Self-composed

Not everyone is down in the dumps over the current economic issues. Of course our enemies are happy with the developments…for now.

For example, there’s a treasonous pig in a night shirt living in Pakistan who says:

The financial crisis sweeping the United States is Divine Punishment for the war in Iraq and other “sins,” an American member of Al Qaeda charged. Adam Gadahn, a California native now living in Pakistan who has been indicted in a Los Angeles court for treason, said in a half-hour video speech that the economic woes serve as evidence of punishment to the “enemies of Islam.”

How does this “divine punishment” thing work exactly Adam? You and your friends are living in dusty cave in the arm pit of the world surrounded by a society and culture that is stuck at about 1000 years ago with a last-century infrastructure, and you believe your Allah is happy with you and mad at Americans because some of them are taking hits on their 401k?  Uh huh.

When Barack Obama meets unconditionally with his buddy Mahmoud they can exchange high fives. It looks like Obama, and his supporters here (Farrakhan, Wright, liberals in general - “chickens coming home to roost”) and in Iran are all on the same page:

Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad earlier this week joined the Arab world’s delight over the American economic crisis and said that Americans are “oppressors…Systems based on oppression and unrighteous positions will not endure.”

 

An Iranian senior cleric, Ayatollah Ahmad Jannati, declared, “We are happy that the U.S. economy is in anarchy and the anarchy is reaching Europe.”

Nasty partisan rhetoric? Not if its true. There is no doubt in my mind liberals at all levels, inwardly or outwardly, are joyous when the see bad news. It’s axiomatic, what’s bad news for American is good news for liberals. Bad news always seems to drive a few more misguided handout seekers willing to give them power in exchange for handouts their way.

The party isn’t going to go on forever for the totalitarian Islamists.

However, Iran and oil-rich Arab countries also are feeling the repercussions of the impending recession accompanying the crash of American banks and stock markets around the world. The price of oil has plunged in the past several weeks from a record high of more than $140 a barrel to less than $80.

Isn’t it about time the people who’ve always blamed Bush and the evil rich oil companies for high gas prices now throw them a parade?

Tags: islam, oil, iran, economy

One of my favorite conservative bloggers, Dr. Bruce of Faith and Facts happened to say something in a post today I found myself in a bit of disagreement with:

I am praying that over 150,000,000 people will register and vote in this election season. The opportunity to vote is both a right and a privilege. With the advent of the Internet, online voter registration is easier than ever. While concerns over voter fraud have attorneys piling up the fees, it should not keep anyone away from the polls. You should register online and vote.

If I were to pray about such a thing, I’d basically be praying for the opposite. It is now October, just a few weeks before election day. I’ll go out on a limb here and say the vast majority of those who have existed through the primaries and all the hullabaloo that has been this election season, and haven’t registered to vote yet - have not already made it a priority, should just stay home that day and forget about it.

Voting is serious business and it should be left to serious people who are already invested and engaged. If someone needs to be bribed, cajoled, begged, or pleaded with before they’ll get off their dead ass and go register, they shouldn’t be involved in the political process. If someone needs to track them down and stick a registration form in their face and give them a pep talk, they shouldn’t be voting.

Just my opinion. I’m not necessarily calling for a law against it - just saying what I think. It’s sort of like my position that people shouldn’t go out and feed vagrants (aka homeless) “out of the goodness of their hearts.” But that’s another post.

There is a big difference between voting for a candidate and picking a candidate. There are already enough people who will pick one of the candidates November 4th rather than vote for one. What do I mean by that? I’m saying voting means knowing what is going on in the world, having a set of ideas about what should be done based on sound principles, and knowing the candidates well enough to distinguish which one is most likely going to further your agenda. If a history of moose hunting, skin color, who has the nicest smile, and the like are a consideration, that is picking a candidate.

Anyone who has been paying attention, who knows what is happening in this country (is happening to this country) already has all the motivation they need and has already made arrangements to engage in the process of electing our next president and members of Congress. Anyone who doesn’t know enough to feel invested, or knows but doesn’t care enough to open a phone book, make a phone call, and find out what they need to do to become involved, doesn’t belong in a voting booth.

Even if there were a Constitutional right for individuals to vote (and there isn’t) I still wouldn’t encourage anyone to go round people up. There is a right to freedom of speech but I don’t go around trying to talk people into expressing themselves. There is a right to bear arms but I don’t beg anyone to buy a gun.

I can’t help the fact that a lot of uninformed Americans are going to be pulling levers for wrong reasons this election on their own steam, but I can discourage my friends from rounding up more of them.

Tags: vote, election, ballot,

Time and again I keep spotting examples of how liberals function in politics on the emotions and whatever fits the moment rather than facts and principles.

