I’m going to try something new. One thing I have enjoyed in life is meeting people that view the world so completely differently than I do. It’s viewing something together and then comparing notes: I see a woman in a dress and think whether it is a business or formal-social occasion; the other person said, “She’s wearing yellow.” The color never entered mind; for the other person, the color was the only important thing – it spoke the loudest. I never saw it.
It’s not an issue of right or wrong. It’s purely a matter of viewing through a different lens.
I am viewing the collapse of Fannie and Freddie purely through economic logic. I see the political history from the Clinton Rules requiring risky lending practices (and don’t entirely disagree) to the poorly designed public/private entities that F&F were (the off couple of benefits of equity investment and financial non-disclosure (whoops!)). I view this situation, it seems, purely from a logical perspective. I don’t get emotional about macroeconomics or even politics. I may seem emotional at times about the latter, but that is because I truly hate being lied to. It’s a trigger for me. At least I know mine, eh?
So I need to view the F&F freefall from an emotional perspective. I need to try to set logic aside. Yes, this will require me to ignore facts. Let’s see!
Headline – American Economy in Freefall. President Bush Eats Breakfast.
While every homeowner in America fears that their homes, pensions, jobs, and children are at risk of being taken away from them, President George W. Bush (Republican) sat down to a hearty breakfast served to him by slave-decedent Zachariah Cotton. Three times slave-decedent Mr. Cotton was compelled to refill the president’s coffee cup.
Although the breakfast was prepared at his request, the kitchen staff slaving over hot toasters and steaming pans, the president left portions of the breakfast uneaten – and in a state that could not be distributed to local food kitchens.
Also attending the breakfast was The Honorable House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (A member of the progressive Democratic Party from the wonderful State of California where she owns a delicately appointed home in dreamy San Francisco). She wore an appropriately simple blue dress with lushingly soft, matching pumps. Bush wore slippers.
Her breakfast was minimal, a bagel with Kosher cream cheese, indicating her unwavering support for the State of Israel and a two-state solution. She poured her own coffee.
The president spoke haltingly, in barely audible terms to those witnesses in the hallway thirty feet and a closed door away. Mrs. Pelosi spoke in the elegant manner which matches her station in life, at times softly as if to underscore the importance of her words, at other times with the gruff sternness necessary to convey her message to the presidential pupil opposite her. All of her words were clearly understood by those witnessing from within the room.
The topic, of course, was the trajectory of the economy established under the Bush Regime. Mrs. Pelosi constructed a cogent argument pulling facts and opinions from a dizzying array of world-wide scholars. She spoke at length about the plight of dockworkers, farmers, single-parent families, and carbon-conscious citizens. Bush mumbled something about his farm in Texas and how it was hard to get good illegals these days. Mrs. Pelosi quoted the United States Constitution several times, pointing out the differing uses of the words “citizen,” “resident,” and “person.” Bush said he had heard about that document, but couldn’t find the audio version. Mrs. Pelosi gingerly took his hand and said that she worked with illiterate people as a volunteer, and reassured Bush that his inability to read was nothing to be ashamed of.
Mrs. Pelosi detailed the credit crisis and the impact it would have on everyday working Americans. She said, “We must solve this problem you created. People may lose their homes. It will be Reagan all over again.” Bush responded by showing his credit cards and saying, “This one got a $5,000 limit on it!” He also said, “My dad told me I could live with him if things got bad.” Mrs. Pelosi expressed her sympathy.
As the meeting concluded, Bush stood and dragged several dishes on the floor. It seems he tucked the tablecloth into his shirt, mistaking it for a bib. Mrs. Pelosi graciously waved off slave-decedent Mr. Cotton’s offer of help, instead cleaning the Bush-created mess herself, including using a spot remover on the carpet.
Mrs. Pelosi assured Bush that she would solve this problem that he created. Bush looked dazed as he said, “That’s a good idea. Wanna play a game of cards?”
Bush pointed to a door and said, “I think that’s the one to get out. Not sure. Hey, Cotty, little help?”
There. I think I got it. That’s about the tone and substance of the reporting I am reading these days. It’s different looking through their eyes. I have this cavernous feeling between my ears. Drafty.
I’ve seen the comment a few places, but since I am writing about it now and it isn’t mine, I’ll h/t Jawa Report. The line: Let’s party like it’s 1929.
The Great Depression, which moniker I dislike because it was nothing but a double-dip recession, was caused by a lack of capital in the markets. What do we face now? A lack of capital. Ut oh. Good thing I was an Economics undergrad, which means I’ll be able to decipher the macroeconomic meltdown that may be coming. It’s kinda like understanding compression and controlled explosions as the guy yells, “Ready, Aim, Fire!” which you can hear but cannot see, of course, because you are wearing a blindfold.
I could study up on the mechanics of a recession – a quarter-to-quarter reduction in Gross Domestic Product (is it two consecutive Qs? I think so) – but why do that? Hell, this is a blog, not a newspaper. I don’t feign an expertise. At least I’m honest about my credentials and bias, unlike my journalistic brethren. (Oh, MSM hacks don’t like me calling you “brethren”? Blow me …)
Where were we? Oh yes, the Greater Depression of 2008/9/10. GDP is the total value of goods and services produced in the United States for a given period. Since the unions priced themselves out of the marketplace, we’ve been shifting manufacturing overseas for decades. Why pay $27.50 an hour to some thug when we can pay Xangow $0.47 an hour and he’s glad to do it? Says a lot that unions drove the price of labor so high that we could afford to ship the finished product half way around the entire planet and still come out ahead on cost, eh?
Some manufacturing is still here, of course, but we are predominantly a services economy now. That is what is called a “mature” economy. Mature, however, becomes old, which in turn becomes dead. Stock up on ammo – it may get ugly.
So what do services do? Financial services are a big part of it. Financial services move money. Oh, wait, the economy took a US$1.1 Trillion hit today. That’s less money to move. Guess we have less need for money movers. Bummer. Pink is such an unfortunate color paper – can’t they lay people off with something happy like yellow?
Where does the money get moved? Into businesses and mortgages mostly. Oh wait, the subprime mortgage industry (“subprime” being the less than desirable creditworthiness of the borrower – anyone raise their hand? Whoops! Sorry for the delay – tough to type one handed) started to falter last year, and is currently that rumbling sound you hear in the background as the ground shakes and crevices appear that suck in rather large banks thanks to the regulatory lending requirements of the Clinton administration. Hunh. But the banks still have money to give to companies, right? Well, they ain’t in much of a lending mood right now.
So what does that mean? It means that large purchases and construction projects will be shelved for a while – just until the dust settles, you know? Problem is that a construction project shelved costs more when it is paid with tomorrow’s money. This means that some projects will be shelved forever. That means that the smaller fraction of our economy that manufactures goods is going to, well, manufacture fewer goods. That means people lose their jobs.
So with credit unavailable to the economy, GDP naturally spirals downward. We all get scared and spend less. Hell, lots of us will have less to spend. That is a major problem because so many companies are undercapitalized – which means that a bad couple of months will shut them down. The most employment in this country comes from small businesses. If small businesses start to fold, we are, in a word, fucked.
Could this have been averted? Well, there’s little use in going back to the Clinton years. That was a major cause, but not the only one. No sense in history – let’s just solve it.
The House Dems had a plan! No, not the plan from three and four years ago when the Republicans were screaming about Fannie and Freddie looking like train wrecks – their plan then was to do nothing, which they did and, much to their chagrin, the train wreck, um, happened.
I mean the plan they had last week, the one when they just bought up all the bad mortgages and got into the lending business. That one sucked. The House Republicans, thanks to Senator McCain, got their say – don’t BUY them, just INSURE them. So the Plan v2.0 was formed, and came to a vote today.
What happened at the vote? Well, immediately before House Speaker Nancy “Old Iron Tits” Pelosi goes off on W and everything and anything that isn’t a Democrat blaming them for the mess. This was odd to the assembled lawmakers because they all know the history – Clinton regs, Dem inaction over the years in the face of Republican statements (see “train wreck” above). Seems she was cranky about her plan be modified in such a fundamental way.
Then what happened? Well, 67% or so of the Republicans and 40% of the Democrats said, “Ah, Nancy Babe, fuck you!” Vote went down.
Now, the Legacy Media is saying the defeat was the cause of the Republicans. OK. Let’s do a logic check, shall we? The measure needed a simple majority to pass. It follows that the party with the most seats, that is, in parliamentary terms, the “Majority” party, had to simply all vote together. One for all and all for one! It is the job of the House Whip (no, not the thing the naughty ones use on the young male pages) to identify votes. It is the job of the Speaker of the House to lead. Now, the Majority Party, the Whip, and the Speaker are all Democrats.
