Begin!

Filed under: US Elections

If you want to understand national governmental power in the United States, one word is far more important to know than any other. That word is "filibuster."

The president of the U.S. can do nothing unless a law is passed authorizing him to take executive action.

A law cannot be passed by Congress unless both of its constituent bodies, the House and the Senate, agree.

And the Senate cannot agree unless it can vote. As long as there are 41 votes against voting, the Senate can be stopped from voting (and hence agreeing) even if there are 59 votes in favor of the substantive topic, because any individual senator is permitted to speak on any topic as long as he likes -- meaning he can decide to speak forever and stop all business unless a specific proposal is rejected. That's called a filibuster.

What this means is simple. No matter what happens in the presidential election this fall, no aspect of any Democratic Party agenda will be enacted unless the Democrats can muster 60 votes in the Senate. If the Republicans can muster 41 votes, then they can use the "filibuster" to block any legislative action and bring the legislative process to a halt.

The Democrats currently have 51 seats in the Sentate. You might think, then, that they need to pick up 9 seats in the November elections in order to block the Republican filibuster. But you'd be wrong to think that.

Writing in the Washington Post, columnist Robert Novak explains why. When the Democrats tried to put forth a proposal to address global warming and impose a windfall profit tax on the oil companies, their proposal went down in flames. Why? Novak writes: "Though [Senate Majority Leader Harry] Reid blamed Republican intransigence, 10 Democratic senators -- including five-term liberal stalwart Carl Levin of Michigan -- had written Reid last Friday telling him they could not 'support final passage of the bill' because of the economic impact it would have on their states." The same thing happened yesterday when the Democrats tried to extend unemployment benefits.

In other words, winning nine seats wouldn't be enough. To reach 60 votes on the global warming bill, the Democrats would have needed at least 70 seats -- and there's no chance they'll get anywhere near that total in this fall's elections. The Dumbocrats just can't seem to remember how many conservatives there are in their midst who simply don't support the left-wing agenda.

Though they have a larger majority in the House of Representatives, the Dumbocrats fortunes there have been no better. Speaker Nancy Pelosi has totally failed to enact any significant Democratic Party agenda items during her tenure as the first female speaker.

In other words, if the Dumbocrats somehow imagine that by winning the White House and expanding their congressional majority in November they can then move forward to actual govern the nation, they are deluding themselves. The last time they won such a victory, in 1976, their attempt to govern resulted in such a fiasco that they lost both the presidency and the Senate just four years later. Even if they win and hold on to power longer, that will mean nothing if they fail to enact their agenda.

During the presidency of Democrat Bill Clinton, Republicans nonetheless managed to enact free trade, a balanced budget and the abolition of federal welfare -- and they blocked the only serious Democrat agenda item that Clinton dared put forth, namely national healthcare. Viewed in hindsight, since the Republicans were also able to seize control of the House of Representatives for the first time in half a century, the presidency of "Democrat" Bill Clinton could easily be mistaken for one of the great Republican periods of governance in the nation's history.

Even as we speak, Obama and McCain are arguing about who will give the American people a bigger tax cut. Obama stated: "Both John McCain and I favor tax cuts. No matter what he says, both of us favor tax cuts. The difference is that Senator McCain wants to continue the Bush tax code that rewards wealth and I want to reform our tax code so it rewards work."

Maybe Obama hasn't noticed, as Clinton didn't, but cutting taxes is a Republican agenda point. It seems that the Dumbocrats would prefer to have a nominal president who enacts Republican policies than to have a Republican president who furthers the Democrat agenda. That’s just plain crazy, egomania of the highest order, and explains why the Dumbocrats have been so unsuccessful for so many years in actually governing the nation.

« Close It

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Barack Obama: Failure from the World "Go"

Filed under: US Elections

Even judged by his own insanely low standards, presumptive Democratic Party nominee Barack Obama, who admits that he has no executive experience of any kind, and hence lacks a fundamental qualification to be president, is a total failure from the word "go."

In fact, all the most recent presidents (Bush Jr., Clinton, Bush Sr., Reagan, Carter, Nixon) have had not only substantial executive experience but significant elected executive experience (they'd either been governor or vice president).

