The Right State

If Barack Obama were really as embarrassed as he says he is concerning Americans ability to speak only one language, then he really needs to be embarrassed with the level of animosity and hatred on the left towards those who have served in George Bush’s government. When Tony Snow died early this morning of colon cancer, I knew those on the right would mourn him as I did. For those on the right, we care about human life regardless of whether the person is on the left or right. When Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with cancer, there was hardly a word from the right other than hoping for a full recovery with little regard for his positions which are contrary to everything we believe.

For the left, it is a very different matter. Consider what many are saying about the death of Tony Snow:

Another piece of shit who’s made a lot of money flakking for executive level criminals. We should be rejoicing every time one dies. What is up with all this “sad” crap?

He’s just another scumbag who made money ($168,000 to be precise, or tax payer money) by standing in front of the American public and lie to us. HE made millions doing it on FOX prior to it. In fact, if he was alive and on TV today, he’d be helping slander Obama.

He helped perpetrate horrible action by this presidency, there is no forgiveness for that.

Some of you seem genuinely more sad about this scumbag’s death then the NEARLY DAILY DEATHS of our own soldiers and the innocent Iraqis!!!!!

WHY???? JUST because he was on TV he deserves “respect”? WHAT THE F##K FOR?

Then this:

If there’s a Hell, I hope he is currently burning in it.

Every once in a while, someone on the left would be a little more objective and say something nice about Snow’s untimely passing.

I’m sorry but it just sickens me to read diary after diary of silly, bleeding-heart little condolensces to Snow and his family.

I swear some of you weak-kneed progessive brethren of mine have no clue about the vicious nature of the ideological battle we are in. When a bad guy dies, we should rejoice, not sing his praises of wish him anything by scorn.

There is a fundamental reason why the progress/liberal movement is so often impotent in delivering effective blows to the right-wing machine– it has to do with “toughness”.

I knew the left held tremendous animosity for their brethren on the right, but I never knew they could be so vitriolic, so malicious, so spiteful, so hateful. After all, these are human beings we are talking about—not failed crops.

I wonder how can a group of people, I am specifically referring to those in the Democrat Party who are supposedly known for their desire to help others less fortunate than themselves, be filled with so much hostility:

These people are the worst kind of human beings. I’ll say it now, and I’ll say it when they’re gone. They’ve started wars that killed tens of thousands of people to include thousands of totally innocent women and children. I’ll say it again, these are the worst types of human beings.

… The slimy people listed above, and yes Tony Snow would have been on this list had I wrote it yesterday, deserve none of our sympathy in life or death. No one has to rejoice that anyone has died, but neither should we sugarcoat and “spin” their despicable lives.

How can these people feel so much hatred for another human being? It not like we are saying Adolph Hitler just died. Take this for example:

I will never mourn for anyone who

1. Worked for Fox News, or

2. Helped the Republicans spin their blatant lies.

If that makes me a bad person, so be it. People like Tony Snow have caused incalculable damage to our beloved country. I will save my tears for the more deserving, like the vast majority of Americans who got screwed with his help.

Just when I feel like there is no hope for the left, there is a bright light shining in the darkness of hate and despair.

My wife has colon cancer.

She was diagnosed before Tony was, so his passing yesterday was especially difficult for us, as another milestone on the way to her early demise has passed.

July is an anniversary month, it’s when she was diagnosed.

I cannot join in the Tony Snow bashing - he was human, he became frail, and he died from cancer.

He deserves our compassion - we all disagree with his politics, but he was a member of our collective humanity and as the tears roll down my cheeks right now, they’re not for him.

It’s another victory for cancer. I f##king hate cancer. I’ll give Tony Snow his moment of mourning.

There’s a wave of grief coming at me someday, and I just can’t bring myself to have anything but sorrow at the passing of another cancer victim.

I hope none of you go through it, so believe me when I say, you can think what you want of Tony Snow, but he was human and he didn’t deserve to get cancer and die young.

He was loved by someone - think of those people and understand that we should leave them to their grief without saying unkind things about him.

The last quote is somewhat of a paradox. I am confident the writer would not feel this way were it not for his wife having cancer. Life changes people, sometimes for the good and sometimes for the worse.