So if every democrat voted for the measure, it would pass. Every single Republican could have voted against it to no avail. But Republicans are nice. They wanted to help. So they said among themselves, “Let’s give the Speaker a third of our votes. Surely she can then get the measure passed by simple majority.”
Even spotting the chick a third of Pubs, she couldn’t pull it off. Two out of five in her own party told her to cram the measure down her screechy throat. Must suck being her.
So where does that leave us? Well, since they worked the weekend, they took the next couple of days off. Only fair. Must be a union rule. The markets are going to be so much fun to watch tomorrow and Wednesday. No capital. Nothing to move. Investing in companies that don’t have access to credit to make their products? I don’t think so. Freefall. Unless W saves the day. Time to pile drive the Democrats.
What should we look for as the impact sinks into the economy? Orders for Durable Goods. Unemployment claims. New housing starts. Sales of existing homes. Business Inventories. Retail sales. Suicides. Drunk driving deaths. Homicides. Pillaging. Gun sales. Theft of farm animals.
This post is for distribution in Missouri. Any form of distribution in Missouri – television, newspaper, radio, blog, word of mouth, handbill – is specifically allowed and encouraged. I demand just one thing: Attribution to my blog.
Onto some more extracts …
June 6, 2008. Word is PIAPS is gonna book town tomorrow. Funny, she was going to do it yesterday – had announced it – but then somebody said one of the Kennedy boys was shot that day (Larry? Curley? Moe? Shemp? I forget – doesn’t matter anyway. 3 are dead, and Theodore may as well be with the amount of scotch he downs for breakfast each day). So tomorrow’s the day. She sure better release her delegates.
I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine. I. Me. Mine.
Who be laughing now, brothers and sisters?
But I gots some serious shit to deal with. Pastor Wright just won’t shut-up. I keep getting text messages from him. The boy is losing it. Even had Ayers run a few $MM through the dude’s church for a nice house, and he still ain’t grateful. Might be time to remind him of a certain weekend and a certain party and a certain white bitch and certain video tape. Go quietly, Pastor, but go …
Can you believe they are still hammering me over my Islamic Brotherhood Muslim upbringing? Like I had any say in it anyway. It was all the Soetoro guy that mom married.
Anyway. You want to know hard up the MSM is for a liberal? From Muslim to coke dealer to housing-code-violation checker to My-Church-Hates-You-White-People – and I walk on water with those fools. THAT’S how hard up they are. Every look at my voting record? What are these clowns thinking? I’m more liberal than the lead baton-twirler in the SF Gay Pride Parade – the one with the cute pink undies and smartly cropped beard.
Got another check today from Frannie Mae. Need to remember to put tic-mark next to their name in my Good Boy Book. So glad Barney turned me onto them (speaking of gay men – he!he!).
NOTE – This is an unusually candid diary entry for Obama. Perhaps it is attributable to the closure he feels with Senator Clinton conceding the race. This observation is bolstered by the lack of prospective subjects in the writing.
The passage opens with a ridicule of the Kennedy family, liking them to the comedy troupe, The Three Stooges. His knowledge of four Kennedy brothers and four Stooges is noted for examination at a later time, as additional such references accumulate. Suffice for now to postulate that he is merely asserting a consistent moral authority over the icons of his political party.
The role of problem solver in his life, now in the form of a possible bribe to his pastor, appears in the person of Mr. Ayers again. Anger is noted in his assertion of blackmailing Pastor Wright, but of more important note is the possible desire to override Mr. Ayers’ solution. If tension continues to build in Obama’s life, it is possible that he could turn on Mr. Ayers as he has on others close to him.
He makes an interesting Hindu reference in his repetition of the phrase, “I. Me. Mine.” He also corrects himself by striking out text referring to the ultra-strict “Islamic Brotherhood,” at the same time as placing blame on his adoptive father for introducing Islamic studies to his childhood. Of similar note, he derides his pastor, but refers to him by his title twice, and also mentions his church of twenty years in a derogatory fashion. These statements indicate much difficulty in his spiritual life. He seems to not care for the process of religion, only the Earth-bound end result. This is consistent with his narcissist-sociopathic personality disorder.
For the first time, we note a passage reflecting self-hate in his characterization of himself as a “liberal.” This is disturbing in that all other classifications seem to reflect an utter lack of reflection and a sense of being set aside for a higher purpose. If self-hate is indeed strong, then possible physical aggression against himself in the form of cutting or homo-erotic behavior could come into play.
We again note hints of latent homosexuality with his “cute pink undies” remark. This is the second such reference, the first being in the March 5, 2008 entry. He is more open now, perhaps as he comes to an internal resolution with his desires.
The complexity of his feelings arise in the closing segment of this entry. He is grateful for the personal benefit of contributions he has received through his friendship with Senator Barney Frank, yet quickly dismisses Senator Frank’s openly gay lifestyle. Perhaps Obama is not fully at terms with his own desires.
I opined several days ago that the media is so in bed with Obama because it is nothing more than a risk calculus – that do not want to lose this once-in-a-generation shot to get strong majorities in the House and Senate. I suggested that they build Obama up so much because he needs it. His resume is so ludicrous for the position, somebody has to say he’s qualified. They know that if he tanks deeply, he will drag down-ticket races with him.
I’m not changing that position, but I am adding to it.
I was doing my morning spin of blogs (I sometimes use Trunk Report’s link list, a solid group of about 25 blogs.) and saw the infamous flag pic of William Ayers on Gateway Pundit. Nothing new – well, of course the post is, but I’ve seen the pic plenty of times. But it struck me this time. Referencing the relationship between Obama and Ayers, the Gateman wrote, it looks like there's finally a crack in the media wall of silence and links to an article in this morning’s New York Post.
My thought was “Why hasn’t the media gone full bore into these issues? Chicago politics is a rat’s nest – an investigative journalist’s Nirvana, sans the virgins.”
The reason seems clearer to me now. They are being asked to attack their own. It's like Sophie's Choice, which was easy when the second kid was Hillary. And now the choice is between McCain and Obama. Again, easy. But don't lose the thought - Obama is one of their children. McCain is, at best, the step-child they never wanted.
We all know they are liberal – no sense is traipsing over that corpse. Frankly, I don’t care if they are liberal. I’ve hired, worked with, worked for, socialized with, and loved and despised people of all political persuasions. I’m an equal-opportunity person, dammit! Your politics enter when you cast your vote, and that is a private affair.
To me, a professional that uses her non-political job to further her politics is just unethical. I have political conversations in class, but I purposefully do it to get certain students engaged, and I specifically take positions opposite theirs. And I always use it as an aside, never allowing it to take over my lecture materials. Yet, I know other professors that abuse the privilege of the classroom. Anyway.
That brings me to journalism. They are using the privilege of their profession to further their personal (and collective) political views. It’s unethical, yes, but let’s look into a bit further.
What’s wrong with William Ayers? “He was a 1960s icon that went too far. He has,” so the liberal mantra repeats, “focused his energies in education – look at Annenberg, at his professorship. He is still radical, yes, but what’s wrong with that? This world needs to be shook. Well, America does! It needs to be more progressive. Look at Europe! So far ahead of us in so many ways. Why should we look into Annenberg? I mean, seriously, of course there were problems. Lots of money always brings lots of problems. But our focus is deontological ethics – Ethical Formalism – not some stupid Natural Law teleological approach. That is just your silly Creationist view of things. Stop trying to dumb down science! While you look the other way, my beach house is going to be under water!”
It’s perhaps the difference, as McCain pointed out, between a tactic and a strategy. For them to investigate every single little itzy bitzy piece of Obama’s life is just a bunch of tactics all strung together. “We see the big picture!” But, gee, they just abandoned a deontological view. How convenient. It seems the end result is truly what they want. Yet they are willing to overlook missteps along the way because they were ethically pure in their mind – the motivation was admirable. This latter part is Immanuel Kant at his finest (or worst).
The press has, so it seems, an ability to overlook disastrous results as long as the means were pure; likewise, they can overlook wholly impure means if the end result is achieved. This is a logical conundrum. The means justify the end as long as the end justifies the means. I don't know anything about fractals. It seems the press doesn't know anything about ethical theory.
So why won’t they rip into Obama’s past? Because he is just a vehicle. Another in a long line of liberals that will either further their personal and collective political views or, worst case, will not work against those views.