Remember the election of 2004? To listen to the political liberal talking points at the time you’d think having served in Vietnam was the top qualifier for the office of the president. Mind you, Democrat John Kerry was in Vietnam about four months.

In 2004, military service of Democrat and Republican candidates for president was a political issue

President Bush was evil “because he avoided service in Vietnam.” Kerry dragged as many Vietnam vets as he could find on stage with him, and the liberal peanut gallery learned the term “chicken hawk” and John Kerry’s Democrat supporters regurgitated it at every opportunity.

Kerry Hams for the camera with Vietnam vets at a political event

Robert Poe wrote a tedious article for Salon.com where he was all over the liberal talking points at the time:

“The more veterans appear in political settings, the more neocons will find themselves facing the kinds of questions they’ve managed to dodge for most of their adult lives.

… If you believe that patriotism should be wholehearted, and should transcend politics and selfish concerns, what does it say about your patriotism that you didn’t volunteer for Vietnam? … Or, as a vet might be tempted to put it: If you’re such a great patriot, why didn’t you go fight like we did?

Bush and Co. have been enormously successful in avoiding such questions. We know that Dick Cheney famously “had other priorities,” but that’s no answer. What does the public know about John Ashcroft’s reasons for not serving in Vietnam? Richard Perle’s? Paul Wolfowitz’s? Not to mention all their comrades in Congress and the right-wing media. … The central question is not whether they did anything illegal to avoid military service. It is how they justified their avoidance in the first place.”

Doesn’t that just take you back? Throughout John Kerry’s entire presidential campaign if there were a microphone within shouting distance, you could bet he’d start yammering about serving in the Vietnam war, and the moonbats supporting him drowned him out with their echos.

Democrats and liberals loved to talk about John Kerry’s Vietnam experience when he was running for president

I just did a google search of The Daily Kos and Huffington Post for pages that mention “Kerry” and “Vietnam.”

2500 hits

3300 hit Huffington Post

Daily Kos: 2500 hits. Huffington Post: 3300 hits.

Pages upon pages where you find deep thinker “Kos” saying things like “While Kerry was taking incoming, Bush was playing “all-day water volleyball games” with “ambitious secretaries”.”
Needless to say, I could go on and on demonstrating how the left exploited Kerry’s four months in Vietnam for everything it was worth.

Now that John McCain is running for president in 2008, Vietnam experience is no longer a political issue

Since John McCain began running for president I can remember hearing him mention his service on one occasion – at the Saddleback forum. He’d been asked about the most gut-wrenching decision he’d
ever made and how faith had worked in his life.

John McCain while prisoner of war

What have liberals to say now about service in Vietnam? In response to the one occasion, where personal questions on things like faith were asked, where McCain described his experiences at the request of the moderator, former president Jimmy Carter said McCain is “milking every possible drop of advantage from his status as a POW.”

Kerry spent four months in Vietnam, McCain spent more than five years.

Kerry needed a band aid or a few stitches for his Purple Heart injuries – McCain needed surgery and still suffers from the resulting disabilities.

I’m not sure how often Kerry faced the enemy – McCain faced them every day and withstood torture.
Kerry got to go home on a technicality after a few flesh wounds, McCain refused the offer to leave the POW camp on principle.

Four years ago, to qualify as a patriot you had to have served in Vietnam, not just any military service would do. This election, that’s all gone – you get your taxes raised – that makes you a patriot.

Old news: Republicans think and do. Democrats feel and react.

The point to all this is this is what the left has to offer. Where conservatives are always strongest is when they are appealing to people’s common sense. The left appeals to emotion. Conservative Republicans try to get people thinking, liberals try to get people feeling. It doesn’t matter what they feel, as long as it makes them feel like putting liberals in power.

Double standards abound. How many times have you heard people criticize President Bush for his decades-old DUI? How sick did everyone get over seeing his record in the National Guard raked over the coals? Recall how detestable it was for Democrats that Dick Cheney had connections in the energy industry.

Democrat political strategy: if you can’t beat Republicans, smear them

This election, the Democrats have made Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s Myspace page an issue for national scrutiny. We’ve had to get to the bottom of whether Sarah Palin’s religious activities may have included speaking in tongues. The list goes on.

The same people making an issue of all those things condemn questions – even the mere mention of Obama’s 20-year associations with a mad man who cavorted with Louis Farrakhan in Libya visiting Muammar al-Gaddafi, said our country deserved 9/11, and cried “god damn America.” Off limits also are his choice of associates like the America-hating terrorist Bill Ayers. All the sudden things that were happening around the time George W. Bush served in the National Guard took place too long ago to matter.