The hostility of the left to the passing a Tony Snow should be embarrassing to most Americans, including Barack Obama. I am waiting for the Senator to respond appropriately to the hate-mongers on the left. If he can be so embarrassed by Americans who can only speak one language, the very least he can do is to be embarrassed enough by the despicable rantings on the left to Tony Snow’s death and to comment on it. I probably wait in vain.

Tags: Democrats, Moonbats, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

Barack Obama has a problem, he has an old European mindset in an American body.  Every once in a while he drops his guard long enough to give the American people a glimpse in his anti-Americanism.

I have had college professors who taught subjects such as Asian (mainly Chinese and Japanese) history, Mexican history, Russian history, and English (with a black writer emphasis).  What made these professors unusual was the fact that they were all white and yet they freely admitted they felt more comfortable around the people in their chosen fields of Asia, Mexico, Russia, and African-American than their American counterparts.  A couple even told me they should have been born a Mexican and an African-American.  It comes from getting too close to your subject area and results in a lack of perspective. 

Barack Obama has the same problem.  He has been fed the anti-American sentiment from the old European perspective for so long that he has a hard time keeping his true thoughts under wrap.  Consider what he said in Georgia when he said he was embarrassed by Americans who can only speak one language.

… instead of worrying about whether immigrants can learn English, they’ll learn English, you need to make sure your child can speak Spanish.”

He continued his thoughts by expressing embarrassment at Americans’ language skills compared to the Europeans. “You should be thinking about how can your child become bilingual,” he said. “We should have every child speaking more than one language. It’s embarrassing when Europeans come over here, they all speak English, they speak French, they speak German. And then we go over to Europe and all we can say is merci beacoup, right?”

Can you say, “Change We Can Believe In?”  This is nothing more than old style European elitism.  The Obamas are proud of their country for the first time, they mock Middle America for their belief in God, they despise people who want to keep their guns, and he actually believes he is patriotic by not wearing his flag lapel pin.  I wonder—what else about America causes Barack Obama to be embarrassed?  What about the fact that most people do not make as much money as he does, does that cause him embarrassment?  Is he embarrassed some people actually work for a living instead of being on the receiving end as a public servant?  Is he embarrassed many people actually go to church to worship God instead of using it to advance their political fortunes?  Is he embarrassed that most Americans are proud of their country and have been their entire lives?  I have to wonder, is this the kind of man Democrats want as their President?

Barack Obama is what Michelle Malkin calls a ‘gaffe machine’ and rightly so.  When he is reading a prepared speech, he does great.  But when Obama has to speak extemporaneously, he is a gaffe machine spouting forth one gaffe after another, offending people left and right. 

This time he actually has the gall to tell Georgians he is embarrassed because many Americans only speak English.  I am truly sorry I embarrass you Senator.  I am a 7^th generation Texan who only leaves the nation when on vacation.  It is natural for Europeans to know more than one language, they have the EU.  The US has…just us.  Mexico is close, but there is no big reason to learn Spanish. People who move here should learn English.  If I moved to France, I would learn French.  Obama has no clue what he is talking about.

Barack Obama, our savior, rides to the rescue advising all of those who live outside of his mansion to listen to him for guidance on how to raise our children and everything else he feels so led to inform us about.  Carolyn Hileman of the Borderfire Report says this latest example from Barack shows the “democratic party as a whole is at war with America.”  Under an Obama presidency, our whole way of life will be under attack.  As we can see from the gaffes he makes now, which show the real Barack Obama, he would feel it is his job to tell the American people how to do everything. I can see it now, banners hanging around the US all saying, ‘The state knows best.’

 The Gaffe Machine will find becoming elected is not so easy.  Like respect, votes have to be earned.  Barack Obama does not have my vote and he certainly does not have my respect.  Both have to be earned, especially here in Texas.

There is one major reason Obama can not speak off the cuff when talking about conservative issues—as an elitist, he does not understand them.  The guy is the very definition of elitism.  He does not understand people who own guns, people who actually go to church to worship God, people who go to work every day, people who live paycheck to paycheck, people who speak English and only English.  In other words, he does not understand people who are not like him.  Sound familiar? 