McCain will work against their views. Palin is precisely their worst nightmare – a mom that likes being a mom, and that is a professional success … and that, btw, unlike Kerry, knows how to order a cheesesteak in Philadelphia.
Chicago politics has always been rife with people participating from every angle. When people say, "There is no such thing as a 'Chicago machine'," I am reminded of Atty. Bruce "The Shark" Cutler defending John Gotti, Sr., and saying, "There is no such thing as La Cosa Nostra, as the Mafia." Pretty funny. Pretty unbelievable. Pretty pathetic.
So now American Thinker begins to draw the lines like a DOJ Perp board. I wonder how many of these connections will be investigated and written about by the Legacy Media. Their effort will probably match the effort they put into John Edwards' baby - "He said it isn't true. Good enough for me!"
Read the article, certainly, but here's the overview:
I have never heard of the MacRanger Radio Show, but it seems that Obama’s Kool-Aid Kampers attacked his host servers and shut his website down.
It’s a shame, of course, because all I want is an open warfare of words. No need for us to try to silence each other – unless you can’t allow another’s version of the truth to be heard. Unless you are, I dunno, scared?
I recall so many days in court where opposing counsel tried to talk over me, pulled silly stunts, all as if that would somehow replace their lack of substance.
Silly girls! (And I mean that as an insult, with the assumption that you are male.)
This post is for distribution in Missouri. Any form of distribution in Missouri – television, newspaper, radio, blog, word of mouth, handbill – is specifically allowed and encouraged. I demand just one thing: Attribution to my blog.
Onto some more extracts …
March 5, 2008. The Prisoner took Texas yesterday. Looks like he’s got the Grand Old Pricks nomination. Praise Allah, I hope he picks Huckabee for the scrub player. I can’t stand Romney – reminds me of Biden. It’s like the two were separated at birth. Couple of funeral directors. Romney has nice teeth, though. I’ll give him that.
I heard The Prisoner ain’t gotta clue about using e-mail or a computer. I gots to make a note of that – could be a good ad later on. Man, I sure hope it’s him. I’ll have a field day with the women vote. “You wanna elect the poster boy for Viagra, or have what they are all trying to be?” Hunh … what if Hillary runs with him? Naw, she ain’t that stupid. And neither is he – it would be Vince Foster v2.0. How does dude kill himself and then have dirt in the cuffs of his pants like his body was dragged? I sure ain’t gonna pick her. No way. That’d be Dead Man Walking time. All I’ll lose is the lesbian vote anyway – not that she is one, as far as I know.
Note to self: Anonymously send The Prisoner a t-shirt. Olympic theme. “Southeast Asia War Games. Silver Medal.”
NOTE – Here we see his preoccupation with his political elders. His focus on Senator McCain’s imprisonment during the Viet Nam War results in using a moniker and deriding him with a t-shirt. It is clear that Obama is trying to distance himself from Senator McCain by claiming a higher ground, most likely on perceived moral authority. These diary words make clear that Obama is threatened by McCain. The source of the threat seems to be McCain’s war service, something that Obama cannot match with anything in his own resume.
Obama also writes of his fear of being killed by the Clintons. He mentions specific information surrounding the circumstances of Mr. Foster’s death, suggesting that he was or is preoccupied with the negative effects of doing political combat with the Clintons. This preoccupation again suggests, as we have noted in previous entries, a deep-seated paranoia and persecution complex.
His obsession with sexual prowess again surfaces. It may be useful to interview his past interns.
Of final interesting note, although he denigrates the Republican Party at large and does a drive-by on Biden, he takes time to note his admiration for Gov. Romney’s teeth. This is the first suggestion we have of a same-sex physical attraction originating within Obama. We will have to watch future diary entries to see if this tendency matures.
March 31, 2008. OK. I got this thing wrapped up. So does The Prisoner. I can’t focus on him yet. F’g Lardass won’t give up. “Everyone gets to vote! Every vote counts!” Bitch. This ain’t never gonna end. Do the math, ho! Look at the super delegates. Nobody likes you! Can’t you read? What, you hanging around in case I get shot?!? Trust me, nobody gonna tag my ass. Brothers won’t allow it. They got Martin – but that boy so dumb he plagiarized! There’s a trick to avoiding plagiarism: Don’t write nothing! That’s what I’m talking about!
Let’s me cogitate over the numbers. I’m close enough in PA (The Commonwealth of Coal Trash). I own NC, OR. Indiana should be close. This proportional allocation of delegates is so stupid. PIAPS would be kicking my butt if we used the GOP all-or-nothing approach. Not. My. Problem. There’s just no way she can beat me.
It’s actually good news that she won’t quit. I get to hang out for 8 weeks or so. The Prisoner is too f’g “honorable” to go after me until it’s official. No dick.
Ayers tells me the Annenberg situation is resolved. Now he’s gonna let it play out in public when someone actually says something. Said it’s best to push the supposed buying time to cleanse the records until then. Something about they’ll be pissing up the wrong rope – let them think the docs are actively being sanitized. Let them push hard there. When they find out that the only things cleansed were personal items – which he just got done planting – they’ll go away. Nobody’ll think to look all the back to now and discover the intensely damaging shit we really did take out. I didn’t understand most of what he said, even though I just wrote it good. I’m sure glad he’s around. He also told me he’s Rezko’s balls in a lockbox. F***, I sure hope so, PBUH. THAT dude could put both me and the Ho in prison.
NOTE – Obama’s continued disdain for Senator Clinton is palatable. His reference to “PIAPS” is telling. “PIAPS” is an acronym for “Pig in a Pantsuit,” an epitaph used only in die-hard Republican circles. The ease with which he uses the term suggests a preoccupation with reading conservative blogs, which may suggest a feeling of inadequacy and being out of control.
He shows an interesting distance from the assassination of Martin Luther King, Jr. His statement that Dr. King was “dumb” suggests that he feels himself to be superior to this iconic figure. He further suggests that third parties (“brothers”) can somehow protect him from a similar fate. In these entries, Obama presents a disturbing detachment from reality. One wonders if he uses a nose plug to retard the olfactory perception of his displaced fecal matter.
Of particular importance in these passages is his discussion of Ayers. Obama writes of a blind devotion to Ayers in matters that are suggested to be of critical importance to the viability of the campaign.
It seems appropriate to draw together some of the threads of the various relationships in Obama’s life. He shows open disdain for anyone that that does not have his best interests in mind: McCain, both Clintons, his wife. He feels himself to be desired by any woman that is desired by him. He blindly accepts the actions of certain people that he accepts as having his best interests in mind: thus far, just Bill Ayers. He lacks a framework to think favorably of historical figures that many could cogently argue are similarly situated to himself.
When one couples these diary entries with publicly available information – the bus tossing episodes of his grandmother and pastor – it suggests an observation that Obama has trouble with positive emotional attachment. Perhaps this is rooted in the abandonment by his natural father, who then traveled the world impregnating women on four continents.
Side note - Consider if a same-sex relationship existed or exists with Wm. Ayers.
This post is for distribution in Missouri. Any form of distribution in Missouri – television, newspaper, radio, blog, word of mouth, handbill – is specifically allowed and encouraged. I demand just one thing: Attribution to my blog.
I was talking the other day with Source A, a person within the Obama Campaign that has access to the candidate’s private diary. S/he also told me that the candidate, Barack Obama, specifically said that everything in his diary is true, accurate, and complete, but that the contents were considered privileged to him – shared with Source A only in the highest confidence – and should not be disseminated further in any form whatsoever. In complete contradiction to that trust, Source A sent to me a true and accurate copy of the diary meant for me to hold, in its unopened sealed package, in trust. This post is intended to specifically violate every trust associated with disclosing the contents of Barack Obama’s diary.
Selected Contents of Diary. The diary is a bound book, black exterior with unlined white pages. A sticker on the back indicates that the diary was purchased in St. Louis, MO. A receipt inside confirms this: Chicky’s Bookstore, St. Louis, MO, November 23, 2007, $14.95. All entries in the diary are written in black perhaps with a felt-tip pen. Comparing the handwriting in the diary to known exemplars of the candidate’s handwriting confirm the handwriting as his. Below are several excerpts from the diary.
November 24, 2007. This diary is considered by me to be private and highly confidential. If anyone shares anything in this diary with any other person, living or dead, I hereby authorize the St. Louis City Circuit Attorney, Jennifer “Rode Hard” Joyce, and the St. Louis County Prosecuting Attorney, Bobby “The Hitman” McCullough, (both future United States Attorneys, btw) to use any means necessary to destroy the person or persons so sharing. I be serious.