But Mr. Obama sets us a challenge: Look, he says, running a national campaign for president is a great executive challenge. So, if I show you I can do that well, you should be willing to give me a chance in the Oval Office.

Let's put aside for the moment the fact that this is total nonsense, and take him at his word.

Today, the New York Times reports that no sooner had Obama secured the Democratic nomination and named the head of a committee to recommend a vice presidential running mate then he was forced to accept the resignation of that choice, James A. Johnson, due to charges of corruption. The Times reports:

Mr. Johnson, who also directed Senator John Kerry's vice presidential search when he was the Democratic nominee in 2004, had come under fierce scrutiny in recent days after disclosures that he had received mortgage loans on favorable terms from Countrywide Financial, the beleaguered mortgage lender. His large paychecks and bonuses while president of Fannie Mae, the quasi-public government mortgage agency, also drew heavy Republican criticism. Mr. Obama had defended Mr. Johnson as recently as Tuesday, saying that he had only a "tangential" role in his campaign and that he was not troubled by his business activities. He said he had not inquired about his mortgages and would not hire people to, as he put it, "vet the vetters."

In other words, Obama was a total failure at the very first thing he tried to do in order to begin his campaign. And when his mistake was pointed out, he didn't immediately correct it, but continued making it in bull-headed fashion -- just the same thing he did when confronted with the outrageous conduct of his freakishly racist preacher Jeremiah Wright.

This is, to put it bluntly, exactly what you would expect from someone with no executive experience. He's never done anything like this before, so he's going to make plenty of mistakes. Is that really the person you want negotiating on your behalf with demonic liars like Vladimir Putin or Mahmoud Ahmadinejad?

Obama refuses to release his birth certificate, fueling rumors that it contains embarrassing facts about his given name.

A key financial supporter from Illinois, Tony Rezko, has just been sent to prison for corruption.

He's out of touch with reality and can't even control his own campaign workers.

He's not qualified to be president, and he shouldn't be. If he becomes president anyway and turns into a disaster, he could set the cause of black civil rights back twenty years.

« Close It

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Moonbats, Unhinged

Filed under: US Elections

You know how those on the left scoff at religion, as if anyone who believes it isn't a fully evolved human? Suddenly, it seems, they're changing their minds, and deciding that Barack Obama is a "lightworker." He became so studying racism at the feet of Jeremiah Wright, I guess.

Here are a few choice bits of their analysis:

JFK wasn't assassinated for any typical reason you can name. It's because he was just this kind of high-vibration being, a peacemaker, at odds with the war machine, the CIA, the dark side.

Umm, OK. But didn't JFK launch the Bay of Pigs and the Vietnam war.

I've heard from far too many enormously smart, wise, spiritually attuned people who've been intuitively blown away by Obama's presence - not speeches, not policies, but sheer presence - to say it's just a clever marketing ploy.

Err, maybe. But when conservatives said that about Reagan, liberals called him the "Teflon president" who was elevating form over substance, and they said they despised that. Moreover, apparently, none of these people were in California, Texas or New York, the nation's three largest electoral powerhouses. Obama lost them all.

Even Bill Clinton, with all his effortless, winking charm, didn't have what Obama has, which is a sort of powerful luminosity, a unique high-vibration integrity.

That's for sure. The integrity of Obama's racism runs deep indeed. And, um, just for the record, when Bill Clinton "won" the presidency in 1992, 57% of the country voted against him. And, unlike Obama, Clinton won California, Texas and New York -- then went on to "win" the presidency with just 43% of the popular vote, one of the narrowest shares in U.S. electoral history, and then got impeached.

Liberals say the country is headed for a massive recession, yet they are rejoicing about the idea of being in power when it happens. They say they favor "democracy" and yet they are rejoicing about the end of the Republican Party.

Kinda scary, isn't it?

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Want to Know why you Pay so Much at the Pump?

Filed under: US Elections

The always brilliant George Will will tell you. The money quote: "America says to foreign producers: We prefer not to pump our oil, so please pump more of yours, thereby lowering its value, for our benefit. Let it not be said that America has no energy policy."

We must open ANWR and our offshore resources before China and Cuba pump them dry. I mean, what's wrong with us, anyway?

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

McCain's Better Half?