Now that Cheney is on the way out, we are no longer allowed to be concerned about how associates like Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright might influence someone’s agenda. Andrew Wilkow made the point the other day: imagine if John McCain had a relationship with someone who had bombed an abortion clinic comparable to Obama’s relationship to Ayers.

Make damn sure when you refer to Barack Obama you use his name, but make doubly damn sure you don’t use his full name. It is ill-mannered to use his middle name. Ever heard a liberal of any import call for some decorum when discussing George Bush? Heard any of the things they’re calling Sarah Palin?

Democrats like Barack Obama value control not consistency, power not principle

If liberalism had an ideology that would sell – that people would embrace having thought it through, then liberals wouldn’t embarrass themselves with these double standards, the appeals to emotion, and the endless internal inconsistency and self contradictions that follow. If the media weren’t heavily biased the left would be called to account for their dishonesty and inconsistency.

What the left has is an agenda no one in their right mind wants and an insatiable appetite for power along with the support of the national media who agrees, at least implicitly, that rules of logic, facts, and decency are a small sacrifice in exchange for contol.

A CBS poll that asked 516 “uncommitted voters” who they thought won the debate returned results with 40% saying Obama won, 26% saying McCain won, and the rest calling it a draw.

Why do we care about these uncommitted voters?

Oh yeah, because these people in the wishy washy, fence sitting, uninformed (yes, I said uninformed) middle are the ones who decide elections. Republicans and conservatives don’t, Democrats and liberals don’t, 3rd party wackos sure as hell don’t, the people who can live through at least a year of campaigning, primary season, conventions, with 24/7 cable and network news coverage, daily front page headlines in the paper, blogs, web sites, radio - these people who still haven’t picked a side are basically the ones who decide the elections.

I have more respect for the Daily Kos kool-aid drinkers who’d vote for Obama if he were caught red handed with child porn on his laptop and a million dollars in bribe money in his freezer (and they really would vote for him) than I do these so-called “independents” who seemingly have no principles whatsoever to guide their choice.

So they look to things like who has more experience, who is older, who is younger, who is black, who isn’t black, who talks nice, who is mean, who seems strong, and they may even tune into a few convention speeches, debates, and if they live in a battleground state, they see the ads while watching American Idol or Heroes or whatever it is people watch on network TV these days.

Apparently they don’t have a set of issues that are important to them. They don’t care what happens to their taxes, they don’t care whether Constitutional rights are eroded, they certainly can’t be bothered with understanding the difference between the kind of judges a liberal or conservative nominates. They aren’t concerned with the safety of the country, where are troops are sent, how we deal with other countries, what we’ll do about bad ones who can, might, or have produced or procured chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons.

If they cared about any of these things, if at least one or two of these issues were important, wouldn’t they have figured out who’s taking what position on them?

No.

Instead, they wait for someone like Katie Couric to tell them what the big issue is today and what to think about it. They might even decide that being things basically suck right now, and being the guy in the White House has an R next to his name, the guy running with the R next to his name must be bad. Way to connect the dots. Never mind that the suckitude may be completely or partly beyond the control of the current president, and never mind the guy running to replace him has a completely different position.

So, when you watch a debate, or a speech, or a press conference, and the candidate is talking baby talk, pulling punches instead of describing what an incompetent fool his opponent is, when you see Obama being able to get mileage out of a problem that he and his friends and colleagues who share his ideology created - its because of the “uncommitted voters.” The kind of voters we need less of, but are pandered to instead.

If you are reading this, and you still haven’t made up your mind. If you’re still on the fence. If you are still not sure who would be better for the country, do me a favor, do the right thing and don’t bother. Just stay home on Wednesday November 5th, stay home on super-Wednesday and don’t go out and vote. Leave that to those of us who are informed.

Oh yeah, stay home the day before too. Rent some DVDs or go see a movie. Whatever you do, don’t turn on the TV, there won’t be anything good on anyway, just politics and stuff.

Values

“My commitments are to the values of that church…” -Barack Obama, May 4, 2008

A few imbeciles on the right have gone to great lengths attempting to paint Barack Obama as some sort of closet Muslim. Apparently, the conspiracy theory-like narrative goes something like “Obama attended a school as a youngster where he was indoctrinated with Islamic views sympathetic with bomb belt Muslims, then went underground for the next forty years, waiting for his chance to become president and…”

It is just too stupid. I cringe every time I see an idiot attempting to make the connection because I know in mind of the American Idol-watching neutral observer hearing this implausible scenario, the credibility of Obama’s critics who have sound, reasonable, and responsible causes for concern, is compromised.

One of those sound, reasonable, and responsible causes for concern is Obama’s actual religion. I’m talking about the one he has practiced openly for the last twenty years. The collection of beliefs that has guided, comforted, and connected him with his chosen community and power base as an adult.