NOTE – It seems clear to me that the above warning, written on the face page of the diary, establishes an expectation of privacy in the contents of the diary. In order to read anything in the diary, aside distributing same, the reader has to physically turn the page. That act, coupled with subsequent distribution, establishes an overt act in furtherance of the specific intent to discredit the candidate. I have done both of those overt acts.
Selected excerpts and commentary follow.
January 14, 2008. I am sitting in St. Louis. Finally got some down time from bitch-slapping that Clinton chick. You know what’s funny to me? I’ve had all the white people on my campaign watch every minute of footage of that women (she’s not a lesbian, as far as I know). Nobody can find even a split second of her donkey on tape. Fricking remarkable! I’ll tell you, though, we’ve had a whole mess of arguments over the width of the podiums. If we used standard-width, her ass would be sticking out both sides – it’d look like the damn thing was wearing ear muffs! Good thing the first time I saw it was when we be in the Senate. She went waddling up front and I bust a gut laughing so hard. Damn straight her husband was the first black president – that girl’s got a donkey on her! Man.
Praise Allah, I hate the cold. I need me some poontang. Where’s the Rolodex of interns? It is so nice that the Ho didn’t make the trip.
NOTE – In the daily entry above, the candidate exhibits racial- and gender-insensitivity. It is clear that he has little respect for “white people,” “lesbians,” and people with large bone structures. He indicates a willingness to further racial stereotypes through use of “donkey” and the reference to potential mixed blood in Senator Clinton. Finally, he exhibits sociopathic traits in his isolation in a single paragraph of deference to a religious figure and a desire to consummate sexual relations outside the bounds of marriage. (From reading the entirety of the diary, it is clear that his use of the proper noun “Ho” is a reference to his wife, Michelle.)
January 27, 2008. I’m back in Missouri – some rathole called Clayton. Praise Allah, I hate this f’g state. Bunch of religious nuts packing heat. Wanna scare a brother? Fill a room with a bunch of Christians that have concealed-weapon permits. I looked at the Axeman hours before the speech and said, “Make sure security checks for rope. I ain’t gonna be lynched in f’g MO.” He looked around to make sure no one could hear me and then laughed. “David, I’m f’g serious.” He walked up front and did what his skinny white ass was told to do.
I oughta get the Chinese to seed the clouds with a little blow. That’d mellow these pukes a tad.
So, the Ho calls me like 20 minutes before the speech! I’m all, “Sweetums, I can’t. I’m trying to focus.” She’s all, “Don’t you call me ‘Sweetums,’ a’hole. I’m out here for you. And you know what? I’m surrounded by whiteys! I’m ready to give them the street! They’s be talking to me like I’m stupid or something, like they gots to say – the fork goes on the left, it don’t matter if’n you be right handed. F*** this! I ain’t doing this, Mr. Candidate. Un hunh. They can kiss my black ass.”
AAARRGGGHHHH!!!
I tried to calm her down. I’m off stage scanning the crowd for rope – noticing all the brothers and sisters somehow got seated in the back, and the Ho is telling me she ain’t happy. “Listen, Mich, I get it. This sucks. Neither of us planned to get anything more than a bit of press and then we could concede and be doing lines by the pool for a few months. Instead, we’re gaining momentum. They be lookin at us, MoFo! Let’s chill. OK?”
That seemed to shut her up. Like I got time for this? That chick going to the corner soon. Ain’t got enough white in her to just shut up.”
NOTE – In this excerpt, Obama again indicates the depth of his racial insensitivity and even insecurity. He exhibits paranoid delusions and a persecution complex by thinking people are there to do him harm (even as far as the specific means by which said harm will occur). Disdain is apparent toward those that in his employ. Importantly, multiple references are made to drug use – he wishes everyone would use drugs, and longs for recreational-drug use by him and his wife. All drug references seem to be to cocaine.
We get some insights into his marriage in this excerpt. It seems that Hillary isn’t the only female around the candidate that wears pants.
February 22, 2008. I’m in a plane flying over Missouri. This f’g place haunts me. There’s this Rican bitch in the press corps I’d like to do the mile-high thing with. Whew, she’s just got it. WAIT! ‘MILE HIGH?’ I be ‘round those whities too much. I want that ho to spank my monkey! Nice round ass, enough tit to feed an Army group thingey. Whew, I gots to think about something else. The ole ankle spanker is tickling …
Still riding high from winning the F’G MOFO LAST 11 PRIMARIES!!!!!!! That Pantsuit Chick is PISSED OFF!!!! That POS of a husband of hers says to me, “Ah, ah, ah, we should be working together on a unified party!” Unified my ass!
Bill Ayers called on the secret cell – the one that I have the number switched every three days. A trick I learned when I was dealing. He says that people are sniffing around the Annenberg files, but that he’d have them all cleaned up soon. Said the University is too stupid to understand that a person can’t claim ownership to corporate files – and since the corp is now defunct the files are completely open. He said he could tie it up for a while. I’ll tell you, Bill can walk on water! LMAO – the future Secretary of Education – that’s all he says he wants in return for keeping his mouth shut. No problemo … aahhh, where’s that Rican? I gots to wet my beak in that thang.
NOTE – We learn about several important things from the above entry. His lack of understanding of the military (“Army group thingey”) is clear. His disdain for the Clintons extends to both Senator and former President Clinton. Interestingly, he uses the phrase “unify my ass,” which is eerily close to the “Party Unity My Ass” phrase adopted by Clinton supports which presently refuse to support his candidacy. We also learn of his on-going and close relationship with William Ayers, the former Weather Underground domestic terrorist. We learn that he actively sought to conceal his drug dealing activities by rapidly switching telephone numbers. We learn that both he and Mr. Ayers felt that a full disclosure of the Annenberg files would not be a good thing. Finally, although evident in other entries, his narcissism is on full display with his feeling that the “Rican” (a vulgar reference to a person of Puerto Rican descent) would have sexual relations with him merely because he wanted to.
That is all for this post. A glimpse into upcoming posts:
March 8, 2008. A great day! I won Wyoming and did that Rican wearing nothing but a cowboy hat and spurs!
April 23, 2008. I HATE coal-cracker gun-loving religion-clinging Pennsylvanians!
May 7, 2008. North Carolina! Tarheels! Now, THAT’S what I’m talking about!
Sometimes I wish life were a Tom Clancy novel where we could be privy to every conversation and action. This would be fascinating. An application of the "enemy of my enemy is my friend."
Check this excerpt out: As Russian and American ships pursued the hijackers of the Ukrainian-operated vessel, pirates seized another ship off Somalia's coast, an international anti-piracy group said.
We've got at least an American destroyer there. That will keep the pirates afloat until the rest of the US and Russian Navy gets there. You gotta know there's a couple-two-tree nuke subs in the theater.
Can't you see Sean Connery and Harrison Ford on scene? Whose Special Ops folks are going to board the pirate boat? Will the Russians refuse to give us enough information to safely assess the situation because there's other stuff on board?
Oh my! This must be what Chris Matthews feels like! I LIKE it!!!! It's-it's-it's dirty ...
Historically, the Geheime Staatspolizei (German, literally, "Secret State Police," more commonly known as the Gestapo) was the official secret police of Nazi Germany. It operated under the broader administration of the Schutzstaffel (SS).
It seems we have a modern-day Gestapo in St. Louis, which operates under the broader administration of the Obama campaign.
I was on Gateway Pundit and read this story. Unbelievably, it seems that two public officials are going to use the powers of their office to support the Obama campaign. From Gateway: St. Louis and Missouri Democrat sheriffs and top prosecutors are planning to go after anyone who makes false statements against Obama during his campaign. I don’t get it. Seems an abuse of office. Let’s look at some source information.
Here’s the local newscast describing the issue. Now, I saw this a few days ago, but always think, “Naw, too partisan to be true. It’ll be clarified soon enough.” It was. Check out this this press release by the Governor.
Wow. It really is happening. This reeks of Hitler’s Germany. WTF, Bambi? Further to the point, how can Biden sit back and be a part of this program? It’s rather slimy. I don’t have a very high opinion of Biden, but this is beneath even my opinion of him.
So who are these pathetic trolls that are going to abuse the power of their offices?
First up is St. Louis City Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce . I find this interesting: Mission of the Circuit Attorney's Office: To pursue justice for all citizens within the highest standards of ethical behavior and professionalism.
ALL citizens? Doesn’t seem all.
Here’s a background piece on her. Seems a classic overachiever. Lost both her parents relatively early. That sucks.