I have another question, when will Democrats finally wake up and realize what they have done to their once proud party.  It takes more than the gift of gab to become President, just like it takes more than gaffes to make a comedian.  Too bad the Democrats did not elect a serious candidate.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

When Barack Obama said he represented ‘Change We Can Believe In,’ I did not think he was talking about his policy decisions.  The only change I see is his shifting on the issues marking the Illinois Senator as a typical Democrat politician. 

Over and over again the Democrat Presidential candidate shifts his positions: on removing troops from Iraq, on guns, and now on eavesdropping on terrorists.  Interestingly a year ago, Obama put the word out that he would vote against (and may even filibuster) any legislation which included immunity for the telecom companies who helped the President’s agencies spy on the terrorists. 

Now things have changed, Barack Obama has won the Democrat nomination for President and conveniently shifts his position towards the middle.  Democrats are not happy about the change in position.  Note this analysis from the AP.

Sen. Barack Obama’s vote in favor of anti-terrorist surveillance legislation on Wednesday marked an about-face on the issue that left him comfortably in the bipartisan middle, no matter the criticism from John McCain nor the discomfort among liberal Democrats.

“Given the choice between voting for an improved yet imperfect bill, and losing important surveillance tools, Senator Obama chose to support” the legislation, his office said, even though it contained a provision the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting had flatly opposed.

Translation: With the general election looming, preventing another terrorist attack trumped fears that privacy rights may be violated.

Ouch!  AP writer David Espo is mild in his criticism of Obama’s shift in positions, but he is accurate.  Barack Obama’s shift is tantamount to flip-flopping.  This is change we can believe in.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

How to get something for nothing—Obama style.  The data from the IRS will be out soon, but indications are that the rich are paying more and more of ‘their fair share.’  Past data (consistently ignored by Democrats) show the following:

The data indicated that the top 1 per cent of tax filers reported 13 per cent of total adjusted gross income (i.e., before most deductions), but paid 24.6 per cent of all federal income taxes. The top 5 per cent of taxpayers reported 26.8 per cent of the income, but paid 43.4 per cent of the taxes. The bottom 50 per cent of tax filers, by contrast, reported 15.1 per cent of the income, but paid only 5.5 per cent of the taxes, leaving 94.5 per cent of the tax bill to be paid by those with above-average incomes.  (hat tip: Powerline)

I wrote about the very topic of who pays taxes two years ago.  Now it turns out the rich are paying even more than they did when President Bush first proposed his tax cuts.

New data from the IRS will be out in a few weeks on who pays how much in taxes. My contacts at the Treasury Department tell me that for the first time in decades, and perhaps ever, the richest 1% of tax filers will have paid more than 40% of the income tax burden. The top 50% will account for 97% of all federal income taxes, while the bottom 50% will have paid just 3%.

By using the ridiculous claim that the rich are not paying their fair share, Barack Obama is pandering to the lowest of human emotions—jealousy.  He knows full well who is paying the taxes in this country.  So if Barack Obama knows the truth, why is he making such idiotic statements?  The truth is far more sinister—Obama is a politician pandering for power and votes.  So much for change.

The Tax Foundation has crunched the numbers and have come up with some interesting statistics on who does pay.

“Under the Obama plan for 2009,” explains Hodge, “more than $131 billion would be redistributed from the top 1 percent of taxpayers to all other taxpayers.”

As a result, the top 1 percent of households would pay more federal taxes of all kinds than the bottom 80 percent of households. That lopsided distribution under Obama does include payroll taxes and other federal taxes, but it excludes the new payroll tax hike that Obama plans to levy on people making more than $250,000 because details about that plan are currently unclear.

“In other words,” says Hodge, “it is at this point a cautious estimate to say that in 2009, under Obama’s plan, 1.13 million Americans would pay more in all federal taxes than 128 million of their fellow citizens combined.”

Now that is scary.  Millions of people will head to the polls in November in order to vote themselves a portion of the confiscation.  Eager to punish the wealthy for their success and to make themselves feel good about their own failure, these voters willingly wait in line for their share of the hand-out just as Karl Marx predicted.