Does his religion and personal beliefs matter? Ultimately, the reader can make up their own mind. The point here is to inform more than persuade. The current president’s references to innocuous things like prayer, faith in God, and other mainstream Christian beliefs and practices have been liberally (no pun) scrutinized over the last eight years, but two wrongs don’t make a right. However, not all religions and religious beliefs are created equal, some may invite themselves to scrutiny more than others. Add the information here to whatever you already know, do some research on your own, check my facts, and decide for yourself.

I’ll start in the middle with the Obama’s chosen church, Trinity United Church of Christ, and its stated values. But first, another thing needs to be clear up front. What follows in this and upcoming parts of the series is about a specific and distinguishable belief system, not black churches in general. While this belief system is, with few plausible exceptions, practiced only by predominately black churches, only a (hopefully small) portion of black churches wholly subscribe to this belief system.

This belief system is usually referred to as “Black Liberation Theology” or the “Black Liberation Movement.” Somewhat of a misnomer because no one is going to be liberated from anything by it and it has little if anything to do with theology. There has been volumes of text written on the now-famous sound bites of Jeremiah Wright. They’ve been exposed, even in the Obama-sympathetic mainstream media, and seemingly put to bed by the same. Now that Wright is no longer given a voice by the media, fired from Obama’s campaign, carefully denounced by Obama, and retired from his “ministry,” is all well and good at Trinity United Church of Christ?

A scan of the church web site isn’t promising. From the site’s “about” page you can navigate to another page titled “The black value system.” Stopping right there, I have to say this galls me. What can be more racist than the assertion that one race could, would, or should have a separate or unique set of values? Reading this page, I actually have little complaint with most of them. Taken individually, some of them are entirely laudable and something for everyone of any race to aspire to. Going down the page, I especially liked the following one when I saw it. Number 6:

Adherence to the Black Work Ethic. “It is becoming harder to find qualified people to work in Chicago.” Whether this is true or not, it represents one of the many reasons given by businesses and industries for deserting the Chicago area. We must realize that a location with good facilities, adequate transportation and a reputation for producing skilled workers will attract industry. We are in competition with other cities, states and nations for jobs. High productivity must be a goal of the Black workforce.”

High productivity. Nothing wrong with that. If you want to attract industries and jobs, be known for the city with the most productive people. Then, only a couple paragraphs down is this – number 8:

Disavowal of the Pursuit of “Middleclassness.” Classic methodology on control of captives teaches that captors must be able to identify the “talented tenth” of those subjugated, especially those who show promise of providing the kind of leadership that might threaten the captor’s control.

Those so identified are separated from the rest of the people by:

1. Killing them off directly, and/or fostering a social system that encourages them to kill off one another.

2. Placing them in concentration camps, and/or structuring an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.

3. Seducing them into a socioeconomic class system which, while training them to earn more dollars, hypnotizes them into believing they are better than others and teaches them to think in terms of “we” and “they” instead of “us.”

4. So, while it is permissible to chase “middleclassness” with all our might, we must avoid the third separation method - the psychological entrapment of Black “middleclassness.” If we avoid this snare, we will also diminish our “voluntary” contributions to methods A and B. And more importantly, Black people no longer will be deprived of their birthright: the leadership, resourcefulness and example of their own talented persons.

I want to note here that the preceding 7 “black values” were each followed by a portion of scripture, apparently from the King James Version of the Bible. This one wasn’t. Instead it was followed by this crazy list. One of the first things that crossed my mind is this contradicts the exhortation of number 6 to “be productive.” Before I begin unpacking what was said, I have to point out a quote from Michelle Obama lest anyone begin to question whether the Obamas ever bought into this kind of “thinking” or integrated it in their own individual world views.

Michelle Obama earlier this year, speaking to a group in Zanesville, Ohio:

“We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we’re asking young people to do… Don’t go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse. Those are the careers that we need, and we’re encouraging our young people to do that.”

I’ll argue that if her directions to the women to refrain from “going into corporate America” were not inspired by her church’s call for a “disavowal of middleclassness” they were certainly on the same wavelength.

It was somewhat difficult to process this particular “value.” It seemed very much out of place with the others and has a somewhat incoherent, paranoid, deranged feel to it, as if penned by someone suffering a mental illness. According to the web site, the church adopted these “black values” in 1981and an annual scholarship was issued in their name, long before Obama joined Trinity United Church of Christ.

I’d be eager to ask the author or someone with in-depth knowledge of this text several questions.

The term “talented tenth” originated in 1896, after the end of slavery, with Northern whites from the American Baptist Missionary Home Society – their goal was establishing black colleges intended to educate black teachers and professionals. Why then, is it associated with this “classic methodology on control of captives?”