She hasn’t made many political donations – a Gephardt fan in 2003 but nothing in her name to Obama.
If you want clarification from her or the office that she is going to abuse, here’s the contact information:
Circuit Attorney Jennifer Joyce 1114 Market St. 4th Floor Mel Carnahan Building St. Louis, MO 63101 Telephone: (314) 622-4941 Facsimile: (314) 622-3369 e-mail
Troll Number Two is St. Louis County Circuit Attorney Bob McCulloch.
Let’s see what he is supposed to be doing: Bob McCulloch serves more than one million citizens of St. Louis County, Missouri as Prosecuting Attorney. As the chief law enforcement official of the largest county in the state, Mr. McCulloch leads a team of dedicated professionals who have prosecuted and convicted some of Missouri's most violent and dangerous felons.
Mr. McCulloch and his staff aggressively prosecute murderers, rapists, drug dealers and gangs. His Domestic Violence and Sexual Assault Teams thoroughly investigate and prosecute cases involving the physical and sexual abuse of women, the elderly and children.
In addition to aggressively prosecuting violent criminals, Mr. McCulloch has forced "dead beat dads" to pay over 30 million dollars per year to support their children. He has also collected nearly one hundred thousand dollars a year in restitution for those who have received bad checks.
OK. Seems to be focused on crime. So where does policing political advertising come in? Isn’t false advertising looked into by other offices? Does his have to step in? And for just one party?
Like Troll Number One, not a big political contributor … well, as Hillary would say, as far as I know. He gave just $1,000 in 2000 to some local democrat.
He had an unfortunate bout of cancer in high school and lost a leg to it. Like Troll 1, he lost his dad early in life.
He thinks his opinion is important. He sent a letter to USA Today for publication on July 21, 2003. It begins: A recent study funded primarily by George Soros (the billionaire who funds most attempts to legalize all drugs) claims that prosecutorial misconduct is at epidemic proportions in this country. Nothing could be further from the truth. He must have drank the Kool-Aid subsequent to that letter.
If you want to ask him directly what is going on, here’s the contact information:
OFFICE OF THE PROSECUTING ATTORNEY 100 South Central Avenue - Second Floor Clayton, MO 63105 (314) 615-2600 E-Mail: pa@stlouisco.com
I can’t put my finger on why these two would trash their reputations by putting everything into a single candidate – and use the power of their offices to do it. If they aggressively look into even borderline ads about Obama yet ignore egregious ads about McCain, how can we think the law is being administered evenly?
To be clear, I am not accepting their offices should be involved in policing any political advertising on behalf of any campaign. But if they get involved, then get fully involved.
Does anyone hear a distant voice yelling, “Ethics violation”? Or are they too deafened by the whispers of, “I’ll make you a US Attorney”?
The Commission on Presidential Debates provides this description of the 2d debate, schedule for October 7, 2008: “The second presidential (town meeting format) debate will include any issues raised by members of that audience and online.”
I’m thinking ahead, and reflecting back. I remember how Gore tried on different personalities for each debate, a result of the previous personality not doing so well. My favorite was the Geisha Gore, with enough make-up to suggest he just did a cameo in a casket for a soap opera.
Some impressions of Obama last night. I was getting pissy as he kept on interrupting “John.” Bambi kept on trying to cut off the end of responses and even started interrupts in the middle. It was very rude. McCain seemed a lot more patient as he allowed Obama to talk. McCain did blow off Lehrer a couple of times so that he could finish an answer or response.
Obama was led several times – well, taken to the woodshed. The split screen was amazing as we saw McCain making his points, and Obama almost exhibiting facial ticks.
When I put those observations together, I think Obama needs to learn to be passive while the other guy is talking.
Obama also did his famous “I’ve been saying that for [insert time period here]” routine. Seems every problem that crops up in this world, he’s been talking about for years, and “very clearly” to boot.
He didn’t score any style points with his oft-stated, “I agree with John.”
Some impressions of McCain last night. He pulled a lot of punches. I think there’s a method to this – I think McCain has a three-debate strategy. More in a bit.
He dropped a lot of names of leaders most of us wouldn’t know – old Soviet Bloc countries. This really gave a feeling of depth by comparison – because the Bamster did none of it except for Mahmoud the Tent Maker. His packaged line, of course, was “I think the Senator doesn’t understand.” Came up about eight times.
Obama was flustered several times. He did not know where to go. Here’s an excerpt:
MCCAIN: ... I supported Nunn-Lugar back in the early 1990s when a lot of my colleagues didn't. That was the key legislation at the time and put us on the road to eliminating this issue of nuclear waste and the nuclear fuel that has to be taken care of.
OBAMA: I -- I just have to correct the record here. I have never said that I object to nuclear waste. What I've said is that we have to store it safely.
And, Senator McCain, he says -- he talks about Arizona.
LEHRER: All right.
OBAMA: I've got to make this point, Jim.
LEHRER: OK.
OBAMA: He objects...
MCCAIN: I have voted for alternate fuel all of my time...
OBAMA: He -- he -- he objects...
LEHRER: One at a time, please.
OBAMA: He objected...
LEHRER: One at a time.
MCCAIN: No one can be opposed to alternate energy.
OBAMA: All right, fair enough. Let's move on.
Obama gave up! What point was he trying to make? He. Gave. Up.
So where do we go for D2? Obama will force issues harder and he’ll be more patient while McCain is speaking. What does that mean? It means that Obama will adopt McCain’s D1 style – because when Obama deviated, he looked bad.
What will McCain do in D2? He should act as if Obama is not even on the stage. It’s a town-hall format. He should answer the question to the audience member or to Brokaw if it’s an e-mail. Obama does not exist.
Obama, overcompensating for his weak D1 persona, will be seen as trying to beat up an old guy.
That sets up D3, which is domestic and economic policy. McCain should after Obama like Jim Carville after trailer-park trash. Chew him up and spit him out right on the stage. Nail him hard for educational reform ala Attenberg. Bring in “results-oriented” community organizing – not the kind that identifies asbestos that is still in place decades later. Obama will be back to pure reaction.
The best part of D1 was McCain’s control and Obama’s flailing. McCain now controls the setting.
Stephen Green was "drunk blogging" the debate last night. I caught up with this comment well after midnight, and am still laughing. It appears in the 8:30PM comment:
Obama strikes me as a modern Chamberlain, praising his (oh-so-transient) “peace with honor.” McCain, however, comes across as “peace when we’re done kicking your ass and not one moment sooner.”
I spent the night with host Bill Dupray and about a dozen other folks online at The Patriot Room - I was the new kid on the block. Several of them have blogs, which will be in my blog roll in a few:
McCain and Obama went at it over the issue of meeting with Mahmoud the Tent Maker, currently the president of Iran. It was an interesting interplay:
--Obama was clear on meeting with the “most powerful person” in Iran. --Then he tried to focus on only lower-level meetings. --Then he seemed to invoke Kissinger as supporting the highest-level meeting.
I grabbed three sources: The debate transcript; Obama’s website; and Kissinger’s statement.
A few points are clear from the excerpts below:
--Obama is referring to meeting with Mahmoud (or, in fairness, the “most powerful person” in Iran). --McCain would never give a hater of Israel such political cache. --Contrary to Obama’s assertion, Kissinger does not support Obama’s position.
OBAMA: So let's talk about this. First of all, Ahmadinejad is not the most powerful person in Iran. So he may not be the right person to talk to. But I reserve the right, as president of the United States to meet with anybody at a time and place of my choosing if I think it's going to keep America safe. (NOTE – Watch as everything else he says does not reference this top level-to-top-level meeting)
And I'm glad that Senator McCain brought up the history, the bipartisan history of us engaging in direct diplomacy.
Senator McCain mentioned Henry Kissinger, who's one of his advisers, who, along with five recent secretaries of state, just said that we should meet with Iran -- guess what -- without precondition. This is one of your own advisers. (NOTE – Here is where Obama is either purposefully misleading or sloppy – he is tying Kissinger to the top level-to-top level meeting.) …
MCCAIN: I'm not going to set the White House visitors schedule before I'm president of the United States. I don't even have a seal yet.
Look, Dr. Kissinger did not say that he would approve of face-to- face meetings between the president of the United States and the president -- and Ahmadinejad. He did not say that.
OBAMA: Of course not. (NOTE – Now Obama begins to back down.)
MCCAIN: He said that there could be secretary-level and lower level meetings. I've always encouraged them. The Iranians have met with Ambassador Crocker in Baghdad.