Filed under: US Elections

It seems like John McCain would have to be quite insane not to pick a female running mate. Real Clear Politics reports:

A new Pew Research Center poll points to a surging tide of fury, especially among white women. As recently as April, this group preferred Obama over the presumptive Republican John McCain by three percentage points. By May, McCain enjoyed an eight-point lead among white women.

Female voters have every right to be outraged by the way in which Hillary Clinton -- the far better qualified alternative -- has been treated during the Democratic primary season. If they're smart, they'll send a clear message in November that they constitute a majority in this country and their vote is not to be trifled with by means such as the disenfranchisement of Florida and Michigan. If they do, this will be the last time the male-dominated power structure takes their concerns so lightly.

And yet, not a single female name appears on McCain's short list. In fact, among the names he's now floating only Bobby Jindal of Louisiana represents the kind of scintillating choice McCain needs to make in order to shore up his Republican base and show he's not just a cantankerous old man but an agent of change. McCain needs to understand that the foolhardy nomination of Obama means this election is his to lose. That means not getting complacent or arrogant and not losing focus. Only by taking his eye off the ball, like the fabled hare against the plodding tortoise, and getting self-indulgent can McCain fail to win the White House against such a polarizing, unqualified candidate as Barack Obama.

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Barack Obama, Slithering

Filed under: US Elections

My colleague "Incognito" (a Hollywood actress who keeps her identity secret to avoid being blacklisted as a conservative) has a devastating expose of Barack Obama's duplicity on Israel over at Instablogs. It's required reading for anyone thinking of voting in this year's general election in the United States. This man is a slithering snake and he must be stopped.

It's simply amazing to me that Democrats, consumed with righteous indignation over their allegation that George Bush "lied us into Iraq," would anoint as their candidate a man whose own dishonesty knows no bounds, who'll do and say anything, betray anyone, to gain the oval office, only then to reveal his true intentions. One is reminded of FDR and his secret socialism, of JFK and the Bay of Pigs.

Over the weekend, Obama resigned his membership in the Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago. Given his aura, one would have expected him to accompany this statement with a heartfelt mea culpa and condemnation of the Church, given that yet another of its religious leaders has been exposed as a strident racist.

But what Obama actually said was this: "We don't want to have to answer for everything that's stated in the church. We also don't want the church subjected to the scrutiny that a presidential campaign legitimately undergoes."

What you mean "we," Kimosabe? It's YOU, Mr. Obama, not you and a whole bunch of other people. YOU'RE the one who wants to be president of the country your church hates with blinding psychopathic passion. The sheer unmitigated gall of this man, to drag his wife into this issue while demanding nobody criticize her on other issues (or any issue) is revolting beyond words.

And get this: He's not resigning because the church is wrong, he's resigning because he's afraid its being wrong will be successfully used as a weapon against him. And he's as much concerned for the Church's wellbeing as he is his own, and ours. In other words, he's resignation is not made out of morality but out of political expediency.

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Democratic Doings in KY and OR: Sexist Media?

Filed under: US Elections

I might be the very last person on the face of the Earth who would wish to see Hillary Clinton become the president of the United States. I don't even want her to get the nomination of her party, because I see her as being a more dangerous, mainstream candidate than Barack Obama. But that doesn't make me any less disgusted by the manner in which she is being treated by the American media.

Last night, she obliterated Obama in the Democrat primary in the state of Kentucky in the same manner she had done in West Virgina last week, crushing the frontrunner 65-30. Yet, not only does the front page of the New York Times website this morning not report that fact, it carries a huge photograph of Barack Obama under a gigantic headline stating: "Obama Declares Bid Within Reach." You have to dig around in the paper's coverage to find out how badly Clinton whipped him in the bluegrass state. The fact that Obama could lose two states in a row this badly shows that his support is fundamentally hollow and fraudulent.

As shown in the graphic above from CNN, Obama was once again rejected by white voters in Kentucky by an overwhelming margin, polarizing the races rather than unifying them as he claims in his mission statement, the same thing that happened in North Carolina. Except it's getting worse.