Several years later, W. E. B. Dubois used the term in reference to the blacks he hoped would become leaders and intellectuals through higher learning. Dubois wrote:

“The Negro race, like all races, is going to be saved by its exceptional men. The problem of education, then, among Negroes must first of all deal with the Talented Tenth; it is the problem of developing the Best of this race that they may guide the Mass away from the contamination and death of the Worst, in their own and other races.”

“…the Talented Tenth as they have risen among American Negroes have been worthy of leadership…”

Why was this term so violently yanked out of the original context and framed as the words of an imaginary captor of some sort providing instruction on how to best eliminate these threats to his control? Dubois’s books and writings are promoted by the church and available in the church bookstore.

The author goes on to say this talented tenth are to be killed off directly, placed in concentration camps, and the leftovers that don’t fit in the concentration camps are seduced into earning lots of money so they think they are better off than others, and …this one just throws me… taught to think in terms of we and they?

Taught to think in terms of we and they? I guess this means that they’d start thinking crazy stuff such as a set of values can be designated to persons of a particular skin color. Then the clencher – the promise is, the logic… if “we” avoid getting sucked into the trap of being successful we won’t be as likely to be lynched, killing each other, put in jails, and concentration camps.

I fail to see how or why someone with a Harvard education, or any thinking person, would expose themselves to this kind of craziness. This isn’t just making up or believing mystical stories – even a staunch atheist would admit that at least there is a coherent chain of logic once you buy into the supernatural part of traditional Judeo Christian belief systems and other major world religions.

Here you have something so disjointed and unrealistic it can’t, in my mind, be excused as a private, personal, religious belief.

I suppose an apologist for Black Liberation Theology might say the language is metaphorical, but that still leaves the problem of flipping the initial meaning behind “talented tenth,” not to mention the bigger problem that when you already have an actual set of circumstances in your history involving real captors and real slaves, you don’t need to create an imaginary bogeyman that doesn’t even behave in a rational way, especially not when the real “monster” (slavery, then Jim Crow, segregation, racial discrimination, etc) has been defeated.

A mainstream evangelical Christian believer or any race would no sooner darken the door of Obama’s church, at least not once they’d been exposed to their theology and preaching, than a Mormon would settle for a Baptist church because its closer and located in his community, or a committed practicing Catholic would worship at Presbyterian church because that’s where her friends go. I’m not making this point to indicate one is better or worse, right or wrong – for now I just want to stress that the defining beliefs of churches like Obama’s and those of a mainstream Christian church are hardly comparable and never interchangeable.

The “theology” of Trinity United Church of Christ is more about a movement - cultural and social agendas than it is about theology. For this reason, this movement and its beliefs must be examined carefully before electing president someone who claims to subscribe to them.

I do not believe there should be a religious test for the president of the United States, so if the only problem I could find with Black Liberation Theology and Obama’s church were things like the belief that Jesus was black, I could and would easily set those aside. Obama is entitled to his beliefs, but we need to know what shapes his agenda, his philosophy, his ideology - these are the things that will directly influence how he would make decisions in the Oval Office.

This has been an introduction that will hopefully leave you with more questions about the religion of Barack Obama, his faith, his mentors, and what has guided, inspired, and shaped the man who wants power over the country.

Does Obama really believe this stuff?

Why did he join this church?

What else do they believe?

Where do beliefs like this come from?

In future parts of this series of posts, I’ll answer those questions and continue to explore the religion of Barack Obama. Subscribe to the feed now so you won’t forget to check back. You can also have future posts in this series emailed directly to your inbox.

Visit this post’s page on Digg

+++UPDATE+++

A few important and indisputable facts that need to be clear:

Jopek’s mother did ask him not to mention wearing the bracelet. This was confirmed in the recent AP story (opens in new window).

A few days after offering it to the Illinois Democrat, Jopek, of Merrill in north-central Wisconsin, had a change of heart. She realized it could be interpreted as a protest against the war, a statement that made her uncomfortable because other military families who suffered losses still supported the conflict.

“I am a mother, a mother who lost her son. It’s hard to know what’s right, what’s wrong about this war. Very hard,” she said. “And I know there are a lot of families who lost loved ones.”

So she e-mailed the Obama campaign through its Web site asking that he not mention it during debates or speeches.

Jopek’s mother is a Obama supporter, but an uncharacteristically pleasant and level-headed sounding one, so she obviously won’t take a public position that would hurt her candidate. I’ll also say, she’s handling all this in a very dignified way.

AP released two alarmingly different versions of the story, as Level_Head points out, a lot of damaging information was left out of the revised version, but there was no retraction.