What Senator Obama doesn't seem to understand that if without precondition you sit down across the table from someone who has called Israel a "stinking corpse," and wants to destroy that country and wipe it off the map, you legitimize those comments.
This is dangerous. It isn't just naive; it's dangerous. And so we just have a fundamental difference of opinion. …
MCCAIN: So let me get this right. We sit down with Ahmadinejad, and he says, "We're going to wipe Israel off the face of the Earth," and we say, "No, you're not"? Oh, please.
OBAMA: No, let me tell... (NOTE – “No”? But he accepted the premise of the statement – he would meet with him. Again, sloppy.)
MCCAIN: By the way, my friend, Dr. Kissinger, who's been my friend for 35 years, would be interested to hear this conversation and Senator Obama's depiction of his -- of his positions on the issue. I've known him for 35 years.
OBAMA: We will take a look.
MCCAIN: And I guarantee you he would not -- he would not say that presidential top level.
OBAMA: Nobody's talking about that. (NOTE – Yes, you are talking about that, not just in the first portion of this extract, not just in accepting the premise of McCain’s statement, but below as well.)
Here is a cut-n-paste from the Obama Campaign website – Foreign Policy. Just in case the section gets changed soon, I have taken a screen shot and present that following the text.
Talk to our Foes and Friends: Obama and Biden are willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe. They will do the careful preparation necessary, but will signal that America is ready to come to the table, and that he is willing to lead. And if America is willing to come to the table, the world will be more willing to rally behind American leadership to deal with challenges like terrorism, and Iran and North Korea's nuclear programs.
The money quote: “willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe.”
It seems, contrary to his debate statement that, yes, we are “talking about that.”
Finally, Henry the K says, “Um, no”: "Senator McCain is right. I would not recommend the next President of the United States engage in talks with Iran at the Presidential level. My views on this issue are entirely compatible with the views of my friend Senator John McCain. We do not agree on everything, but we do agree that any negotiations with Iran must be geared to reality."
The final analysis is clear. Obama has told Iran that if he is elected, he is willing to meet with Mahmoud or whoever is deemed the “most powerful person in Iran.” McCain will not meet with the leader of a terrorist nation, asserting that to do so legitimizes its terrorist behavior.
This image comes from Bull Dupray at The Patriot Room. Puh-puh-please tell me it's not PhotoShop. I so want this to be real and to be plastered all over America. LMAO.
From the glory hole of open-source knowledge, Wikipedia, comes this definition of Cognitive Dissonance: an uncomfortable feeling or stress caused by holding two contradictory ideas simultaneously.
I read a few articles today. Am shaking my head. I use news-aggregator sites. I usually read titles, scan the first paragraph, and then check the source. I can often guess the source and, more apt to this post, what source it did not come from. But today I have been wrong on four articles. Four! Go figure.
First, the Aged Prostitute (nee NYT) bitch-slaps Obama for running misleading ads: In all, Mr. Obama has released at least five commercials that have been criticized as misleading or untruthful against Mr. McCain’s positions in the past two weeks. Mr. Obama drew complaints from many of the independent fact-checking groups and editorial writers who just two weeks ago were criticizing Mr. McCain for producing a large share of this year’s untruthful spots (“Pants on Fire,” the fact-checking Web site PolitiFact.com wrote of Mr. Obama’s advertisement invoking Mr. Limbaugh; “False!” FactCheck.org said of his commercial on Social Security.)
Next up, Bill Clinton’s old network, CNN launches a screed in Bambi’s face for not showing leadership, and citing McCain as showing himself to be a true leader: Some in the Obama-friendly media were quick to dismiss McCain's move as a political stunt. I don't know. It's not like launching one's candidacy in Springfield, Illinois, in the hopes of conjuring up comparisons to Abraham Lincoln, or moving one's convention speech to a football stadium to accommodate a larger crowd.
I think McCain deserves applause for having his priorities straight. For the past several days, the media and members of both parties have been scaring the daylights out of the American people by calling this the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression.
It gets better: Despite having decried the economic crisis in near-apocalyptic terms in an attempt to lay blame on President Bush and, by association, McCain, the junior senator from Illinois didn't feel the urgency to show up for work and try to do what he could to address it. Obama certainly has standing and more than his share of influence. This is, after all, the de-facto leader of the Democratic Party.
Unfortunately, he also looks like someone who is so focused on what he hopes will be his next job that he has lost interest in his current one.
McCain showed real leadership this week. And frankly, if we were more accustomed to seeing that sort of thing from our elected officials, we might be less cynical and better able to recognize it on the rare occasions when it surfaces.
Then perhaps in an effort to out-do itself, CNN launches another missile. This time, it shoots at both Bambi and Thumper! Although Democratic vice presidential candidate Joe Biden routinely mocks his Republican counterpart, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, for her onetime support of the infamous "Bridge to Nowhere," Biden and his running mate voted to keep the project alive twice.
Both Biden and Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama voted to kill a Senate amendment that would have diverted federal funding for the bridge to repair a Louisiana span badly damaged by Hurricane Katrina, Senate records show.
And both voted for the final transportation bill that included the $223 million earmark for the Alaska project.
Ouch! Not just supporting the B2N, but withholding money from Katrina folks! Man … incoming! Fire in the hole!
Not to be left out of the party, Warren Buffet’s rag, WaPo joins in the fun! Democrat Barack Obama continues to argue that only the systematic withdrawal of U.S. combat units will force Iraqi leaders to compromise. Yet the empirical evidence of the past year suggests the opposite: that only the greater security produced and guaranteed by American troops allows a political environment in which legislative deals and free elections are feasible.
I’m not convinced – or even tantalized – by the articles representing some sea change. I’ve seen all the papers above do this 99 articles biased – 1 honest – 99 biased routine before. But it is nice to see all these words on the same day.
UPDATE: The old-stream media is blaming Republicans for no agreement here and here. Next up? The Democrats will somehow save the day. These people are so predictable.
just a quick observation. the more loudly the dems blame "republicans," "conservatives," and mccain for any delay in reaching bailout legislation, the more it is the dems themselves obstructing a deal.
they have this group-think happening - collectively they are stupid. they will drag this on so that they can imperil the debate - thinking that mccain won't go but obama will (which would be a disaster for obama, but they see it otherwise). they will drag this out - at the risk of real a credit collapse in the marketplace - ans try to paint mccain as the problem. to them, this crisis is an opportunity to score political points, and they will do everything they can to get points for the dems and take points away from the pubs.
it is funny to watch them. they're kinda cute. problem is they can cause real damage with their political games.
UPDATE: “Anybody be dissing my girley ass in Missouri gonna gets them an e-vest-ti-ga-tun!” Good lord, Bambi, settle down. You’re embarrassing yourself. If you really can’t stand the heat, just leave, son. This is politics. Where’s your “dissing” bullshit line when it came to Palin? You really are a girl.
Obama is such a girl. It’s humorous the way he fights. He can’t take a punch and return it. He needs to try to get his mouthpieces to make them stop hitting him. Just a girl from the hood. A teenage girl at that.
Let’s see if we can get a feel for what has his panties in a bunch.
He starts with the “bitter” comment and how we “cling” to guns and religion:
Now the NRA preps its ads>
This video is not an ad, but a fun two-minute bit on his brilliance as a Constitutional professor (being one myself, I find the label applied to him to be distasteful):
So put his political-finger-in-the-wind changes aside. Let’s look at his history:
(UPDATE: I forgot to credit my sources below. The first group comes from the NRA, the second group from the RNC.)
Obama endorsed a ban on all handguns. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96
Obama voted to allow the prosecution of people who use a firearm for self-defense in their homes. Illinois Senate, S.B. 2165, vote 20, 3/25/04
Obama supported increasing taxes on firearms and ammunition by 500 percent. Chicago Defender, 12/13/99
Obama voted to ban almost all rifle ammunition commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. United States Senate, S. 397, vote 217, 7/29/05
"There is an individual right to bear arms. But it is subject to common sense regulation." . Barack Obama, Journal Sentinel Online, 2/15/08
Obama opposes Right to Carry laws. Obama supports gun owner licensing and gun registration.. Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, 4/2/08; Chicago Tribune, 9/15/04.
"Fact Check: No News In Obama's Consistent Record." Obama campaign website, 12/11/07 Barack Obama supports mandatory waiting periods.. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, Sept. 9, 1996. The responses on this survey were described in "Obama had greater role on liberal survey," Politico, March 31, 2008
Barack Obama supports mandatory micro-stamping. February 15, 2008 Barack Obama favors a ban on standard capacity magazines. Chicago Tribune blogs, "Barack Obama: NIU Shootings call for action."