In a ridiculous bit of propaganda, Obama pointed out that he now has a majority of the available regular pledged delegates. He doesn't remember to tell you how many of them he won in caucuses that won't be repeated in the general election, nor does he manage to tell you how utterly he's being repudiated by mainstream white voters in the aftermath of the Wright scandal. He omits the fact that he lost eight of the ten most significant electoral states and ignores his bonecrushing recent losses despite his clear frontrunner status. He trumpets his win in the other primary last night, Oregon, but he doesn't mention how he was humiliated there by being caught red-handed totally unfamiliar with the state's chief environmental issue, nor does he remember to tell you how he'd been similarly nabbed claiming America has 57 states (he must have been thinking of his beloved Organization of the Islamic Conference). Nor does Obama note that counting all the votes in both primaries last night, Clinton defeated him by a massive net margin of 150,000 votes.

It's well within Clinton's doable reach to deny Obama a majority of the available delegates, which includes a large portion of superdelegates, and thus force a brokered convention where anything could happen, including neither one of them getting the nomination (did somebody say "Al Gore to the rescue"?). Yet, the apparently sexist media insists the contest is over and the first female contender should just shut up and go away.

Outrageous. Once again we see how truly misleading the word "democratic" is when applied to this party. One supposes that it's predictable that since black men got the vote before women of any color, they will have a presidential candidate before women do -- but the blatant sexism being practiced here is truly revolting. Thankfully, Hillary is having none of it. You go, girl.

Michelle Malkin has a simply devastating inventory of Obama's ridiculous misstatements over the past few months. If you can read it and still support him, you're a candidate for the nut house.

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Memo to John McCain

Filed under: US Elections

DON'T DO IT!!!

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Democrats, Betraying Their Ideals

Filed under: US Elections

Ellen R. Malcolm, the founder and president of Emily's List (which promotes female candidates for government office), has a wonderful column in the Washington Post explaining how, by trying to drive Hillary Clinton out of the primary race, the Democrats are betraying their supposed core beliefs regarding diversity and social justice -- to say nothing of ignoring the fact that Barack Obama is far from sewing up the nomination and that most of his success has been due to dumb luck. For political expediency, the liberal MSM is trying to drive Hillary out of the race prematurely, and in so doing they show their true colors.

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Pop Quiz

Filed under: US Elections

This organization has 20 members.

It's obviously sexist, because only seven of its members are women, nearly twice as many are male -- even though women are a majority in the population of the nation where this organization operates.

It's also obviously racist. Only 1 member is black, 19 are white -- even though dark-skinned people make up more than 15% of the population in the nation where this organization operates. So minorities are under-represented by a factor of three, even more oppressed within its confines than women. Zero Hispanics. Zero Asians.

What organization is it? Answer after the jump.

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

He's Mr. Lucky

Filed under: US Elections

When the history of the 2008 Democrat presidential primary is written, if Barack Obama is the nominee then two key facts will been seen to explain his victory.

First, the North Carolina primary. A red state that went for George Bush in a massive landslide in 2004 (56-43) was allowed to play the pivotal role of destroying Hillary Clinton's hopes for the White House, history will say, and in determining who the Democrats would use to challenge the Republicans in the general election. Obama's victory came because although he was crushed by Clinton among white voters 50% of the state's registered Democrat voters are black, they turned out in droves on election day, and over 90% voted for Obama, a disturbingly Soviet-like majority, to say the least. North Carolina got this position of authority, of course, by sheer happenstance, luck of the draw.

Second, the Florida and Michigan primaries that weren't. Clinton has totally dominated Obama in all the top-ten electoral states except Georgia and Obama's home state of Illinois, sweeping him in all the top three states. There's no reason whatsoever to think that domination wouldn't have continued in both Florida and Michigan, but these two top-ten states chose to violate their party's rules and hold their primaries out of sequence, nullifying their votes. Had they not done so, Clinton might already have sewn up the nomination. Again, sheer random fortune controlled the outcome.

It doesn't quite add up, does it? The candidate who claims to be a racial unifier divides to conquer, articulating his campaign in stark black-and-white terms. Republicans choose for Democrats and Democrats, who screamed to high heaven in 2000 about counting every vote, totally ignore 20% of the ten most significant states in the land, treating places like Detroit and Miami as if they didn't even exist.

Is this how Obama proposes to govern our nation for four years? Dumb luck, mixed with racial polarization? Hmmm . . .