Obama, the consummate politician, is more than willing to fan the flames of jealousy in order to win.  While his campaign has been about change, in the end, Obama is nothing more than a pandering politician willing to do anything including lying in order to win. 

So much for Change we can believe in.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

Some things defy explanation.

[Bill] Clinton, who has vowed to campaign for Barack Obama, then suggested that POWs could lose their cool at any moment.

“It’s just like if you know anybody who’s ever been a POW for any length of time, you will see you go along for months or maybe even years, and then something will happen and it will trigger all those bad dreams and they will come back, and it may not last 30 seconds,” he said.

This is an attempt by Barack Obama surrogates to paint John McCain’s time as a POW as disqualifying him for office. Bill Clinton was mostly likely trying to question McCain’s service without questioning his service, but fouled it up. Reagan once told Walter Mondale that he would not bring up his opponent’s youth thus ending any speculation about Reagan’s age. It is an old political trick to say you are not going to bring up an issue. This time Clinton screwed it up.

During the 2004 campaign conservatives, particularly the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, questioned John Kerry’s war record and rightfully so. George Bush’s time in the military was fair game then as is John McCain’s is now. But this latest bunch of questioning of McCain’s time as a POW goes way over the top.

Before this latest episode Wesley Clark suggested that “getting shot down in a fighter plane doesn’t make one fit to serve as president.” While Obama goes out and says no one’s military record should be devalued, that is exactly what they are doing. With all of the Obama surrogates out there questioning John McCain’s service to our country, Barack Obama can say what ever he wants.

The bottom line is, the Democrats are being disingenuous. They can not attack his service to his country, so they attack his time as a POW? John Kerry’s service pales in comparison to John McCain’s. So instead they attack what happened to him while he was in the Navy.

If this is a plan by Obama and the Democrats, it is a very poor one and is likely to backfire on them. McCain’s time in the military has been well documented and investigated. What the former Navy pilot endured a POW is beyond what any of these white-flag-waving-Democrats can even imagine. The Arizona Senator has hundreds of votes on the Senate floor; why not go after those votes? The answer is puzzling, but it may hinge on their dislike of anything military. It is ironic that a cigar waving draft dodger can even bring himself to question McCain’s service.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

Both sides are doing it, so it is okay.  This kind of thinking always blows me away.

So, both are tacking away from their party’s ideological ends to appeal to this unpredictable swath in between.

McCain is moving away from the unpopular President Bush if not from the Republican Party itself. He emphasizes bipartisanship while pressing two issues that resonate strongly with voters of all stripes.

He “stood up to the president and sounded the alarm on global warming,” one McCain commercial says. Another promotes a “bipartisan plan to lower prices at the pump, reduce dependence on foreign oil through domestic drilling and champion energy alternatives.”

Barak Obama’s talking points have moved swiftly to the middle and away from the hard left since he won the Democrat nomination for President.  He moved so fast, his hair would be blowing if it were long enough.  The reaction of the left is predictable: the hard left is criticizing his move to the center while his apologists contend that both sides are doing it so it is okay.  But both sides are not doing it.  Most of the time, in most elections, Democrats appeal to their base in the primaries and then converge on the middle when the nomination is won.  For Democrats this means a lot of movement.  As John Hawkins pointed out in Right Wing News, Democrats have to lie about who they are to get people to vote for them.  Republicans, believing we are a center-right country politically, do not feel they need to reinvent themselves after a primary battle.  Therefore, Republicans move very little, if any, after a primary battles.

Barak Obama has moved drastically and dramatically to the right in order to appeal to moderate voters.  The problem is not that he moved to the center, but he moved so fast and so far.  Even liberal bloggers are asking what issue will he cave in on next (google ‘Obama moves right’ and see what comes up).  Polls asking that very question are rampant.   USA Today sums it up this way:

Barack Obama is facing a rebellion from the liberal blogosphere that helped him lock up the Democratic presidential nomination.

In recent days, Obama has criticized the Supreme Court for saying that child rapists cannot be executed and refused to oppose a decision knocking down a handgun ban. He announced a plan to support “faith-based” social work and said he would vote for a bill giving immunity to telephone companies that allowed warrantless wiretapping of their customers.