Barack Obama voted against a measure to lower the Firearms Owners Identification card age minimum from 21 to 18, a measure designed to assist young people in the military. "Clinton, Edwards, Obama on gun control," Radio Iowa, Sunday, April 22, 2007
Barack Obama voted not to notify gun owners when the state of Illinois did records searches on them. Illinois Senate, March 25, 2003, SB 2163, vote 18.
Barack Obama supported a proposal to ban gun stores within 5 miles of a school or park, which would eliminate almost every gun store in America. Illinois Senate, May 5, 2002, SB 1936 Con., vote 26.
Barack Obama was a member of the Board of Directors of the Joyce Foundation, the leading source of funds for anti-gun organizations and "research." 1998 Joyce Foundation Annual Report, p. 7.
Obama endorsed a complete ban on all handguns. Independent Voters of Illinois/Independent Precinct Organization general candidate questionnaire, 9/9/96 Politco, 3/31/08.
Obama voted in favor of legislation to prohibit law-abiding individuals from purchasing more than one gun a one gun a month. Illinois Senate, H.B. 2579, 5/16/03.
Obama has supported banning hundreds of rifles and shotguns commonly used for hunting and sport shooting. Illinois Senate Debate # 3: Barack Obama vs. Alan Keyes, 10/21/04.
Obama Campaign: "Obama Believes The D.C. Handgun Law Is Constitutional." "[T]he campaign of Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said that he '...believes that we can recognize and respect the rights of law-abiding gun owners and the right of local communities to enact common sense laws to combat violence and save lives. Obama believes the D.C. handgun law is constitutional." James Oliphant and Michael J. Higgins, "Court To Hear Gun Case," Chicago Tribune, 11/20/07.
During An Interview, Obama Acknowledged His Support For The D.C. Gun Ban. Questioner Leon Harris: "One other issue that's of great importance here in the district as well is gun control. You said in Idaho recently - I'm quoting here - 'I have no intention of taking away folks' guns,' but you support the D.C. handgun ban." Obama: "Right." Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08.
In The Same Interview, Obama Indicated He Feels The D.C. Gun Ban Is Constitutional. Harris: "And you've said that it's constitutional. How can you reconcile those two different positions?" Obama: "Oh, because I think we have two conflicting traditions in this country. I think it is important for us to recognize that we've got a tradition of handgun ownership and gun ownership generally. And a lot of people, law-abiding citizens, use it for hunting, for sportsmanship, and for protecting their families. We also have violence on the streets that is a result of illegal handgun use. And so, there is nothing wrong, I think, with a community saying we are going to take those illegal handguns off the streets..." Leon Harris and Sen. Barack Obama, Forum Sponsored By ABC And Politico.Com, Washington, DC, 2/12/08.
Scholar John Lott Recalls Obama Stating: "I Don't Believe That People Should Be Able To Own Guns." John Lott: "In fact, I knew Obama during the mid-1990s, and his answers to IVI's question on guns fit well with the Obama that I knew. Indeed, the first time I introduced myself to him he said 'Oh, you are the gun guy.' I responded 'Yes, I guess so.' He simply responded that 'I don't believe that people should be able to own guns.'"John R. Lott, Jr., "Obama And Guns: Two Different Views," Fox News, 4/7/08.
In Response To A 1996 Independent Voters Of Illinois Questionnaire, Obama Indicated That He Supported Banning The "Manufacture, Sale And Possession Of Handguns." Question: "Do you support state legislation to ... ban the manufacture, sale and possession of handguns?" Obama's Response: "Yes." Independent Voters Of Illinois Independent Precinct Organization 1996 General Candidate Questionnaire, Barack Obama Responses, 9/9/96/
Obama Was Director Of Anti-Gun Joyce Foundation, Which Spent Millions On Gun-Control Causes. "Adding even further skepticism to Obama's claim of support for the 2nd Amendment is his previous service as a director of the Joyce Foundation. Since 2000, the Joyce Foundation has provided over $15 Million in funding to radical gun control organizations such as the Violence Policy Center and the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence. The Joyce Foundation is tightly linked to the Soros Open Society Instit ute -- an extremist group that advocates a worldwide ban on civilian firearm ownership." Illinois State Rifle Association, "ISRA Blasts Candidate Obama On His Record Of Hostility Toward Law-Abiding Firearm Owners," Press Release, 8/24/04.
In 2004, Obama Voted Against Self-Defense Rights. "[Obama] opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation." Ryan Keith "Obama Record In State Legislature Offers Possible Ammunition For Critics," The Associated Press, 1/17/07.
In 2004, Running For U.S. Senate Obama Called For Federal Legislation To Pre-Empt State Concealed Carry Laws. "In a February survey of Democratic primary candidates for the U.S. Senate by the Tribune, Obama said he opposed allowing ordinary citizens to carry concealed weapons and that a federal law banning concealed carried weapons except for law enforcement is needed." Liam Ford, "Keyes Backs Law On Concealed Guns," Chicago Tribune, 8/25/04.
On December 21, 1999, Obama Discussed The Penalties One Would Receive If Carrying A Firearm Illegally. State Of Illinois 91st General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, 12/21/99, p. 20-23.
Obama: "Senator Emil Jones has offered - and I think this is an excellent idea that gets at the concerns that everybody on that side of the aisle has had, which is that we would create a felony offense and a misdemeanor offense, depending on the kinds of weapons you're carrying. Basically, the provision would say that there are category one weapons: handguns, sawed-off shotguns, sawed-off rifles, other firearms that are small enough to store on their person, that to unlawfully possess and carry these weapons would be a felony; but, on the other hand, if you were going to be carrying a rifle or shotgun, a spring gun, other firearm that were used for hunting, then that would be a misdemeanor." State Of Illinois 91st General Assembly Regular Session Senate Transcript, 12/21/99, p. 21.
Look, I don’t really care what his position is on gun ownership. I’m not voting for him because I think he’s a punk. But he should do two things: He should find a position and stick with it; he should let Freedom of Speech be free. He has no right or privilege to interfere. It’s insulting to me as a citizen and as a person learned in the United States Constitution.
I don’t hunt, but I know people that do. I own one gun. It’s a semi-automatic Russian-made 9mm. Fully legal. My bullets are hollow points. Any one comes in my house thinking they are going to steal things or harm people, I will use it without hesitation. And I won’t lose a second of sleep after they wrap up the corpse and haul it away.
I can appreciate Bambi’s background and different view. Most of the guns affecting the people he knew were used by criminals. I am sorry for the harm that illegal gun use causes. But the solution is to enforce existing gun laws. The overwhelming majority of guns possessed in this country are by law-abiding people that respect weapons. If you take away legal guns, it is a complete non sequitor to suggest that it will lower the number of guns in the hands of criminals. It won’t. Do the crim stat research for the UK – 7 times the incidence of rape. Canada has about 4 times the rate of burglaries. Why? Gun control laws change the risk calculus for the criminal. They don’t fear getting shot.
And in this corner, the Champion, hailing from the Great State of Arizona, weighing in at 20 years in the Senate preceded by 22 years in the United States Military, 5 of which were in captivity, calls for a delay in the presidential debate to focus on the economic package. “This package must be finished before the markets open on Monday,” he says. “I ask the president to call a leadership meeting of both houses, and include both me and Sen. Obama.”
And hailing from the ivy-lined walls of Harvard by way of Chicago, with 4 years in the Senate and 3 years walking the streets of Chicago looking for housing code violations, the Challenger says, “um, no,” this declaration coming on the heels of his previous statement that McCain was “panicked” over the situation, and shortly thereafter contradicted himself by referring to the cost of the bailout as “staggering”. “We can do both,” his campaign aide said with a swish-sway of his skirt. “Senator Obama will go to Washington if it will help,” he further intoned.
This direct face-off can only have one winner.
The more the Democrats seek to sink the Good Ship W through playing up the depth of this crisis, the more the Challenger will look out of touch for his reticence to engage. If the Challenger is seen as an outsider to the solution process then the greater the victory to the Champion.
If the situation is downplayed and emergency legislation is not passed, the credit markets in this country could seize up like a Lithuanian on a pure lard diet. The absence of credit is what brought on the Great Depression. If that begins to unfold, then the Challenger will be seen as not understanding a crisis when it stood right in front of him.
And now, will you all please stand and remove your hats as the USS W pulls into port for a 9:00PM speech to the nation.