Now think about how every single one of the recent Democrat presidencies have crashed and burned. Clinton, impeached. Carter, one term. LBJ, not even nominated for second term. JFK, blown away, what else do I hafta say?

Does anyone else see a pattern here?

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Democratic Doings in North Carolina: Annals of Obama the Race Baiter

Filed under: US Elections

It seems that the risk of Democrat voters coming to their senses has passed. As shown above via CNN, in last night's North Carolina Democratic primary, Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton by more than 13 to 1 among black voters, and Clinton beat Obama by nearly 2 to 1 among white voters. In other words, instead of unifying the races in North Carolina, Obama is polarizing and alienating them, and trading on that division to win the nomination. Black turnout surged and carried Obama to victory by a wide margin. In North Carolina's Forsyth County, for instance, ten times more absentee ballots were received than in a normal election and more than half of them were from black voters. The Winston-Salem Journal reports: "Nearly 500,000 people statewide voted early or cast an absentee ballot before the primary -- more than half the overall number who voted during the 2004 primary."

Six primaries are yet to be contested, with 217 delegates available. Then there are roughly 750 "super delegates" who are two-thirds decided and split evenly between the two candidates, with one-third undecided. So that means about 475 votes are in play. Obama must win 226 of those to clinch the nomination, or just under half. If Clinton can win about 55% of the remaining votes in play, she'll deny Obama the nomination and they'll proceed to a brokered convention.

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Rushbo and Billary Under the Sheets

Filed under: US Elections

Things are getting interesting in the U.S. presidential election cycle this year. Rush Limbaugh and Hillary Clinton are in bed together, just for starters.

People are attacking the pair for the same reason, they don't want to support their parties' frontrunners. Rushbo says John McCain isn't conservative enough, and Billary says Barack Obama is to liberal -- indeed, maybe to just-plain-crazy. People are telling them to just step aside and let McCain and Obama do battle. They warn that if they don't, the result could be their worst nightmare, the election of their rivals to power.

These critics are, of course, totally un-American and seemingly traitors to their own causes. Is Barack Obama really such a weak candidate that a primary challenge from Hillary can deny him the nomination? If so, what kind of president would he be?

Can John McCain really be laid low in a general election against freakish agents of disaster like Hillary or Obama just because a radio talk show host won't support him? If so, McCain has far bigger problems than good old Rushbo to worry about.

It's amazing how some Americans believe in democracy only insofar as it doesn't deny their own personal choices. The whole point of democracy is to validate the choices of others, both because others might be right and because others have "natural rights" you can't take away even if they are wrong.

And it's highly ironic here that by far the worst offenders are the so-called "Democrats" on this issue. Many of them, placing partisan politics over the values of democracy, are trying to drive an actual candidate out an ongoing race. Rush Limbaugh, of course, isn't running for anything, so attempts to censor him are hardly comparable. Hillary has won all three of the largest states in terms of electoral votes, and cruised to an double-digit victory in the most recent contest. That makes recent screeds like Tim Noah's in Slate travesties of democratic values. Hillary is closer to catching Obama than he is to winning the nomination. She's far more electable, and she has millions of ardent supporters. Support for the two candidates in Congress is evenly divided. To argue that the race is already over is an outrage and those who suggest it are pure partisan hacks, betraying America and her core values.

Perhaps we need truth in advertising laws for political parties? Or, at least, for their names?

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Our Truth is Marching On!

Filed under: US Elections

These should be be best of times for the leftists, and yet they are the worst of times.

Recently it was announced that George Bush has a higher unfavorable rating than any other president in American history (though his favorability number remains higher than both Truman and Nixon at their lowest ebbs). American leftists would love to celebrate, but they can't.

They are mired in a pathetic primary collapse, unable to select a nominee and faced with a brutal brokered convention followed by wholesale defections in the general election.

Worse, their key talking point ("it's the economy, stupid") is taking on water fast. The most recent data shows the jobless rate is down and the dollar and stock markets are both up. GDP growth is measurable, no recession -- and all despite the radical upswing in gas prices, a breathtaking testament to the power and resiliency of the American economy.

And then came Britain.