Meanwhile, reporters are still up in Alaska digging through people’s garbage cans and harassing newspaper boys looking for dirt on Sarah Palin.

+++++++++++++++

The short of it: The bracelet with Ryan Jopek’s name that Obama had to consult during the debate was not intended to be a prop for a campaign stunt. Especially not an embarrassing stunt like the “I have a bracelet too, from the mother of…errm, uhhh, ummmm…” fiasco that is likely to blow up in Obama’s face in big way - much larger than a simple gaffe.

Bracelet, worn by Obama, commemorating Seargent Jopek

It seems neither the mother or father of the soldier want Obama to wear the bracelet. When Jopek’s mother gave Obama the bracelet it was intended to be between her and Obama, not fodder for the campaign trail. She asked him not to wear it. She’s now understandably upset with the attention she’s getting.

She was upset back in March when Jopek’s father was interviewed on the radio and discussed the problems Obama’s exploitation of their son and the gifted bracelet were causing.

Jopek: She had told me in an email that she had asked, actually asked Mr. Obama to not wear the bracelet any more at any of his public appearances. Which I don’t think he’s…

Moberg: It has been a while since he’s brought it up.

Jopek: Right. But, the other night I was watching the news and he was on, uh, speaking somewhere and he was still wearing it on his right wrist. I could see it on his right wrist. So, that’s his own choice. I mean that’s something Barack Obama, that’s a choice that he continues to wear it despite Tracy asking him not to… Because she is a Barack Obama supporter and she didn’t want to do anything to sabotage his campaign, so, if he’s still wearing the bracelet then, uh, that of course is entirely up to him.

Here Obama was causing these people grief six months ago. Note: Jopek’s mother is a Obama supporter which explains why she hasn’t pushed the issue publicly. It also explains why she hasn’t been causing a stir.

Had not Newsbusters beat me to it, I would have made the obvious point that this would be an entirely different ballgame if McCain was wearing a bracelet commemorating a fallen soldier against the wishes of the family.

No one is asking the father who supports the war in Iraq. No one can ask the soldier who volunteered and gave his life supporting it.

The other story here is that a blogger who discovered this, the radio interview, and basically broke the story. Hopefully it’ll snowball into something the mainstream media has to respond to.

***

H/T on some great blogging: Jeff-Protein Wisdom <-- Warner Todd Huston-Newsbusters <-- “Level_head” dehavelle.com

***

I’m anxious to see some comments on this one. Let ‘em fly.

H/T Duane Lester at All American Blogger who pulled the story off Drudge

I hopped on Twitter and saw Duane’s Tweet. Wow.

From Drudge:

MCCAIN: America this week faces an historic crisis in our financial system. We must pass legislation to address this crisis. If we do not, credit will dry up, with devastating consequences for our economy. People will no longer be able to buy homes and their life savings will be at stake. Businesses will not have enough money to pay their employees. If we do not act, ever corner of our country will be impacted. We cannot allow this to happen.

Last Friday, I laid out my proposal and I have since discussed my priorities and concerns with the bill the Administration has put forward. Senator Obama has expressed his priorities and concerns.This morning, I met with a group of economic advisers to talk about the proposal on the table and the steps that we should take going forward.I have also spoken with members of Congress to hear their perspective.

It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the Administration’ proposal. I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.

Tomorrow morning, I will suspend my campaign and return to Washington after speaking at the Clinton Global Initiative. I have spoken to Senator Obama and informed him of my decision and have asked him to join me.

I am calling on the President to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself. It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.

We must meet as Americans, not as Democrats or Republicans, and we must meet until this crisis is resolved.I am directing my campaign to work with the Obama campaign and the commission on presidential debates to delay Friday night’s debate until we have taken action to address this crisis.

I am confident that before the markets open on Monday we can achieve consensus on legislation that will stabilize our financial markets, protect taxpayers and homeowners, and earn the confidence of the American people. All we must do to achieve this is temporarily set politics aside, and I am committed to doing so.

Following September 11th, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now. Americans across our country lament the fact that partisan divisions in Washington have prevented us from addressing our national challenges. Now is our chance to come together to prove that Washington is once again capable of leading this country.

Developing…

To be really honest, this smacks of a big political stunt to me. I reserve the right to change my mind later because I’m shooting from the hip and being honest with my first reaction. I’ve never been a big McCain fan until he became the only hope of avoiding an extremist in the White house. On the other hand, I can say McCain has a track record of doing what he believes is right at the time - I’ll point to supporting the surge when it was extremely unpopular and politically costly. So maybe…hopefully…most likely…he knows better than I do.