Barak Obama’s move to the center has been swift.  Going with so many of the issue important to conservatives has angered the hard left.  Despite their anger, the far left will put on their happy faces once the two candidates begin their campaigns fro real.  Moderates on the other hand may need to take a hard look at who they have been supporting.  McCain as the moderate espouses liberal stands on some issues and conservative ones on others.  Obama has just recently moved right making a McCain presidency more appealing to moderates.

John McCain, despite the APs equivocations, has not moved to the center.  He is the center on a lot of issues.  That is one of the reasons he does not have the solid backing of conservatives.  John McCain has justly earned the title of Maverick by poking his finger in the eyes of Republicans and conservatives.  He voted against drilling in ANWR before running for President.  He supported the global warming nonsense before he won his nomination.  He has always distanced himself from President Bush.  He was critical of the war in Iraq from the start when he advocated the sending of additional troops.  The Maverick has always crossed party lines much to the chagrin of his fellow Republicans (remember the Gang of 14 on selecting federal judges).  The Maverick has crossed party lines on numerous occasions much to the chagrin of his fellow Republicans and conservatives.  On and on I could go.  John McCain is and will always be a constant thorn in the flesh of Conservatives.

John McCain is and will always be who he says he is.  He does not change.  Barak Obama is who he says he is right now…, unless of course he misspeaks.  Or… his wife, Michelle misspeaks.  Or…  And then he is who he says he is now, after the redefinition.  For Obama redefining himself is a constant theme. 

Everybody does it is a poor excuse (my mom did not buy it when I was a kid either).  Besides, everybody doesn’t do it.  Obama is constantly shifting positions, while McCain has been fairly constant.  There is a huge difference between John McCain and Barak Obama.  At least there is right now.  Who knows?  There is still plenty of time for Obama to reinvent himself yet again into a new, younger John McCain.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections, Iraq, Sports by Chuck
No Comments »

Barak Obama is a pure politician.  If you don’t think so, just look at how he responded to the Supreme Court’s decision on the D.C. gun ban versus John McCain’s view.   The two candidates could not be more different as McCain hails the decision while Obama waffles…again.  Conservative does not mind telling everyone they support an individual’s right to keep and bare arms, while a liberal tries to have it both way by both supported a gun owners right to keep his weapon and the state’s right to take it.

In a way I sympathize with Barak Obama.  If he supports the High Court’s decision, he risks the antipathy of the left.  If he comes out against the Court’s decision, he risks alienating the gun owners of the country.  Therefore he rides the fence trying to act like a liberal while not being a liberal. 

In the past Barak Obama has advocated the government’s right not just to regulated gun ownership, but to confiscated them if the action is somehow justified.  Now that Obama has won the Democrat nomination for President, he feels the need to obfuscate his views.  Just look at how Obama words the following statement.

“I have always believed that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to bear arms, but I also identify with the need for crime-ravaged communities to save their children from the violence that plagues our streets through commonsense, effective safety measures,” Obama said.

Huh!?  Maybe Obama needs a little more straight-talk and a little less political talk. 

When pressed on the issue, neither Obama nor his campaign seek clarify the Senator’s position.  As a politician, I guess that is the way he wants it.  That way any statement can be refuted by simply stating: ‘that is not what the Senator said.’  Obviously Barak Obama does not want his position posited.  Either way he loses votes.  But in this case, someone who equivocates on the issue is against private gun ownership.  From previous statements, Barak Obama is against the private ownership of firearms. 

John McCain, while not a staunch conservative, has reacted jubilantly to the Supreme Court’s landmark decision.

McCain, the Republican presidential nominee-in-waiting, heralded the justices’ action as “a landmark victory for Second Amendment freedom.”

Obama has run a campaign on change, but in the end he has shown himself to be a pure politician by being able to talk out of both sides of his mouth at the same time.  So much for the Senator’s passion for change.