In local council and London mayoral elections, British conservatives scored a massive victory, ousting the reviled communist mayor of London Ken Livingstone and grabbing the lion's share of the council contests. In other words, the right showed itself to be every bit as resilient as the American economy.

And that's to say nothing of the recent onslaught of sex scandals involving high Democrat office holders, which has most recently laid low the Attorney General of Ohio.

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Obama in the Headlights

Filed under: US Elections

It seems that Real Clear Politics has nailed Barack Obama dead to rights on Jeremiah Wright. Though I despise Obama, I can't say I'm pleased about this. It could well bring calls for Obama to back out of the race, putting the more-dangerous Clinton candidacy back in play. He's bottomed out just a few weeks too soon, damn him (though perhaps leftist MSM coverage won't play broad enough and make the connection clearly enough during the primary cycle to finish him off that early)! Then again, this guy is such a dangerous freak that maybe it's better for the nation to take zero chance he will win office.

RCP points out that Wright told the New York Times in March 2007 that he had been "dis-invited" from Obama's announcement of candidacy the month before, and that Obama had told him: "You can get kind of rough in the sermons, so what we've decided is that it's best for you not to be out there in public."

So it's clear that Obama was fully aware of the outrageous, racist nature of Wright's sermons before he even announced his candidacy, and excluded Wright from the announcement proceedings for precisely that reason, in a coldly calculating manner. Boiling mad since then, Wright has now blown the whistle on the betrayal. Even if Obama denies making this statement to Wright, the fact that he was dis-invited does not change. Obviously, his lifelong pastor was not dis-invited (or simply not present) by accident, but because of a political calculation based on Wright's risk factor. And Obama never denied the New York Times quote, which should lay the whole issue to rest.

Hence, when Obama said that he didn't know the content of Wright's sermons, he simply lied. He attended them for twenty years. He's a well-educated, intelligent person. Of course he knew their content. And he traded on it for political gain. For all we know he believed it, applauded it, and still does. And then, he lied about his knowledge of it, and then he threw Wright under the bus when it became convenient to do so.

New kind of leadership? Audacity of hope?

I think not. This is a nasty enough situation that it may merit some spontaneous discussion, so I am opening the comments on this post for those who can responsibly do so and are so inclined.

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Obamageddon

Filed under: US Elections

"Obamageddon" is when black New York Times columnist Bob Herbert writes: "A candidate who stands haplessly by as his former spiritual guide roams the country dropping one divisive bomb after another is in very little danger of being seen by most voters as the next J.F.K. or L.B.J. The apparent helplessness of the Obama campaign in the face of the Wright onslaught contributes to the growing perception of the candidate as weak, as someone who is unwilling or unable to fight aggressively on his own behalf. Mr. Obama seems more and more like someone buffeted by events, rather than in charge of them."

In other words, the Obama candidacy is not only terrifying because of the racism or stupidity that clearly lies in his past, but because of the craven weakness that clearly lies before us now. I've warned before that it's the worst thing in the world for America's black polity to put forth their first major candidate without demanding he have real credentials and a real vetting in the early primaries. Now, Obama is setting the cause of black politics back many years.

Obama's response to Wright's recent torrent of hatred? Quoth the Obama: "I may not know him as well as I thought." Can you imagine hearing that from him a few years after he inks a deal with North Korea, Russia or Iran, telling us to "trust him" as he exposes our national security? Gulp.

And let's be clear: The only reason we are hearing Obama back away from Wright now is that he's seeing political consequences from his allegiance. For twenty years he ignored this torrent of hatred -- indeed, he profited from it. It's quite possible that is more outrageous than actually agreeing with Wright's unconscionable racism.

I wrote in these pages just days ago that we would soon see Jeremiah Wright attacking anyone who criticizes him as a racist, and, lo and behold, now he is doing just that. Months ago, when other conservatives were saying Hillary Clinton was the most beatable candidate, I told you that in fact Obama was the prize target. I told you that when the Daily Kos embraces a national candidate, as it did with Howard Dean, it's a sure sign of doom for that candidate. We can only hope it isn't too late for Clinton to scratch and claw her way back into the nomination. Obama has bottomed out even earlier than I dared to imagine.