Update #1

I just heard that Obama is refusing to cancel the debate. Good. While discussing this on Duane’s comments section I noted that I still think this whole “pause the campaign” thing seems kind of gimmicky. We’re what? 40 days from the election? I’m voting for McCain either way because there’s no other alternative, but inability to maintain focus on the task at hand and delegate or trust others is not indicative of a healthy management style. I hate to take shots at our guy, but I gotta call ‘em as a I see ‘em.

McCain is running for the Chief executive spot. Top management. Obama is running for national messiah. McCain needs to speak clearly on this issue and take a unwavering, principled position, and continue working on winning the White House. Yeah, this whole mess is bad for the economy but so would a four-year Jimmy Carter…err, I mean Barack Obama presidency. What can McCain do in Washington that he can’t do from the campaign trail while also performing his current, primary, and most important task at hand?

I hope I’m wrong, but this just looks too much like a stunt and the Obama campaign is going to come out on top of this one.

CNN:

Republican presidential candidate John McCain announced Wednesday that he is suspending his campaign to return to Washington and focus on the “historic” crisis facing the U.S. economy.

The Arizona senator called on his Democratic rival, Barack Obama, to do the same.

The Obama campaign announced that Obama would make a statement shortly.

He also urged organizers of Friday’s presidential debate at the University of Mississippi to postpone the event.

“I am calling on the president to convene a meeting with the leadership from both houses of Congress, including Senator Obama and myself,” McCain told reporters in New York. “It is time for both parties to come together to solve this problem.”

It was not immediately clear how extensive the suspension he announced would be — whether it would include dropping television advertising or just canceling scheduled appearances. McCain took no questions after reading his statement.

McCain’s announcement came just hours before President Bush was scheduled to address the nation on the troubled state of the U.S. financial system — a problem for which his administration has proposed a $700 billion bailout.

In response, the Obama campaign said Obama called McCain at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday to ask if the Republican nominee would join him in a joint statement of “shared principles and conditions” for the proposal. It said McCain called back at 2:30 p.m. — shortly before his New York announcement — to agree, and “The two campaigns are currently working together on the details.”

The bailout plan has met with a cool reception in two days of hearings on Capitol Hill, where both Democrats and Republicans have expressed skepticism about the proposal drafted by Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke and Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson.

“It has become clear that no consensus has developed to support the administration’s proposal,” McCain said. “I do not believe that the plan on the table will pass as it currently stands, and we are running out of time.”

But he added that he believes Congress could forge a consensus on legislation “before the markets open on Monday.”

There’s a saying of some sort that goes something like “the nice thing about not telling lies is you don’t have to keep track of them.” The nice thing about starting with sound principles and building your positions on them and then acting according to principle means you don’t have to spend half your presidential campaign explaining why your running mate disagreed with you, or why you disagree with yourself.

Hat tip Michelle Malkin for putting them all together

First there’s the insensitivity towards people with disabilities. Biden tells Lawmaker Chuck Grahm to stand up at a rally. Oops. Chuck is confined to a wheelchair. Meanwhile, Obama has been running ads making fun of McCain not being able to send emails. Had they thought about this ad before running it? Or do they just not care? If they did, they’d remember McCain’s inability to type is due to injuries sustained at the hands of the communist torturers while he was a prisoner of war. What’s next? Will they’ll make fun of McCain because his disability prevents him from combing his hair and tying his shoes? Knowing hard core liberal head nodders, they’d lap it up.

Next you have Biden calling said ad where McCain’s disability is made fun of “terrible” by Joe Biden. Precious. Especially when Biden says “there wasn’t anything intentional about that” while Couric, struggling to keep things in softball territory says “well didn’t he approve the ad? he said he did?”

Then, there was Biden, who took the same position on the AIG bailout as McCain. Trouble is, Obama and Biden hadn’t had time to assemble a focus group and compare notes, so while Obama was criticizing McCain’s position, he was also criticizing Obama’s. When asked: “He should have waited.” Waited?

Finally, Obama is promising to build clean coal plants and Biden is promising cute little greenies no coal plants.

Photo by Paul Keleher

1. There is no problem with uninsured. I say there is no problem because the reason they are uninsured is choice. If someone could be insured but chooses not to be, that is not a problem - not for me anyway. I live in Hawaii, one of the most expensive cost of living areas of the country. A 20-something smoker can buy a health insurance plan for well under $100 a month. Working one afternoon or evening shift a week at a minimum wage job will cover the monthly payment with money leftover for a savings account dedicated to copays. Giving up a evening or two at clubs, a few meals in restaurants, or the premium cable channels will also cover the cost.

Bestselling plans available to a 29 year-old male smoker on Oahu

2. The neediest already have programs available to them. Programs like Medicare and Medicaid are already in place for the disabled, elderly, and poor. Hospitals report trying to help qualified patients sign up for these programs but the patients don’t bother because they are treated anyway. Charitable organizations and free clinics already exist to help those in need.