Tags: National Elections, Culture by Chuck
No Comments »

Much of the American public is unsure about who Barack Obama really is.  That statement does not go for me.  I know that despite his rhetoric, Obama is a typical big government liberal.  Whether Barack Obama continues his dark horse campaign to be President may very well hinge on his decision for the VP spot.  The media have bandied about many names for the Democrat VP position including Obama’s former rival Hillary Clinton.  Now Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is pushing a Representative from Texas, Chet Edwards (TX-17) as a possible nominee.  The people who live in central Texas do not know Edwards other than the fact he is liberal.  The Dallas Morning News claims Chet is a moderate, but that moniker does not fit on him anymore than it fits on Barak Obama.  John McCain is a moderate.  Joe Lieberman is a moderate as is Heath Shuler, the retired quarterback who won in North Carolina.  Others include Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, Mike Weaver of Kentucky, Gabrielle Giffords of Arizona, and others many of whom call themselves Blue Dog Democrats.  Chet Edwards is not a Blue Dog Democrat, nor has he even been one.  He is and has always been in the hip pocket of the ultra-liberal Nancy Pelosi and he dutifully votes according to her wishes.  Most Blue Dogs are against abortion or are national security hawks.  Chet Edwards is neither one.  He is not a hawk and he supports abortion. 

As much as I would like to be finally rid of the liberal from Waco, I would not want him to become Vice President.  So I have to ask, why does Nancy Pelosi support Chet Edwards for VP.  One reason and one reason only—Chet represents George Bush’s district in Texas.  It is just another way for the ultra-liberal from California to poke her finger in the eye of the President and win kudos for herself from her ultra-fringe left.

I guess Pelosi does not think she has anything better to do, like maybe representing her district.  On second thought, maybe I would rather she waste her time.

Tags: Democrats, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

Obama is nuts. That is the only way I can explain it. There is no possible way for any real Christian to EVER believe the Holy Bible advocates slavery as the Illinois Senator suggested. In the future Barack Obama should stick to his strengths, blowing political smoke and making people feel good about empty speech. Religious discussion should be left to those who actually read their Bible and not some feel good senator who has dreams of grandeur. Will Obama now want a debate with Dr. Stephen Hawkins since the expert in every subject Senator once read a book on physics?

Since Barack Obama has put himself out there as an expert on Christianity, I wonder if I might ask the ‘good’ Senator a question? (I have several questions, but one will do for now) How can a ‘Christian’ possibly support abortion when it flies in the face of everything Jesus taught? I will not be holding my breath for the Biblical expert to answer.

Tags: Democrats, Abortion, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »

This story is incredibly hard to believe and yet this article is well researched. It must be true. Now for the hard to believe part: Barack Obama lied when he defended his pastor of twenty years. (Okay Obama gals, now you can faint)

Obama, in his race speech after the MSM broke the Wright story, said that his fiery pastor blames America for everything bad in the black community because of the racial discrimination, humiliation and the lack of opportunity he suffered at the hands of white people as a poor black kid growing up in a black neighborhood. According to Obama, Jeremiah Wright overcame so many things including Jim Crow laws, segregated schools, legalized discrimination (where blacks were prevented from owning property in white neighborhoods), and were not allowed to accumulate wealth. And that is not all:

A lack of economic opportunity among black men, and the shame and frustration that came from not being able to provide for one’s family, contributed to the erosion of black families — a problem that welfare policies for many years may have worsened….

This is the reality in which Rev. Wright and other African-Americans of his generation grew up. They came of age in the late fifties and early sixties, a time when segregation was still the law of the land and opportunity was systematically constricted.

But the truth… is much different. The Reverend Wright grew up in a racially mixed neighborhood and went to a mostly white school as the son of a middle class couple. Wright had the best in everything! He has done well for someone who grew up with no opportunity.  Read the entire article.

Barack Obama obviously knew Wright’s history and made up a good lie for the MSM to swallow. The liberal media like good obedient camp followers swallowed the bait with glee.

Obama has shown himself to be a typical politician who is willing to lie, cheat, steal, say or do anything to win. What is really surprising is Obama was naïve enough to believe everyone would take his word on his fiery Reverend without doing a little research. In the end, the words of Jeremiah Wright will hang about the neck of Barack Obama like an albatross and sink his presidential ambitions. (Yes, Obama, words do matter)

Tags: Democrats, National Elections by Chuck
No Comments »