UPDATE: A girl shouts from the audience, “No, Mac! Don’t come back!” Security quickly responds and drags her kicking and screaming out of the auditorium.
This bit about Biden excusing himself is funny enough to be true. I post it just to document the timeline.
I also read a few moments ago that Obama said he is “proud of his choice” of Biden. Paranoid thinking alert: Obama will puff up Biden ad nauseum for the next couple of weeks, and then be simply “devastated” by the health problem that forced Biden to step aside. “Our thoughts and prayers are with the family during this time of crisis. This is a time for all of us to set aside partisan issues. Senator Clinton has graciously agreed to become my running mate, and I could not be more proud of her dedication to our great country.”
CBS “Early Show,” Friday, September 19, 2008: Political analyst Laura Schwartz declared: "You know, Cindy McCain, her outfit that she wore the opening night of the convention comes in, once you tally everything up, Oscar de la Renta dress for $3,000. The watch from Chanel $4500. $11000 to $25000 worth of pearls. $600 shoes. And the diamond earrings, $280,000. So she clocks in right around $300,000...That kinda puts her over the top. That's like 1 ½ houses."
CBS “Early Show,” Wednesday, September 24, 2008: Co-host Russ Mitchell: "Now, a correction. Last week, the Early Show aired an [sic] segment on an outfit Cindy McCain wore during the Republican National Convention. We estimated the total cost was more than $300,000. It turns out that dress is off-the-rack and the pearl necklace is not real. We regret the error."
Um, CBS, dudes, guys, WTF?
UPDATE 2: “I’m angry and I’m not going to take it any more!” Good for McCain. At least someone has some balls around here. The writing has a real “… and strong letter to follow” feel about it. Ideology aside, I love watching shoddy reporting being called out.
UPDATE 1: Media bias runs rampant in polling data. And they think gun owners abuse the 2d Amendment?
I taught tonight in Philadelphia, so had plenty of time to think as I drove there. I had scanned several news and opinion sites before I left. I do that a few times a time. Here’s my rotation: Drudge, Instapundit, Lucianne, NewsBusters, Ring Wing News, and Robinson & Long.
I was struck by the number of stories about media bias – and the very real examples given. As I was driving, I began to try to understand why the media is so over-the-top partisan this time.
This election cycle is not just POTUS. Dems – if they do deeply well – can nail in very impressive majorities in the House and Senate. It really is a once in a generation thing.
So how’s their candidate doing?
He completely blew the VEEP selection. Biden is racking up gaffes quicker than a circus monkey steals grapes – today’s were no clean coal and the McCain computer ad should not have run. It is just getting deeper. I suspect the two will start campaigning together so Obama’s people can rein him in.
Obama talking away from the teleprompter is tanking him. He is really bad. Remarkably bad. Did you see him stumble over saying Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac? It’s like he’s exhausted. He had this look of disbelief on his face at his own inability to say it. He is surprising unsmooth off-script.
His crowds are dwindling. Green Bay was embarrassing. Other supporters are seeing it, too. Jane Pauley drew 8 people today. Biden’s got empty seats (so did Obama in GB).
Statements from ago … bitter people clinging to guns and religion … are not going away. The Annenberg and Ayers facts are starting to congeal – seems Obama was extremely, um, progressive in the policies he sought to have instilled in the educational system. The bit about “age-appropriate” sex education for kindergartners is the least of it.
I watch the state polls. National numbers mean nothing. The Electoral College is starting to turn on him. Pennsylvania and Michigan look to be in play. He losing Florida and Ohio. Hell, even New Jersey and New York are running the wrong way. Gaps are closing. And when you look into the data, you start to see some polling with higher Democrat numbers polled than might seem appropriate. The ace in the hole, fraudulent registrations by ACORN, is taking a hit now rather than after the voting is done.
Remember, Obama didn’t expect to get the nomination. He just didn’t want 8 years to run from the 2004 DNCC speech until he entered the race. So he ran just to get him name out there. He under-estimated the anti-Hillary vote. He won – and was just as surprised as everyone else. Now he’s stuck with Axelrod – a thug who doesn’t understand national politics. Just look at how negative he’s gone.
If Obama goes down big time, not only will the opportunity for comfortable margins in Congress go away, we could see the Republicans gaining back the Senate and neutralizing any advantage in the House.
The press has no choice but to take over the campaign. They have to show Democrats to be warm, fuzzy, and likeable; Republicans need to old and common.
So the comical bias kicks into high gear. The problem the press has is that people do not like to be lied to. They get angry. You can read about the perceived bias from a lot of angles – a woman at McCain’s town hall in Scranton on Monday took her time at the mic to point at the press sitting there and chastise them for their treatment of Palin. It was very pointed.
It seems clear to me that comparing interviews by the same person with different candidates indicates a personal desire on behalf of the interviewer as to who they want to look good or bad. It is blatant. Their objectivity is no longer even being pretended.
The press has no choice – their candidate is tanking.
There is a link inside this article to the Jawa Report’s source analysis. It seems that the big push behind the Palin smears has been the Obama campaign itself. Yes, of course, there is plausible deniability in place. Obviously. But the overlaps include specific people, production techniques, and placement techniques.
I have no hesitation in asserting that Axelrod was a motivator – if not key player – in the smear campaign. How very sad.
What would happen if the wagons were circling around McCain’s camp because his campaign manager went after Biden with similar unfounded slurs? You can bet the MSM would be frothing at the mouths like rabid dogs until a head was tossed into their midst. I have no illusions that they will act the same in this situation.
If someone says, “This is the way politics is done,” my rejoinder would be two-fold. First, no, it is not done this way. Only children that have not followed politics for decades think that Hollywood depictions are real. Yes, it is a rough and tumble sport. But we seek to win, not destroy someone’s family based upon made-up bullshit in the process. Second, Obama was supposed to be some great next-generation politician, someone above all the brutality. Turns out those words were just said because they sounded good, maybe polled well. It is becoming clear that he is like Bill Clinton without a soul. Ouch.
It was actually a small thing, but Trump was being interviewed the other day by some CNN hack – could’ve been another liberal outlet, but I think it was CNN. The Donald mentions Biden’s plagiarism during law school, something well-documented and admitted to by Biden. The interviewing slog said, “I don’t know what you are talking about. I guess perhaps that you have a better memory about such things than I do.” I thought – hunh? This guy is running for VEEP and you don’t know his history in even the slightest way? You seem to know everything about Palin, and do so with the grandest of “right to know” lines. But Biden? You don’t even KNOW of the issue? Whew …
I don’t mind investigating politicians running for office. It is a hallmark of our society that we go after them harshly.
What I do mind is when the press turns an absolute blind eye towards the candidates they support. Biden has a history – know it. Obama’s people have their fingerprints on the Palin smear – the evidence has been gathered for you – investigate it.
I like a level playing field, and then let the best man or woman win. Anything else is cheating. Cheating is lying. I detest liars. I never forget when someone has lied to me. I never trust them again. It’s like my creed.
See the Nietzsche quote towards the bottom of the right column? “I’m not upset that you lied to me. I’m upset that from now on I can’t believe you.”
Wise words: Abraham Lincoln once asked an audience how many legs a dog has if you count the tail as a leg. When they answered "five," Lincoln told them that the answer was four. The fact that you called the tail a leg did not make it a leg.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~ Aisling: (Irish: aislinn; pronounced ASH-ling): A vision poem.
In an aisling, the island of Ireland appears to the poet in a vision in the form of a woman, sometimes young and beautiful, sometimes old and haggard. This female figure is generally referred to in the poems as An SpÊirbhean (the sky-woman). ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Words should be scattered like seed; no matter how small the seed may be, if it has once found favorable ground, it unfolds its strength. —Seneca, Roman rhetorician, 65 A.D.
stuff i wrote
A word is not a crystal, transparent and unchanging; it is the skin of a living thought and may vary greatly in color and content according to the circumstances and the time in which it is used. —Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Towne v. Eisner, 245 US 418, 425 (1918)
"I can't explain myself, I'm afraid, sir," said Alice, "because I'm not myself, you see." Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures Under Ground (1864).
"Begin at the beginning," the King said gravely [to the White Rabbit], "and go on till you come to the end: then stop." Lewis Carroll, Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1865).
''Expressing the will of the people, the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian Republic declares and solemnly proclaims the restoration of the exercise of sovereign powers of the Lithuanian state, which were annulled by an alien power in 1940. From now on, Lithuania is once again an independent state.'' -Resolution approved by the Lithuanian parliament, March 12, 1990
Posts