3. Healthcare, like other necessities such as food, transportation, and clothing is something to be purchased by the individual not the government. The paradigm that healthcare is a right to be provide for by the state has developed over time and is encouraged by well-meaning but power hungry politicians who want to confiscate and distribute your money rather than allow you to spend it yourself.

4. Nationalized healthcare creates problems for the countries that have implemented it. Despite what you may have seen on the big screen over a bag of popcorn, there are new stories daily of misery, suffering, and frustration caused by things like rationing, shortages, long waits, and other problems inherent in nationalized healthcare systems.

5. Nationalized healthcare robs you of choice. You will have less, if any, choice about who treats you, when you are treated, where you are treated, and what procedures or tests are performed on you. Why? Because you will no longer be paying the bill. The decision will be made by government bureaucrats concerned with numbers, budgets, bottom lines, and heading home before traffic gets heavy.

6. Nationalized healthcare transfers power from the individual to the government. Giving government the power to do anything for you means giving them the power to do anything to you. Once the government is paying the bill for your healthcare, the government may eventually feel obligated to help you make the best decisions concerning your health.

7. Quality and availability would decline drastically. There is no problem with uninsured. I say there is no problem because the reason they are uninsured is choice. If someone could be insured but chooses not to be, that is not a problem - not for me anyway. I live in Hawaii, one of the most expensive cost of living areas of the country. A 20-something smoker can buy a health insurance plan for under $100 a month. Working one afternoon or evening shift a week at a minimum wage job will cover the monthly payment with money leftover for investments or a savings account.

Noteworthy facts:

• 38% of the uninsured live in households with over $50,000 annual income.
• 20% are in households that earn over $75,000 a year
• 31% of the uninsured qualify for Medicaid, S-CHIP, or other free government programs but choose not to enroll.
• People between the ages 18 and 34 spend four times more on alcohol, tobacco, entertainment, and eating out than on out of pocket medical expenses.
• Federal law already requires that hospitals provide care to anyone that reaches within 250 yards of an emergency room regardless of ability or willingness to pay.
• 12 million illegal immigrants in this country are receiving free health care
• Mexican citizens can, by law, request compassionate entry at the border, be picked up by an ambulance and treated at an American hospital.

Summary

There already exists a substantial safety net for those who can’t or choose not to pay for their own healthcare. Many Americans who’ve chosen not to make arrangements could easily afford to. Socializing our system would create grave (no pun intended) problems with rationing resulting in long waits as supply fails to meet demand.

John Killian wrote an excellent article at United Liberty where he points out early on that nothing sticks to Palin. She’s being called the teflon candidate. As I commented on his blog, nothing sticks because there’s nothing sticky.

Her pastor isn’t cursing our country, her husband is by all indications proud of the country, and she hasn’t surrounded herself with angry extremists her entire adult life. Oh yeah, and she’s already ran something.

Killian also does a great job summarizing some of the reasons for Palin’s remarkable popularity:

1) Sarah Palin expresses a defined philosophy of limited government, free enterprise, and a strong military. The ring of truth in her speaking is encouraging to the average American.

2) Sarah Palin has a strong aura, a powerful Christian testimony, and a wholesome appearance. Outside the doctored photos circulating the internet, every appearance of Gov. Palin is clean, modest, and a picture of the girl next door.

3) Gov. Palin speaks with sincerity. Americans listen and know that Sarah Palin is not speaking with deceit.

4) Gov. Palin’s approach is not that of an Ivy League elitist, but that of a common citizen with working class roots. Even when the story broke about her daughter’s pregnancy, most Americans felt her pain. Every family identifies with broken hearts and disappointments. Frankly, this situation underscored her pro-life convictions.

Not only does she have a strong philosophy, she’s has a record of acting on that philosophy, even when it may not have been politically expedient. She’s also real. Hollywood types can’t identify with her, but the people Obama alienated with his “cling to guns and religion” remark do identify with her. She can speak with sincerity because she has nothing do lie or be deceptive about. Neither does McCain for that matter. During the primaries, Biden was saying Obama isn’t fit to be president, and vowing never to be a VP while Obama was courting the extreme left. Meanwhile, McCain was pushing the surge when it was least popular and Palin was cleaning up corruption in Alaska.

Notice the liberal/media excuse for Biden’s turnaround. “Candidates will say a lot of things during a tough campaign…” And with typical arrogance, they expect us regular folk to just swallow that and smile. What they said is “Biden and Obama will tell you anything to get power.” People are beginning to see that more and more in the Democratic candidates. They don’t see it in Palin because it isn’t there.