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

And Now an Obama Burst, and Now a Dumbocrat World

Filed under: US Elections

BFFs

"How does one explain campaigning throughout 2007 on a platform of transcending racial divisions, while in that same year contributing $26,000 to a church whose pastor incites race hatred?"

That's the question Charles Krauthammer is asking presidential contender Barack Obama (shown above with his BFF Al Sharpton) in his latest column in the Washington Post.

The answer from Obama: "Real change has never been easy. The status quo in Washington will fight. They will fight harder than ever to divide us and distract us with ads and attacks from now until November."

So, anyone who dares to ask that question, or any other question not approved in advance by His Holiness the Obamacle, is "distracting" us from the truth. How long before such people are deemed racists? How long before "they really should be in prison"? How long before they are?

The nutroots are launching a frenzied attack on ABC for daring to ask Obama these questions during the most recent debate. Naturally, they want to sweep Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright and the Weather Underground terrorist William Ayers under the table, not only because of their toxic electoral effect but because Obama botched his responses to the questions so pathetically, bursting his bubble in a millisecond.

Krauthammer: "Take Ayers. Obama makes it sound as if the relationship consists of having run into each other at the DMV. In fact, Obama's political career was launched in a 1995 meeting at Ayers's home. Obama's defense is that he was 8 when Ayers and his Weather Underground comrades were planting bombs at the Pentagon, the U.S. Capitol and other buildings. True. But Obama was 40 when Ayers said publicly that he doesn't regret setting bombs. Indeed, he said, 'I feel we didn't do enough.'" Obama was also fully of age when he refused to put his hand on his heart during a patriotic salute and refused to wear and American flag on his lapel.

Perhaps has important to Obama's sordid role in all these scandalous affairs was his total inability to face the questions honestly. Though he claims to be about "change," he handled the questions in the same dissembling, evasive manner as all those ordinary politicians he loves to attack, and ended the debate with egg on his face.

People like Barack Obama are the reason the American system of limited government was devised. Like a wolf in sheep's clothing, they seek to insinuate themselves into office rather than to be genuinely elected on their core beliefs, and only unveil their actual plans once they have power. They know that their core beliefs would be repudiated by the voters if exposed, but they believe their core beliefs are the only way to save the people for their own good from their own inadequacies. In this way, all the dictators of the past have been born, and America has been spared them because even when they -- like LBJ and FDR -- come to power, they find that the power they've obtained is so limited that they can't effectively wreck the nation.

They say you know you are over the target when you start taking flak. So, listen to the Daily Kos wail and scream about Krauthammer, and you'll know with what precision he's lasered in on Obama.

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |

Democratic Doings in Pennsylvania

Filed under: US Elections

The top ten states according to population (in order California, Texas, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Georgia and North Carolina) control 246 electoral votes for president or 91% of the 270 needed to win the Oval Office. Nine of these states have run their primary election contests so far this year, and Democrat Barack Obama has won only two of them -- Illinois and Georgia -- while Clinton has won all of the top three.

Despite spending truly obscene gobs of cash in Pennsylvania and leading in the overall delegate count, therefore having the wind at his back, Obama was dealt another devastating loss in a major state last night, losing Pennsylvania in woeful, double-digit fashion. Now Democrats are asking: Why can't he close the deal? What's wrong with him? And they are noticing that he isn't winning their core constituencies. If they don't win in Pennsylvania in the general election, they lose. It's as simple as that. Obama crazily referred to the people of central Pennsylvania as bitter hillbillies, and lost their counties by whopping 70% margins across the state.

Obama needs 320 more delegates to reach the nomination, but Clinton needs less than half that number to catch him in the delegate race. Clinton is much closer to catching Obama, in other words, than he is to reaching the nomination. Since the votes of Michigan and Florida aren't being counted but likely favor Clinton just like the other major states, Clinton supporters will reasonably claim they are being cheated if they are denied the nomination. Combined with Obama's wild-eyed and corrupt past, this dissatisfaction spells total disaster in the general election. The contrast between Obama's terrorist, America-hating cohorts and John McCain, a legitimate war hero, will be stark indeed.

NOTE: To comment on this post for publication, write to: kimzigfeld@gmail.com

Social Bookmarking:

del.icio.us |

digg |

technorati |

stumble upon |

furl |